NEWS AND COMMENT: The video tells the story nicely. I can't guarantee that this video will stay on this page forever. If it disappears I'm sorry. North Haven is approx. 100+ miles northeast of New York City.
The nub of the story is that the authorities in North Haven, Connecticut, USA were receiving complaints about feral and stray cats in their community and there was a decision, it appears, to trap and euthanise i.e. kill these cats but then this story rattled around social media, particularly Facebook as I understand it, and the community reacted to the news by rejecting the concept of euthanising these cats. There are better solutions. They are correct.
This information was fed back to the authorities and they responded wisely and sensibly by changing their policy and the animal shelters in the area, the non-profits, have also stepped up to help remedy this situation. That's what I get from the video. I will add some detail from the written word on Yahoo News!.
A New Haven councillor has confirmed that they will not be euthanising feral cats after animal control declared that they would euthanise feral cats after trapping them.
Animal control in New Haven post on Facebook on Friday that they would start trapping euthanising the cats at the beginning of October. The post was then deleted apparently after a community backlash in comments.
I like that! The community often rallies around when there is an injustice about to be perpetrated towards animals. Essentially, the American citizen is sensitive towards animal welfare. There are many millions of Americans who are very tender towards stray and feral cats. Often they become volunteers in TNR programs and help them directly. These are great people. They deserve all the praise in the world.
The police stated that the trapping of the cats was "prompted by complaints of feral cats in the area, causing unsanitary conditions, as well as danger to domestic animals."
Apparently a dog had their eye scratched by a cat that attacked it. Comment: that wouldn't surprise me because the cat was in a defensive mode and attacked the dog because they felt threatened. And when a cat attacks a dog they slap the dog around the face with their claws which clearly in this instance caused an eye injury. This is unsurprising. I don't think it is a reason to trap and euthanise cats! And clearly the community agrees with me.
Police in general are often a bit negative towards feral cats. And in this instance they said that feral cats are carrying diseases like rabies in toxoplasmosis and damaging gardens, lawns and flower beds and cars et cetera. Comment: one can paint a negative picture about feral cats. It's quite easy. But you have to go back to the original root cause which is careless human cat ownership. The problem is a human problem and therefore the problem needs to be fixed humanely. Often the police are unaware of this.
Anyway, the end result as I understand it is a good one. The cats will be trapped but taken to shelters where if possible they will be rehomed. Some of these cats will be stray domestic cats and therefore can be rehomed. The true adult feral cat will probably be euthanised although even adult feral cats can be socialised but it takes time, sometimes as long as 12 months or more which is going to be beyond the means and abilities or capacity of the animal shelters but perhaps individual volunteers might step up.
--------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Millions of words have been written and many videos made on the topic of deterring stray and neighbours' cats from coming into your backyard. The methods proposed are often stated as being genuinely successful but in reality there are often not. I don't think it is such a big deal if a cat comes into your backyard. And cat urine isn't as bad as some people think for plants. In fact human urine is a fertiliser!
Anyway if you really must deter those pesky cats - and I understand why and am sympathetic - the infographic I have prepared tells you about what I believe to be the best method.
------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
This is a quick reference to the debate between the Vice President hopefuls, the running mates of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris respectively: JD Vance and Tim Walz. There was a lot of talk before the debate about it being important and the person who won would significantly advance the campaign of their residential hopeful.
Vance and Walz. Image in the public domain (as assessed).
On all accounts, the debate was a score draw with both performing politely and sensibly with decent arguments. I didn't see it myself I must add. However, I would argue that JD Vance benefited quite a lot more than Tim Walz from the debate because before the debate JD Vance's public profile and image among the voting public was that he was a misogynistic AH! Not quite that bad but he came across as not a good man when talking about the Haitian immigrant rumourmongering story about eating pets. He came across as misogynistic because he criticised childless pet-owning women.
"Vance seizes Mr Nice Guy crown from Midwest Dad" - The Times. They agree with me! 👍😉
And before the debate Tim Walz came across as a very sensible, former teacher, former military man with good arguments and a sense of humour. And so JD Vance advanced his public profile while Tim Walz simply cemented his public profile. He didn't advance it. On this basis, on this measurement, the Trump campaign gained an advantage from this debate I would argue albeit slight.
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Thunderstorms create gamma radiation. Researchers have flown over thunderstorms in a NASA aircraft to find out whether lightning is radioactive. They flew 10 times from MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida and spent up to 4 hours above thunderstorms at an altitude of 12.4 miles which is almost twice as high as an average commercial flight.
They recorded the number and intensity of gamma ray 'glows' from the top of the storms. They published their findings in the journal Nature. They indicate that gamma radiation is more common from thunderstorms than previously thought.
The swirling mass of water droplets, ice and hail in a thundercloud creates a charge. This charge arises because the particles rub together sending positive particles to the top of the cloud and negative particles to the bottom.
The effect is to create an electric field stronger than 100 million AA batteries stacked one above the other, as mentioned in the title.
The field accelerates electrons to extremely high speeds. This creates enough energy from collisions to produce gamma rays which is the most energetic form of radiation.
Lightning strikes coincide with one form of gamma burst. We don't know the relationship between gamma radiation and lightning flashes.
They emerged spontaneously "somehow". The data points to the possibility that the production of gamma radiation and lightning strikes are linked but it is "still a mystery to scientists" according to the researchers.
Source: The Times.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
The question in the title opens a veritable minefield and this answer is politically correct 😉😎 - sort of. The answer is muddied very much by the cultural differences in different countries. In some places eating cats and dogs is unacceptable because they are companion animals very often (normally). While, in other countries, eating cats and dogs can be seen as fairly normal. Rabbits can sometimes be pets but rabbits are often eaten because the culture in a particular country allows for it.
The answer often comes down to cultural norms, personal beliefs and societal values. What is acceptable in one country is unacceptable in another or the differences could even be within the same country but in different parts of it. It's a complex topic.
But can there be an absolute answer? Can there be any a universal response to the question? A universal answer would touch on the necessity of eating animals in the first place. There is an argument that we should all be vegetarian or vegan in the modern age both for humane reasons and in terms of climate change (eating cows and cows producing methane).
But going back to the question in the title, it is really referring to the emotional bonds people have with their pets. Rabbits have a lower status than cats and dogs in the human world. Although rabbits can be pets they are often wild animals as well. Rabbits are often shot for the fun of it by farmers. You can't shoot cats and dogs because there are laws against it in developed countries.
And so the answer depends upon the value we place upon the animal although this is inherently incorrect in an absolute sense because every animal in terms of their sentience has the same value. The problems really arise because of the way humans interact with animals. It's about the relationship we have with animals including domestic and wild animals.
And that relationship varies tremendously across the globe and it is always coloured by human concepts which are often distorted by cultural values sometimes entrenched from thousands of years ago. Ancient values tend to lead to animal cruelty because the values were created at a time when there was a much less sophisticated relationship with animals.
An absolute (unqualified) response to the question might focus on the capacity for suffering - sentience. Animals are sentient beings whether they are rabbits or cats and dogs. When you kill them you cause pain. I say that because most often when cats and dogs are killed in places like the south of China they are brutally killed causing great suffering.
The place on the planet where cats and dogs are most often eaten is in the south of China and therefore you have to attach great suffering with the eating of cats and dogs. On that basis it is highly objectionable and totally unjustifiable.
But in essence you can't separate rabbits and cats and dogs. If you say it's okay to eat rabbits with mustard in France then you should be saying it's okay to eat cats and dogs in the UK but you won't hear people saying that because people like to distort absolute values and colour their values through cultural norms. It is highly muddied. It is not a clear picture.
In a better world, all animals would be treated entirely equally. And in a better world, cats and dogs and rabbits would not be eaten and I would argue that all animals would not be either. That world may arrive one day. Ultimately, the ethics around eating different animals can be complex and depend on cultural context, emotional bonds and individual beliefs. One person's beliefs don't really carry much weight. What I say here is pretty meaningless. Many people would disagree with me.
Many people believe you can't distinguish between eating cats and dogs in the south of China and eating cows in the developed world. It's all animals being killed and eaten. There is a difference however because as mentioned when cows are slaughtered they are slaughtered humanely under strict regulations whereas cats and dogs in south of China are brutally killed in an unregulated manner in a market which is dripping in blood and agony.
But some moral principles can transcend cultural differences especially regarding the capacity for suffering and the rights of sentient beings. One could argue that causing suffering to any sentient being including cats and dogs is morally wrong. The same will apply to rabbits. This is an animal rights philosophy. It should be a universal philosophy. Many philosophers have argued for this. At the moment in the world it is only animal rights activists who argue like this and they are often seen as extremists when arguably they are not. They are just taking an absolute, pure and morally justifiable high ground in this discussion.
There is no universal answer to the question. One day there might be. Please share your views.
------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
I had never heard of the word "emophilia" until today when I read The Times newspaper. So I learned something today and I would like to pass it on as it might interest others. You might know of somebody who meets people and then quite soon afterwards declares that they are in love with that person. That the person is "the one".
And then they promptly split up and start all over again with somebody else. This person might be an emophiliac; a person who falls in the out of love a lot and enjoys the emotional rush of the process.
Until now, as far as I know, psychologists haven't put a label to this form of human behaviour. Now they have. Dr. Daniel Jones, associate professor of psychology at the University of Nevada coined the term "emophilia". He describes it as the tendency to fall in love fast and often.
It's possible that Shakespeare's Romeo may have been an emophiliac. He starts off by falling in love with Rosaline at the beginning of the play and declared that there was no one fairer than her. He then swiftly turns his affections to Juliet who also gets a similar compliment with the phrase "It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."
There is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to haemophilia. Some people are high on the scale while others are low on the scale. Most people are in the middle. Dr. Daniel Jones said that people who are highly emophilic repeatedly "seek the rush of romantic emotions, immediate romantic corrections, and the rapid development of romantic love."
It is a kind of addictive rush it seems to me. It's not that the similar it seems to a kind of drug; the drug of love and the emotions that flow from it. Dr. Jones added that for these people it's about want not need. Actually sex addiction comes to mind to which is also seeking a rush to temporarily brighten up one's life.
The predictable downside to this form of falling in love is that you don't give yourself time to ensure that you have connected with the right person. You don't have enough information about the person. It seems that you bypass the usual niceties and introductions and getting used to each other so that you know each other before falling truly in love.
Studies have found that people high in emophilia are more likely to lie and cover for their partner even if they have only known them for a short time. They are also more likely to be unfaithful.
Once emophiliacs get into a relationship they don't turn off their emophilic tendencies. They appear to go onto the next person.
"If someone did fall in love overnight and maintained that relationship faithfully with no other love interests until death, I would not classify that person as high in emophilia. Thus, although the development of a romantic connection must be fast for emophilia to be present, it must also be repeated."
His advice to people "suffering" from this form of addiction as I would call it is to be more patient and to give a chance to people who might seem boring at first. They might overlook people they consider to be boring because they can't get the rush that they desire. But these people are more genuine it seems because people who are very smooth and perform well on a first date may have an agenda and may be exploitative.
Dr. Jones added that it was wise to trust the advice of a friend or family member and perhaps a therapist and "remember that emotions and excitement can be easily manipulated but trust and companionship should not be rushed into and a good foundation is critical for a realistic chance to have a relationship work."
--------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Trump is a person who should NOT be the next President as he would be dangerous to humankind as he does not believe in climate change calling it a 'scam' and a 'hoax' of all things. He is going against hundreds of top scientists.
Here is some detail on why Trump cannot be the next president solely on the basis that he calls climate change a SCAM. The man wants to make lots of money for himself and his country and fixing climate change is hugely expensive and will stunt economic growth potentially. He wants to kick the problem into the long grass at the expense of future generations. He is behaving like the worst politicians: short term thinking and instant popularity while shunning reality.
From the perspective of climate change and its global implications, Donald Trump’s return to the presidency could be dangerous for humankind, especially considering his well-documented dismissal of climate science. By repeatedly calling climate change a "scam" and rolling back crucial environmental regulations during his presidency, Trump demonstrated a disregard for the scientific consensus that climate change is real, primarily human-caused, and a significant threat to the future of the planet.
Here are key reasons why Trump's denial of climate change poses serious risks:
1. Delaying Urgent Climate Action
Lost time: Climate change requires immediate action to mitigate its worst effects, and Trump's policies during his first term set back progress. His stance, if continued in a second term, would delay essential policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, further narrowing the window for effective action.
Regulatory rollbacks: Trump’s administration dismantled numerous environmental protections, from emissions standards to limits on pollution, exacerbating environmental damage and making it harder to reverse course.
2. Influencing Millions to Deny Climate Change
Amplifying denial: As a highly influential figure, Trump’s statements on climate change reinforce misinformation. Millions of Americans—and others around the world—look to him for guidance, and his denial of climate science sows confusion and distrust in factual information.
Undermining global consensus: In an era where global cooperation on climate change is crucial, Trump’s influence encourages division and skepticism, weakening efforts to build the broad-based support needed for effective climate policies.
3. Weakening Global Climate Leadership
U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement during his presidency sent a signal that the U.S., one of the largest carbon emitters, was stepping back from its leadership role in tackling climate change. This undermined global efforts to reduce emissions and gave cover to other nations considering scaling back their climate commitments.
Missed opportunities for cooperation: A president who denies climate change cannot effectively collaborate with other countries on climate solutions. This risks not only environmental harm but also damages U.S. diplomatic standing.
4. Promoting Fossil Fuel Dependence
Fossil fuel focus: Trump’s policies heavily favored the fossil fuel industry, promoting oil, gas, and coal production while undermining renewable energy investments. This approach ignores the long-term economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy and locks the U.S. into outdated, polluting technologies.
Worsening climate impacts: Continued dependence on fossil fuels would accelerate greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying the effects of climate change—more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to agriculture and water supplies—leading to catastrophic consequences for future generations.
5. Ignoring National Security Threats
Climate as a "threat multiplier": Trump’s dismissal of climate change overlooks the growing recognition within the U.S. military and intelligence communities that climate change is a major national security threat. Worsening climate conditions are expected to cause resource conflicts, mass migration, and political instability around the world, endangering global security.
Unpreparedness for disasters: Climate change increases the frequency and severity of natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. Ignoring climate change means failing to adequately prepare for or mitigate these disasters, putting millions of lives and livelihoods at risk.
6. Economic Risks and Missed Opportunities
Missed green economy opportunities: The global economy is moving toward renewable energy and sustainable technologies. A president who ignores or downplays climate change could cause the U.S. to fall behind in developing these industries, missing out on job creation and economic growth in the green sector.
Cost of inaction: The economic costs of inaction on climate change—ranging from damage to infrastructure, agriculture losses, health impacts, and disaster recovery—far outweigh the costs of proactive mitigation. Trump’s policies would likely increase the financial burden on future generations.
7. Endangering Future Generations
Long-term impacts: Trump’s denial of climate change threatens the future of younger generations. Climate change will affect every aspect of life—access to clean air and water, health, food security, and economic stability. A president who fails to acknowledge this reality risks leaving a damaged planet for future generations to inherit.
Irreversible tipping points: Climate science warns of tipping points beyond which the effects of global warming could become irreversible. Trump’s policies would likely push us closer to these points, increasing the likelihood of severe and unmanageable climate impacts.
Conclusion: Why Trump Should Not Be the Next President
Given the existential threat that climate change poses to humankind, it is vital that the next president fully acknowledges the reality of the climate crisis and takes decisive action to address it. Trump’s denial of climate change and his policies favoring short-term economic interests over long-term sustainability make him a dangerous choice in this regard.
In a world where immediate, bold action is needed to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, a leader who calls it a "scam" is not only delaying essential progress but actively working against the survival and well-being of future generations. To protect both the U.S. and the global community, it is crucial to have leadership that understands the gravity of the climate crisis and is committed to solutions that prioritize the environment, public health, and long-term sustainability.
Is climate change a scam as Trump says?
No, climate change is not a scam. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, human-caused, and poses a significant threat to the environment, economies, and human health worldwide. This consensus is based on decades of research, data, and observations regarding rising global temperatures, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the impacts on ecosystems, sea levels, and weather patterns.
Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about climate change, often referring to it as a "hoax" or "scam." However, his views are at odds with the scientific consensus. Major organizations, including NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have all affirmed that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.
Here are a few key points:
1. Scientific Consensus: Studies show that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is driven by human activities. This includes reputable bodies like the IPCC and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
2. Rising Temperatures: Data shows that global temperatures have increased by about 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, with the past decade being the warmest on record.
3. Climate Change Impacts: We are already seeing effects such as more extreme weather events, melting polar ice, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems and agriculture.
4. Economic and Security Risks: Ignoring climate change has economic, geopolitical, and health consequences. Military experts and economists view climate change as a "threat multiplier" due to its potential to exacerbate conflicts over resources and cause large-scale human migrations.
While political opinions on how to address climate change vary, the scientific evidence supporting the reality and seriousness of climate change is robust and clear.
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
