I have a problem with my cats. They eat. My mother always put down a bowl full of dry cat food and would let her cats eat as much as they wanted. There would always be food in their dish, and they could help themselves throughout the day.
The problem is, her cats are fat. Very fat. And I've been told that it is not good for a cat to be that fat. Makes sense to me ... if human's can't handle being obese, why should a cat be able to get away with it? The vet tells me I have to keep my cat's weight down so I reduce their portions (I'd put them on a treadmill, but they're cats: if they can't figure a way out of it, they'll just take revenge on me later).
The problem with this is that almost every minute of my "I'm home, not sitting down and not sleeping" day I have to deal with between one and three cats meowing frantically, trying to lead me to the closet in which they know I hide their food supply. Heaven forbid I actually have to walk in the direction of said closet, or worse, open that closet. They get all excited and dance around, thinking I'm going to give them more food, even though I just fed them 30 minutes ago. They're so insistent I end up having to tell them, "No," repeatedly.
This ends up stressing me out, and the, "No," turns into, "No!" sometimes accompanied by a stamping of my foot. Of course this, in turn, stresses out my cats (or so I believe). So this makes me wonder: is it better to limit the caloric intake of my cats, keeping them a healthy weight but making them believe they are always hungry and causing both them and me to suffer chronic stress, or allow them to eat all they want, living happily obese?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
A week in ...
It has been a week since the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the situation continues to deteriorate. Thousands of people are homeless, many of whom are of advanced age, and the winter weather does not let up. It is cold, they are exposed to the elements, they have little food and less water, and the danger from TEPCOs damaged nuclear power plant is growing daily.
Yet people on the US west coast seem more worried about their own exposure to radioactive winds than those still suffering in Japan. All reports, and even common sense, tell us that the radiation will be so dissipated by the time it reaches the US that it will pose almost no risk (and we say almost no risk simply because there is no such thing as no risk), yet Americans spend time, eneregy and resources (including dollars) trying to protect themselves from this non-threat. I have even heard some people say that we should not be asking our troops to risk themselves trying to help.
It would be my hope that people would see that we must think more about those at "ground zero" than those "back home." Japan cannot fix this on its own, and we cannot sit back and think, "Better you than me." Even if you refuse the notion of altruism, helping over there is the best way to protect over here. If the problem is not fixed at the source, our exposure will only grow.
If you're thinking of buying, or trying to buy, potassium iodide pills, don't bother. You don't need them. You also don't need a home geiger counter. Instead, donate that money to an organization directly involved in fixing the problem. It'll go much farther in protecting you than anything else you could do.
Yet people on the US west coast seem more worried about their own exposure to radioactive winds than those still suffering in Japan. All reports, and even common sense, tell us that the radiation will be so dissipated by the time it reaches the US that it will pose almost no risk (and we say almost no risk simply because there is no such thing as no risk), yet Americans spend time, eneregy and resources (including dollars) trying to protect themselves from this non-threat. I have even heard some people say that we should not be asking our troops to risk themselves trying to help.
It would be my hope that people would see that we must think more about those at "ground zero" than those "back home." Japan cannot fix this on its own, and we cannot sit back and think, "Better you than me." Even if you refuse the notion of altruism, helping over there is the best way to protect over here. If the problem is not fixed at the source, our exposure will only grow.
If you're thinking of buying, or trying to buy, potassium iodide pills, don't bother. You don't need them. You also don't need a home geiger counter. Instead, donate that money to an organization directly involved in fixing the problem. It'll go much farther in protecting you than anything else you could do.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Glee and KTLA
Sam Rubin, you've disappointed me ...
KTLA morning news likes to talk about issues in their 9 o'clock hour, and this morning Sam Rubin (entertainment reporter) turned to a same-sex kiss aired last night on Glee (male/male, looked like they were having dinner to me, but the dialogue made it seem they were in the school's music room).
Oddly, no discussion was sparked by last week's incident: a total makout session with two (fully dressed) girls lying on a bed. Sam did show that clip during the discussion, but the focus was the male/male kiss last night.
Sam mentioned that he was watching the show, which airs at 8 PM, with his 9 year old daughter, and he therefore felt 8 PM was too early for showing this kiss (again, why was last week's makeout session in a bed not cause for alarm?).
Fellow reporter, anchor Jessica Holmes then asked, "Now, did your 9 year old have any questions ... or ...?"
Sam's reply: "She was like, 'Oh! Are they dating?' "
Sam, I love you, but GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT! Why do you have to create a scandal over a kiss you think your child is too young to see if her only question was, "Oh, so they're finally dating?" (I can only assume the daughter sees the show regularly with Sam, and knows that the two guys involved have been dancing around dating for several weeks or months). She was totally okay with the kiss ... you are the one with the problem! Check your baggage at the door!
Am I wrong? Let me know.
KTLA morning news likes to talk about issues in their 9 o'clock hour, and this morning Sam Rubin (entertainment reporter) turned to a same-sex kiss aired last night on Glee (male/male, looked like they were having dinner to me, but the dialogue made it seem they were in the school's music room).
Oddly, no discussion was sparked by last week's incident: a total makout session with two (fully dressed) girls lying on a bed. Sam did show that clip during the discussion, but the focus was the male/male kiss last night.
Sam mentioned that he was watching the show, which airs at 8 PM, with his 9 year old daughter, and he therefore felt 8 PM was too early for showing this kiss (again, why was last week's makeout session in a bed not cause for alarm?).
Fellow reporter, anchor Jessica Holmes then asked, "Now, did your 9 year old have any questions ... or ...?"
Sam's reply: "She was like, 'Oh! Are they dating?' "
Sam, I love you, but GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT! Why do you have to create a scandal over a kiss you think your child is too young to see if her only question was, "Oh, so they're finally dating?" (I can only assume the daughter sees the show regularly with Sam, and knows that the two guys involved have been dancing around dating for several weeks or months). She was totally okay with the kiss ... you are the one with the problem! Check your baggage at the door!
Am I wrong? Let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)