I was cleaning out my hard drive when I stumbled upon this project I completed for a children’s literature class. I think the exercise was to creatively present themes, etc. found in a classic kids book — an exercise an instructor would likely assign to a group of 4th, 5th or 6th graders. Hence all that verbiage around the drawering. Ignore that. Just look at the funny picture. I love that book.
From the NYT:
Although there is no reliable estimate as to how many dogs have had their vocal cords cut, veterinarians and other animal experts say that dogs with no bark can readily be found — but not necessarily heard — in private homes, on the show-dog circuit, and even on the turf of drug dealers, who are said to prefer their attack dogs silent.
The surgery usually leaves the animal with something between a wheeze and a squeak. The procedure, commonly referred to as debarking, has been around for decades, but has fallen out of favor, especially among younger veterinarians and animal-rights advocates.
Ja think?
Love that euphemism. It’s not invasive surgery that causes unnecessary suffering. It’s pressing your dog’s mute button.
My favorite all-time Tom the Dancing Bug recurring theme is Lucky Ducky. More specifically, it’s Hollingsworth Hound, the perpetually aggrieved and victimized dog banker who suffers from Lucky Ducky’s privileged position in the upside-down world of conservative thinking.
I mention this, because Ruben Bolling revived him as an illustration for a post linking to Matt Taibbi’s take-down of David Brooks’ corporate class victimhood. Also for your edification I submit HTML Mencken’s structural analysis of BoBo’s rhetoric.
Yeah, though racists are more specifically people who say things like… well, like what David Brooks said about Haiti. But that’s neither here nor there; my point is Brooks’s strategery, his affect, and for what ultimate purpose. The first co-opts a liberal point; the second does as well, but is a more subtle (doesn’t immediately ring as phony) “evidence against interest” item than the first, coming from a conservative. Then there’s the third item; ding ding ding; here’s the real “tell”: those who even see class differences are the moral equivalents of racists. And to actively oppose the interests of the opposite class? Hitlerian, presumably.
And on a tangential note, MightyGodKing adds his two-cents regarding the Citizens United decision. Shorter: he thinks it sucks, but can’t muster the indignation others have. Certainly worth a read, as his take is different from Glenn Greenwald’s standpoint of free speech absolutism.
Please support my Patreon. Every little bit helps!
