HA ha! I was wondering about those mysteriously missing cats.... they probably framed poor Denver.
I have to admit when I watched it the second time, I almost cried. How come when I feel guilty about doing something wrong, I don't get to go on national TV?
To Dream of Dogs
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: To Dream of Dogs
Gee, now that youtube is around, I think you can join in and film your guiltiest moments for international display...if you really want to, kiddo.How come when I feel guilty about doing something wrong, I don't get to go on national TV?
I sort of think guilt is one of those emotions best savored alone, at least until one is unmasked by loved ones!
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
Re: To Dream of Dogs
JackFavell wrote:You may be right - I don't want to end up on Jerry Springer.
eek
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
Re: To Dream of Dogs
How does your animal react when you call them your pet? Have we figured everything else out that researchers have to spend time on this kind of thing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... claim.html
Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
The researchers say 'pet' is demeaning Photo: REX
By John Bingham 8:30AM BST 28 Apr 201
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.
Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.
It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work promoting the rights of “God’s sentient creatures”.
In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.
It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.
“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.
“Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”
It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’
“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.
“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”
Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.
Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.
“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," they say.
Lord help us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... claim.html
Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
The researchers say 'pet' is demeaning Photo: REX
By John Bingham 8:30AM BST 28 Apr 201
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.
Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.
It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work promoting the rights of “God’s sentient creatures”.
In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.
It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.
“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.
“Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”
It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’
“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.
“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”
Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.
Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.
“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," they say.
Lord help us.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
Re: To Dream of Dogs
These people making up the politically correct ways to address your animal friend are probably crazy as bedbugs....mad as March hares. After all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck, right? This article is a white elephant....something you want to get out of your memory but can't. I don't think they have the sense that God gave geese. 
-
klondike
Re: To Dream of Dogs
Canine Commando
Why did the military send a dog to help kill Bin Laden?
By Brian Palmer
Two helicopters ferried 79 commandos and one dog into Osama Bin Laden's compound for Sunday's successful kill operation. Why did the Pentagon send in a canine with the special forces?
For its sniffer, of course. The special operations forces do have their own canine training program, but it's very hush-hush. Furthermore, neither the Pentagon nor the White House is talking about the role the dog played in Sunday's operation, and they haven't even confirmed that a dog was involved at all. (It seems the information first came from the British tabloid the Sun, but has been reported in more reputable papers. Slate's Jack Shafer advises readers to maintain a healthy skepticism about such reports.) If Navy SEAL Team Six did indeed bring along a dog, then we might guess at its role based on the Pentagon's non-confidential Military Working Dog Program. It's possible that the commandos brought a specialized search dog, which would have been sent in ahead of the humans to find explosives or people hidden inside the building. Or they might have used a "combat tracker" dog instead—one of a newer class of military animals developed by the Marines just a year ago. These are taught to pick up the scent of a particular individual, usually from a footprint or a few drops of blood, and then follow the trail.
If Bin Laden had heard the choppers coming and fled the scene, a combat tracker dog could have been used to track him down as he high-tailed it through the streets of Abbottabad.
The Pentagon currently employs 2,700 dogs, up from the pre-9/11 litter of 1,800. Most of them were purchased in Europe, where a long tradition of using dogs for police and military purposes has created great breeding lines. Before buying a dog, the Pentagon tests the animal for aggression, fear of gunshots, and inclination to search. The Pentagon also gives each dog a thorough physical examination, including X-rays, to confirm that it's in top condition.
For about a decade, the Department of Defense has been trying to establish its own breeding program, out of concern that our supply of top-quality dogs could be choked off in wartime.
When it's time to send a military working dog on assignment, a handler shows up at the main kennel at Lackland Air Force Base and completes a training course with two separate animals. The one that works better with that particular handler is sent off with him to a new home, while the runner-up goes back into the singles pool. Then the newly minted duo does some more training together before taking the field. There are entirely separate courses of study for general service patrol dogs, specialized search dogs, and combat trackers.
Military dogs must take continuing education classes throughout their careers, as their skills tend to erode after about 30 days without practice.
The U.S. military has deployed canines for centuries, but never sent them into combat until about fifty years ago.
Military dogs used to be trained for super-aggression. They were used as sentries and guard dogs, and were taught to distrust all humans but the handler. As a result, they couldn't function as part of a combat team, because they had a habit of biting other members of the unit. Modern war dogs are far more comfortable working with strangers, even those wearing intimidating commando outfits.
Why did the military send a dog to help kill Bin Laden?
By Brian Palmer
Two helicopters ferried 79 commandos and one dog into Osama Bin Laden's compound for Sunday's successful kill operation. Why did the Pentagon send in a canine with the special forces?
For its sniffer, of course. The special operations forces do have their own canine training program, but it's very hush-hush. Furthermore, neither the Pentagon nor the White House is talking about the role the dog played in Sunday's operation, and they haven't even confirmed that a dog was involved at all. (It seems the information first came from the British tabloid the Sun, but has been reported in more reputable papers. Slate's Jack Shafer advises readers to maintain a healthy skepticism about such reports.) If Navy SEAL Team Six did indeed bring along a dog, then we might guess at its role based on the Pentagon's non-confidential Military Working Dog Program. It's possible that the commandos brought a specialized search dog, which would have been sent in ahead of the humans to find explosives or people hidden inside the building. Or they might have used a "combat tracker" dog instead—one of a newer class of military animals developed by the Marines just a year ago. These are taught to pick up the scent of a particular individual, usually from a footprint or a few drops of blood, and then follow the trail.
If Bin Laden had heard the choppers coming and fled the scene, a combat tracker dog could have been used to track him down as he high-tailed it through the streets of Abbottabad.
The Pentagon currently employs 2,700 dogs, up from the pre-9/11 litter of 1,800. Most of them were purchased in Europe, where a long tradition of using dogs for police and military purposes has created great breeding lines. Before buying a dog, the Pentagon tests the animal for aggression, fear of gunshots, and inclination to search. The Pentagon also gives each dog a thorough physical examination, including X-rays, to confirm that it's in top condition.
For about a decade, the Department of Defense has been trying to establish its own breeding program, out of concern that our supply of top-quality dogs could be choked off in wartime.
When it's time to send a military working dog on assignment, a handler shows up at the main kennel at Lackland Air Force Base and completes a training course with two separate animals. The one that works better with that particular handler is sent off with him to a new home, while the runner-up goes back into the singles pool. Then the newly minted duo does some more training together before taking the field. There are entirely separate courses of study for general service patrol dogs, specialized search dogs, and combat trackers.
Military dogs must take continuing education classes throughout their careers, as their skills tend to erode after about 30 days without practice.
The U.S. military has deployed canines for centuries, but never sent them into combat until about fifty years ago.
Military dogs used to be trained for super-aggression. They were used as sentries and guard dogs, and were taught to distrust all humans but the handler. As a result, they couldn't function as part of a combat team, because they had a habit of biting other members of the unit. Modern war dogs are far more comfortable working with strangers, even those wearing intimidating commando outfits.
Re: To Dream of Dogs
Number one son, who lives in Germany, travels to the US quite frequently. He normally comes in thru Houston, many friends live there and his company maintains offices there also.
For over a year, every time he came in to the airport, one particular dog would alert on him and his backpack. CJ would have to go into the examination area, empty the contents of pockets, backpack, etc. Of course, there was no contraband or suspicious liquids. It got so bad, CJ knew the handler and the Basset hound by name. Barney was a great dog, but always alerted when my son showed up.
After many such episodes, the handler, in exasperation, started questioning CJ as to his routine. "Do you carry that backpack often?" "Every day." "Do you take your lunch in it?". "Yes, sir, every day." "What do you normally have for lunch?" "A sandwich and an apple or other fruit."
The handler then turned and looked at Barney. "BARNEY!". Seems the handler gave Barney pieces of apple as a treat.
For over a year, every time he came in to the airport, one particular dog would alert on him and his backpack. CJ would have to go into the examination area, empty the contents of pockets, backpack, etc. Of course, there was no contraband or suspicious liquids. It got so bad, CJ knew the handler and the Basset hound by name. Barney was a great dog, but always alerted when my son showed up.
After many such episodes, the handler, in exasperation, started questioning CJ as to his routine. "Do you carry that backpack often?" "Every day." "Do you take your lunch in it?". "Yes, sir, every day." "What do you normally have for lunch?" "A sandwich and an apple or other fruit."
The handler then turned and looked at Barney. "BARNEY!". Seems the handler gave Barney pieces of apple as a treat.
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
Re: To Dream of Dogs
My son looked at the handler and said, "If I WAS a drug smuggler, I'd know how to get around ol' Barney." That smart a%% remark did NOT go over very well......
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: To Dream of Dogs
I'm not big on pet cemeteries or wasting vast amounts of money on animals that might be needed for people, but I was strangely touched to read about a memorial erected in the Hollywood Forever cemetery in LA to Toto (1933-1945), the companion of Dorothy (Judy Garland) in The Wizard of Oz. Even a descendant of L. Frank Baum showed up. There's a good biography of Toto and those who trained dogs for other movies of the period at the link below...
http://allanellenberger.com/book-flm-news/toto-the-story-of-a-dog/
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
Re: To Dream of Dogs
That was a wonderful story, Moira! Thanks for sharing. Just seeing the picture of Judy and Toto made me tear up, it's such a great moment.
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: To Dream of Dogs
I'm glad you liked it, JF. I am a big Toto spotter, aren't you? I think he did almost as many movies as Ward Bond and Ian Wolfe sometimes. (I'm very glad you have returned to brighten the ol' website too!)
Scariest moment for Toto: In The Wizard of Oz when the flying monkeys got him!
Best ensemble acting: In Tortilla Flat with Frank Morgan and four other canines listening to the story of St. Francis of Assisi, who drops by.
[youtube][/youtube]
Scariest moment for Toto: In The Wizard of Oz when the flying monkeys got him!
Best ensemble acting: In Tortilla Flat with Frank Morgan and four other canines listening to the story of St. Francis of Assisi, who drops by.
[youtube][/youtube]
-
JackFavell
- Posts: 11926
- Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am
Re: To Dream of Dogs
God, I love MGM sometimes. Those dogs were brilliant! Especially Toto. That clip brought another tear to my eye!
Who was the shaggy one who tried to lie down? Sort of a Winn Dixie mutt type? he looked familiar too.
I always keep my eye out for Terry/Toto.
Who was the shaggy one who tried to lie down? Sort of a Winn Dixie mutt type? he looked familiar too.
I always keep my eye out for Terry/Toto.