Black pups are facing doggie discrimination. It's called "black dog syndrome." Kim Intino, the director of animal sheltering issues for the Humane Society of the United States, says, "every person that has worked in a shelter can attest that animals with black coats can be somewhat harder to adopt out — or to even get noticed." Perhaps people's unconscious is working against them: In British folklore, the black dog is a creepy, spectral figure that haunts cemeteries and is an omen of death, some people just don't like black licorice, and Winston Churchill, battled serious bouts of depression which he called "the black dog."
Greg in OH says, "I was shocked, because I think that black dogs are beautiful — and I couldn't believe people would not get a dog based on its color." Well Greg, wake up and smell the Milk Bone... racism is alive and well in the dog world! Truth be told, I like black dogs too. If only we had more dog parks, perhaps one in the Clear Lake area to placate my readers?
Oh but nature does not just screw over black dogs, just look what happened to this couple in NY. They wanted a kid... who knows why... I sure don't... but they got 3 instead. One might think that the stork was running a special that month, but no... it's another one of nature's cruel jokes. When the couple was having problems conceiving the natural way, the sought help from science: they decided against fertility drugs and chose in vitro fertilization because they wanted to narrow their odds of having multiple births by implanting a single embryo. That will teach you to mess with nature!
A very important thing to note in this article: "According to Tom, who is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the technician performing the test said, “ ‘There’s the heartbeat. And there’s the second heartbeat. And there’s the third heartbeat.’" Seriously folks... Fish and Wildlife Service guy doing your tests... no wonder things went wrong! At least they didn't end up with a half human half dog!
Perhaps this is all due to pollution and the environment? (I know it's not, but we have to placate the the envirocrazy's some times to increase readership of this blog.) It would seem that there is a disagreement between industry and health conscious groups which is better for the people: decreasing the likelihood of illness to young and old or everyone in between being able to find a job.
What's being said on each side of the issue:
"The results vary but most studies show a steady reduction in the public health burden as the standard is tightened," said Jonathan Levy of the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis.
"It could trigger layoffs nationwide, further eroding U.S. economic competitiveness," Sen. George Voinovich, and six other Republican senators recently wrote the EPA. More than a dozen senators have weighed in against any change.
22 House members told the EPA it should abide by "overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of stronger smog standards."
Industry lobbyists and Local officials told the White House Office of Management and Budget that the EPA was not considering the economic impact. "Our position is that the existing standard ... should remain in place."
National Association of Clean Air Agencies representing the state and county officials who would have to enforce new air quality requirements, only lamented about their roll, "It's going to make our job that much more daunting."
As this video scientifically proves is that only one side can win... or that both can loose... depends how you interpret it. SO, does it matter what the EPA does? Do you have an opinion? Weigh in using the comment section of this blog! If not I don't want to hear your complaining later when you are either dying from lung problems or out of work.
0 comments:
Post a Comment