Limes with Orange

I'm about to post about something I can barely bring myself to think about, but I believe it needs to be discussed. There's this "artist" that was brought to my attention through Facebook. I had so hoped would turn out to be another Facebook hoax, but I have yet to be able to debunk it:

In 2007, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, a so called artist, took an abandoned dog from the streets, tied him to a very short rope to a wall in an art gallery, and left a kettle of food on the other side of the room, beyond his reach, and left him there to slowly die of hunger and thirst.

The gallery exhibition was real. That much I have been able to confirm. The details vary widely from site to site. Some claim that the dog was only tied up for the three hours a day and that it escaped back to the streets after a few days. Others claim even worse details than those stated in the Facebook group. One blog claims to have a statement from the artist:

The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.

Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.

Is that actually the artist's statement? I don't know. Is there more to the statement that describes that actual exhibit? I don't know. Some bloggers have read the article in the Guardian and been placated. I, personally, would feel better about that stance if there were more legitimate news stories to back it up. Other bloggers say that PETA is already aware of it, but I find no mention of it on their blog. Snopes, the site that I usually look to for debunking, has the status of this rumour as Undetermined. So I really don't know what to believe.

Now I don't usually post about something when I don't have all the facts but this is just so disturbing and, unfortunately, too easy to believe. So assuming this to be true, here's my rant…

If the "artist" REALLY cared about the plight of these dogs there is no way on this earth that he would have killed one so slowly and so cruelly. What could he have done if his intention was REALLY altruistic? Let's see… record the dogs on the street with video, film or photographs, pretend to be the dog yourself in the gallery, hire an actor to be the dog, use paint, sculpture or cuts of meat from a butcher to create a symbolic dog, combine any or all of the above with other images or installations to allow the viewer to make connections that weren't apparent before. By God man, there are infinite humane ways to shed light on this issue. If this "artist" was REALLY trying to do as he claims, he was--in the words of Joan of Arcadia--suffering from a failure of imagination. So what kind of "artist" does that make him? A fraud and a hack. And what kind of a person does that make him? Well, let's just say that I believe this man deserves to experience everything that he forced that dog to experience. Everything.

And if it turns out that the Guardian article is true and the dog was actually fed during the run of the exhibit? Well (a) if you look at pictures of the dog (I couldn't stand to post them here, but just Google and you'll see), that dog should have been at the vet's not on display at a gallery and (b) it still ain't art. Art requires imagination. And for my comments about the imagination of this "artist", see above rant.

Labels: animals, art and photography, rant

I was having a conversation the other day (I don't remember the context or who was present other than my sister and me) and somebody was talking about being out on a boat and having some whales swim alongside them for a while. My sister started saying how wonderful that must have been. It was clear that she'd forgotten our whale watching trip out of Provincetown when we were teenagers, spending a few weeks with our dad on Martha's Vineyard. I realize that was longer ago than I would like to admit, but it made such a huge impression on me that I couldn't imagine it not having the same impression on everyone else on board. (Apparently the fabulous shopping in P-town made more of an impression on my sister than the wonders of nature.)

Our particular whale watching trip lasted longer than scheduled because there was so much whale activity. First, it was just a group of whales a little in the distance, then a mother and calf came up close to the boat… the calf seemed very curious. Then we encountered one particular whale who seemed as fascinated by us as we were by him. He swam alongside the boat for quite a while, waving his flippers and splashing his tail and performing all manner of acrobatics as if to get our attention. It was amazing. I still have a great fondness for that particular whale.

Anyway, if you're ever in the Cape Cod area, I highly recommend checking out Provincetown and taking a whale watching trip yourself.

Labels: animals, travel

Some of you may have noticed a new widget in my sidebar. It features adoptable pets throughout Alberta, courtesy of Petfinder.com. I noticed it when I was visiting Thoughtprints and thought it was a great idea. So if you're thinking of getting a new pet or know somebody else who is, please check it out.

P.S. I've also rolled up my archives so they're now in a handy pull-down menu. That list was just getting waaay too long.

Labels: animals

I've discovered another new site through the Blogger's Choice Awards, but this one has a bit of a sob story attached to it. The site is called "Anjos para Adocao" which translates to "Angels for Adoption." This blog was created by a woman who helps find homes for abandoned dogs and cats around São Paulo, Brazil. It's written in Portuguese, but the photos speak for themselves.

Up until yesterday, it had been nominated in the Best Animal Blog Category and was winning with 700 votes. Then it was banned. It was banned because it's in a poor community where none of the people have computers in their own homes so had to use public computers to vote, so all of those votes came from a very small number of IP addresses. Which looked like voting fraud.

Fortunately, the Blogger's Choice Awards created a new Foreign Language category and have reinstated the blog there... minus all of its previous votes. I think it's a good blog doing a great thing that deserves to get some attention. So I've voted for it and now I'm blogging about it in the hopes that my readers will be moved to vote for it, too.



Thanks to Renata for bringing this to my attention.

Labels: animals, blogging

Apparently you can now create an online scrapbook. I think it's a great idea, but it turns out that it's not actually any easier to create than a real scrapbook, just less expensive and easier to share… which are actually pretty good reasons to opt for this method, now that I think about it.

The site has a lot of options to choose from, which is great but rather overwhelming at first. Though I think it would be a little less overwhelming if the thumbnails were a bit bigger so you had at least some idea of what the paper (or sticker or whatever) will look like before you click on it.

Hey, you know what would be cool? A gallery of templates that you could use as-is or use as a starting point for customization. That would definitely make it less intimidating for a newbie and give you an idea of what's available as well as sparking your own creative ideas.

But here's my first attempt: a wee tribute to my horse, Night Wing.



Hmm, one area that could actually use MORE options is the fonts… very limited at the moment. And for some reason my text placement and alignment seems to have a mind of its own. But I guess a few glitches are to be expected when the site isn't even in Beta yet. I'll definitely be revisiting this site when it's a little further along in development. At which point it'll be great to add to my genealogy sites!

P.S. To the folks at Heart Vault: In order to embed this into Blogger, I needed to add a closing "/embed" tag to the end of the code provided on your website. And adding this P.S. made me think of something else I'd like to see on the site: a way to contact someone please .

Labels: animals, art and photography, cool sites, genealogy

The other night while I was tutoring, one of my cats (Tobi, my previously mentioned "closet cat"… who actually comes out of the closet for this particular student) curled up on top of my student's book bag and looked just adorable. I grabbed my camera to take a pic and didn't manage to capture the cuteness at all. (I'd show you my efforts but I deleted them straightaway.) But it made me realize that I've never really managed to take a good photo of my cats. Fortunately I have a few decent pictures of them that friends of mine have taken… but I'm the one who sees all the cute stuff they do, so I'd like to be able to take the photos myself.

Which is why I was quite pleased to find this article with pet photography tips. The tips are pretty commonsensical but sometimes common sense isn't so common, so I definitely liked the approach. I particularly appreciated the suggestion that the cat should fill about 70% of the frame. I think that's been part of my problem, I'm not zoomed in enough. It would have been nice if they'd talked about digital cameras, too. But with the article not being overly technical, I suppose most of the information applies to any type of camera. Now I just need to practice!

Labels: animals, art and photography

That rats have diarthroidal joints that allow their skeletons to almost "collapse" letting them to fit through holes as small as a quarter (or however big their head is). Okay, on CSI they just said "flexible joints," but I opted for the scientific term, thank you very much.


You'd think I might have known that already, having been to vet school and all, but we didn’t spend a heck of a lot of time on "pocket pets"… that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Labels: animals, weird stuff

Watch two romantic otters holding paws (my favourite bit is near the end, when they come back together... so cute):

Labels: animals, cute, videos

This video appears to have been doing the email rounds for a while, but it amused me so I thought I'd include here. While I was uploading it to You Tube, I discovered that there are a lot of videos about dogs scratching their backs. Apparently this is a popular a source of entertainment. Who knew?

Labels: animals, humour

"When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name."
~ T.S. Eliot, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats"

The topic of pets has been cropping up a lot in my life lately. Well, I guess it always crops up a bit for me… whenever people find out I studied veterinary medicine, I usually end up fielding questions about health or behaviour or sometimes just trivia.

At the moment, I'm getting worried that my cat Emma (immortalized in my Meerkat post) might be developing diabetes.

You see, my old cat Ferdinand had diabetes. She (yes, her name was Ferdinand and she was a female cat... long story, 'nother post)... anyway, she was the first case I diagnosed all by myself when I was a vet student. Dubious achievement. My suspicions were based on a change in her urinating habits and the fact that she was quite overweight (a definite risk factor for diabetes in any species). Well, Emma is also quite overweight (my bad) and has recently been exhibiting some odd urinating habits… as in, she does it right OUTSIDE the litter box. Fortunately, I keep a plastic sheet under the litter boxes so there hasn't been an issue with cleanup and stains, but it's still a pain in the... neck.

I haven't figured out yet whether this problem is behavioural or medical. I'll need to check the sugar levels in Emma's urine to determine that. Hopefully I'm wrong. But if I'm right, hopefully it's non-insulin dependent diabetes. (Ferdinand was insulin dependent and she deregulated—meaning she switched from insulin dependent to non-insulin dependent, which I believe is unique to feline diabetes—so her next insulin injection led to an insulin overdose. I don't want to go down that road again.)

But I found this site that offers natural pet remedies. They have an herbal treatment for diabetes that looks interesting. I'll have to do a little research on the ingredients, but I'll admit I'm intrigued.

Not to neglect my other cat, Tobi (though she tends to stay hidden when guests are around and has developed a nickname of "the closet cat" because she spends so much time in—you guessed it—my closet), I also checked to see if they have hairball treatments. Tobi has a marked tendency for hairballs and she's a very picky eater and hates every hairball treatment I've ever given her. And when I feed her food that's supposed to reduce the number of hairballs, her coat ends up looking scraggly and she starts to lose weight (which she can't afford, because she's quite skinny already… not apparent in her picture because she's quite fluffy… usually).

Anyway, the site didn't have a treatment specifically for hairballs but they did have this dietary supplement that looks promising. I think I'd like to give that one a try.

I also noticed that they have a treatment for ear mite infections. Not that I need it now, but I seem to have a tendency to adopt farm cats who always seem to have ear mites when I get them. Tobi's ear mites were soooo bad that initially I thought she was hard of hearing. Then when the vet came (she did house calls… it was awesome), we cleaned Tobi's ears out together and ewww… q-tip after q-tip of black gunk. It sounds to me like this ear mite treatment would have worked nicely as a post-cleaning treatment as well, with its pain relief and healing properties. But the story has a happy epilogue. You might think that such an intensive cleaning would have made Tobi wary of having her ears touched or afraid of q-tips, but on the contrary. I think she felt soooo relieved afterwards that, to this day, she LOVES having her ears rubbed and her favourite toys are q-tips. Go figure.

Labels: animals, health

After my copyright rant and my confusion and despair over Starbuck (yes, I know it's just a TV show), I thought it was time to go back to light and fluffy. And what's lighter and fluffier than cute pets? (Okay, so sometimes they're not literally light and fluffy, but they could be… like a kitten. )

There's this site called PetHumour.com that has entertaining animal videos, cute pics, trivia, pet cartoons, animal jokes and funny top 10 lists. I logged on today and found a photo called "Hot Dogs" that I thought was adorable.

So when you need a warm and fuzzy chuckle, check it out...

Labels: animals, humour

Okay, I'm gonna be straight with you here... this is going to be a shameless "pick me, pick me!" sort of post. See, HP is giving away digital cameras to their favourite blog posts about their new, supercool, 6 megapixel digital cameras and photo printers. And while I do actually (finally) own a digital camera, it was a free gift with purchase and a brand that I've never heard of... so I think you can figure out for yourself just what kind of quality we're talking about: zip, zilch, nada (nada heck of a lot). It did, however, allow me to make this video of dubious quality with which I am begging HP to put me out of my Luddite misery and favour me with their top of the line camera AND a photo printer to boot. (Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!)

I'll admit that it's a little embarrassing, as an aspiring filmmaker, to have this be the first public screening of anything I've ever "filmed" but hey... beggars can't be choosers, right? (Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!) And my cat pitched in to help make this wee "film" a wee bit more interesting...


This post was brought to you by HP.

Labels: animals, hp, payperpost

My sister introduced me to the cartoons of Nick Downes. Not all of his cartoons are math and science related (and, unfortunately, his site doesn't reflect his geekiest side), but he has published two books of science related cartoons: Big Science and Whatever Happened to "Eureka"?. Humour for geeks! Hurrah!!

Hey, someone's gotta fill the void since Gary Larson retired.

Labels: animals, humour, math and science

Advertisements for the new show Meerkat Manor prompted me to post this photo of my own little "meerkat" by the name of Emma "pictured" with her "cousin":

Labels: animals

"At least your cat doesn't need hard lovin' in the bathtub."

I actually uttered that phrase the other day. But perhaps a little background will help explain...

Some friends and I were talking about our cats. I had previously mentioned that one of my cats, Tobi, doesn't appreciate little half-hearted pats or rubs under the chin. She prefers her petting to be very deliberate and delivered in long, firm strokes (I'm choosing to ignore the innuendo of that particular phrasing for now). And Tobi has recently developed this habit hanging out in my bathtub (while it's empty). I don't know if it's the smooth feeling of the enamel that draws her, or the echo that her meows make on the tiled walls, or the privacy offered by the shower curtain but whatever it is, Tobi thinks the bathtub is a great place to hang out.

So when the conversation led to people complaining about the eccentricities of their cats, I uttered the ill-fated comment mentioned above. Apparently it's the kind of sentence that can bring any conversation to a screeching halt. Who knew?

Labels: animals

Stumbled across the Bow-Lingual Dog Translator as I was surfing the web tonight. Claims it can translate your dog's bark. Would love to test this baby out. Some bits from the article about it in NOW magazine:

Samuel, a black Lab, whimpered, "Stop playing with my emotions" when his owner Nick feigned throwing a stick for the third time.

Colleen the Collie asked me, "Aren't I great?" about 200 times in 10 minutes while hopping about erratically.

Anderson, the portly Beagle, rolled in the mud while barking, oddly enough, "You're not so tough!"

Also found a book that I wouldn't mind picking up... and maybe giving to every American I meet who asks what makes us uniquely Canadian:

How to Be a Canadian (Even If You Already are One)
by Will & Ian Ferguson

Speaking of uniquely Canadian, I've been watching CBC's new show Snakes & Ladders. Some have called it a Canadian version of the West Wing but I hesitate to make any comparisons between such distinct programs. It's like comparing Bridget Jones' Diary to Pride and Prejudice or Jesus of Montreal to Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (okay, I haven't actually seen The Passion yet, but if you'll permit me a little lattitude)... obviously a connection but they're really not comparable. But I digress from my important question... is Snakes & Ladders over?!?! I remember reading that it was only a six part series, but is that truly the end of it? Please say it isn't so!

Oh, yeah... EdMo stuff...

EdMo Hours: 31.5 down ~ 18.5 to go

Labels: animals, pop culture, tv