It was always a privilege to speak before our Veterans and in some small way say thank you for their service and sacrifice.

Christopher Paul Landauer
Cherry Creek High School
Grade 12
Given on several occasions in 1999

Sacred Honor

In the last words of the Declaration of Independence, the signers made a solemn promise to the cause of freedom:  ”With a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”  To the English king these words were high treason.  In the War of Independence that followed, all the signers became hunted men.  Five of them paid with their lives.  Seventeen lost everything they owned.  But in the end, they kept their promise of freedom and independence to all Americans who followed them.

Our Constitution is the fulfillment of their sacred promise.  It stands as a flaming torch above the tidal waves of tyranny that have swept country after country into oceans of despair.  It is an elegant, simple document based on a profound principle: that common men can govern themselves, turnover power peaceably, and become great nations—without kings, without dictators, and without privileged classes.

The endurance of our Constitution lies in the first three words:  ”We the people.”  Every citizen is included in all three branches of our government.  All citizens influence these branches by direct vote, by representative vote, and by direct participation.  We the people decide who will be chief executive, we the people decide who will make our laws.  We the people sit on juries that decide justice and we the people vote for who will judge us.  These are the rights of all free men.  And these are the duties of each American citizen.

The Constitution forged a mighty chain made up of American citizens that stretches from you and me, across two centuries of time, to Washington and Jefferson.  The chains of our Constitution have endured the searing red flames of invasion, civil war, world wars, economic depressions, and a succession of evil ideologies that would rob us of our freedoms.  But will the chains of our Constitution survive the rust and corrosion of our own apathy, cynicism, and laziness?

It is ominous that in 1999 many Americans demand more rights, but reject their duties.  The centuries have dimmed their understanding that every one of our hard-earned rights comes with a duty.  A duty that cannot be ignored, or avoided, or shunted aside.

Before all other duties, we owe our country the duty to defend it from our enemies.  To serve when called.  If need be, to give up our lives.  As Thomas Jefferson foresaw, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Our Constitution is written in the blood of a million patriots.  In every generation, thousands of Americans have paid with their lives so that the rest of us can enjoy the blessings of liberty.  Yet, many of my generation reject this duty to serve and defend our country just as many did in the generation before mine, sitting out the Vietnam War in Canada or Sweden. When the war ended, they returned home to enjoy all of the same rights as those who had served.

Look next at our sacred duty to vote.  In the presidential election of 1896, 79% of eligible Americans voted.  One hundred years later in 1996, only 54% voted.  In its original form, the Constitution allowed only free white men over the age of twenty-one to vote.   After five hundred thousand Americans died in the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, freeing the slaves, making them citizens and giving them the right to vote.  In 1996, only 50% of African Americans voted, and only 27% of Hispanics voted.  In 1920 the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress giving women the right to vote.  In 1996, only 55% of women voted.  In 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to eighteen from twenty-one.  In 1996, only 31% of the eighteen to twenty year olds voted.  31%.  The trivial reasons for not voting would make Washington and Jefferson and all patriots weep.

Our government is made up of imperfect men.  When our government fails, the cause is not the Constitution.  The cause is the failure of the electorate to vote for honorable leaders.  Millions of Americans have cast aside their sacred right to vote, the one and only weapon that can drive out of our government the morally bankrupt, the incompetent, and the tyrants to be.  The deadly silence of the electorate allows a minority of voters to elect presidents, special interests to dictate our agenda, and a handful of men to squander our tax dollars.  Our founders saw in a majority of common men the collective wisdom to see through lies, false promises and blind ambition.  Surely, we have among us men and women with noble hearts and with fine minds willing to lead.

The judicial branch defines the scope of our morality as a people, our tolerance, and our commitment to equality under the law.  This duty has become sorely abused and twisted.  Our best-educated citizens shun jury duty.  We have allowed lawyers to pervert the system by demanding only jurors with little education and little experience.  We allow politicians to appoint more judges and take from us the right to elect them.  There can only be justice when we all participate.

We deserve better.  Our founders deserve better.   Our future demands better.  49% of our high school seniors do not know that our right to freedom of religion comes from the Constitution.   It is clear that we must restore our Constitution in the minds of each of our citizens, our school children, and our immigrants.  We must teach this generation that knows only peace, the price of that peace and the duties that keep us strong.  In every classroom, in every newspaper, on every television we should demand that our living Constitution be taught, explained, and understood.  We must insist that all citizens learn the Constitution, unvarnished and untainted.

Throughout the land we must restore and renew all the duties upon which our Constitutional rights depend.  We must vote.  We must serve on juries.  We must pay taxes.  We must reject fanatics that despise all government and see only conspiracy and evil wherever they look.  We must flog with disgust the cowards who mock us for loving our country while they desecrate our flag.

Our Constitution is the envy of the world.  It is the bane of tyrants.  It is a bastion of hope for the oppressed of Earth.  We must protect it from those who fear greatness, worship weakness and preach hopelessness.  We cannot let our precious inheritance to be stolen away by the dark and silent thieves, ignorance and indifference.

We must each of us, take upon ourselves the duties of free men.  To read our Constitution, to understand it, and to live the Constitution.  To insist that our lawmakers and judges follow it.  In an imperfect world, governed by the imperfect, our Constitution is the safe broad path between the claws of tyranny and the teeth of anarchy.  On our journey from a glorious past to a noble and glorious future, let no man drop the torch!  Let no man throw away our fire!

In my recent correspondence with a pet rescuer who has yet to embrace No-Kill, I saw firsthand the phenomenon that Nathan Winograd discusses in Redemption: that we hear so much about pet overpopulation, but has anyone seen it?

The e-mailer wrote:

[Shelters] only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?

Why yes, I’ve heard of it quite a lot. I’ve also heard extensively about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If the modus operandi of the shelters in this country were to throw dogs off cliffs because the Easter Bunny commanded it, there’d be an uproar. If you had to trade Santa Claus a euthanized shelter dog for each present, the tragedy of “Christmas Puppies” would have a much darker and more sinister outcome.

I’ve heard a lot about “pet overpopulation,” but I’ve never seen a feral dog colony or a single dog starving in the street. I’ve never seen a dog abandoned at the dog park. Every loose and stray dog that I’ve picked up has always had a tag and an owner. I’ve never seen a pet store going out of business. The breeders I got my dogs from two decades ago are both still in the breed with occasional litters. Every breeder I met in the last few years who are active in some aspect of the dog world are actually “growing” their business. They are all expanding their activities and having more frequent litters. The only breeder I know who is “getting out of the business” was paralyzed in an accident.

Last October I became a dog breeder and just a few weeks ago I became a dog seller. I certainly didn’t get any hint that there was a Border Collie overpopulation problem. I had to go out of state for both of my last two dogs, and I sold two of the four puppies out of state. If I were just out for money I could have sold my litter five times over in one week. That’s all it took to find really good homes. One week. And I’m only catering to a very small fraction of the dog owning and buying world. People who are interested in purebred Border Collies who have had the breed before, who have a good sized yard, who won’t have to leave the animal at home for long periods of time, who are active and healthy themselves, who are willing and able to offer vet care to a high standard to the pup, who are willing to sign a contract, who agree to spay and neuter their pets or who pay a premium to keep them intact, who are willing to pay a premium for pedigreed dogs, who are willing to pay a premium for extensively health tested dogs, who are willing to put up with my interviewing them, who are interested in dog sport, etc.

I found four really excellent homes for four really excellent puppies and a handful of other A+ to A- homes that I’d gladly sell a dog to, and by that I mean make a contractual and emotional commitment to for the lifetime of that dog. Around 10 homes that would probably make excellent homes for a Border Collie but who just didn’t outshine the best homes, or excellent homes who just weren’t ready for a Border Collie now (new baby or too many very young children which would mean little time to train the dog during the crucial early months, their current dog is old and infirm and probably wouldn’t appreciate a new puppy, excellent experience with other breeds but brand new to Border Collies, too many Border Collies already, etc.). And then a slew of people who may or may not be great homes but who were either too far away, too inexperienced with dogs or Border Collies, or who were uninterested in training for dog sports for me to take a chance and who would be better served by a breeder in their area or a different breed of dog. And that doesn’t count the legions of callers who just wanted a price quote on a puppy.

In other words, if an aspiring Breeder like myself, first time breeding, who is an elitist, ultra picky about where my puppies go, selling puppies in the $450-600 price range (unregistered BCs go for $100, average price for a papered dog off of a Ranch is probably $250-300, show quality pups being sold to show homes sell for $600 and up, and rare colors like Merles go for about twice the market price for each of those classes), selling dogs in a relatively unpopulated area of the country, can find homes and put people on a waiting list in only a week, I have no evidence of a pet overpopulation problem.

The very existence of all these new designer dogs speaks volumes against a pet overpopulation problem. If there are mutts overflowing our shelters, filling the streets, and bringing about their own destruction, why are people paying $1200 for “designer” mutts? Perhaps it’s a shelter advertising problem, not a pet overpopulation problem. If shelters have too many dogs coming in, why are they importing them from overseas, and across our borders?

If I had to go out of state for my last two dogs, and so did two of my puppy buyers and many of the potentials, that speaks to a greater demand than supply, not an overpopulation problem.

I’ve licked my finger and placed it in the wind, and every indicator tells me that dogs are getting more popular, more homes are opening up their doors to them every day, and as we grow as a society our animals are becoming even more significant and being given higher status at every turn.

If we wouldn’t throw dogs off cliffs for the Easter Bunny or sacrifice puppies for Santa Claus, why are we so accepting of killing dogs for another myth that there is little evidence for: the “pet overpopulation” problem?

The Myth of Pet Overpopulation

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”

— William Shakespeare (circa 1600)

Sometimes the obvious eludes us. We are told something so often that we accept it a priori. We ignore evidence to the contrary, even overwhelming evidence. It is so because we believe it is so. And we believe it is so because we have been told it is so for as long as we can remember. Each time we say, read, or write it, we reconfirm it. It is so. It is so. It is so. But pet overpopulation is not so.

There is little reason why most people, your average animal lovers in the United States, would know pet overpopulation is a myth. The one fact that would dispel the myth is something they almost never see consistently because they do not go to shelters everyday. But animal rescuers see it. Animal activists see it. And others in sheltering do also.
They see it daily, but still believe in pet overpopulation. What do they see every time they go into animal shelters? They see empty cages. Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages.

The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department kills every day despite empty cages. A veterinarian who tried to keep more animals alive by keeping the cages full was fired in 2005, in part, due to staff complaints of “too much work.” In September 2006, the Department killed twenty-five kittens because they had a cold, despite empty cages. In Eugene, Oregon, activists noted a high percentage of empty cages at their local shelter in the summer of 2006 due to killing that shelter management blamed on pet overpopulation and lack of a cat licensing law. The Lane County Animal Regulation Authority kept all but a half dozen cat cages empty at the height of the busy season, even though it killed approximately 70 percent of cats during the last year, many of them ostensibly for “lack of space.” According to local activists, doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia before a new leadership team took over later that year, I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005 on a day they were killing “for space.” These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic–and endemic–to animal control.

Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others–such as Tompkins County before my arrival–require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day–animals who might or might not come, animals who might come after those animals killed could have been adopted, lost animals who might be reclaimed, thereby opening up space without the need to kill, animals who instead could have been transferred to rescue groups or placed into foster care.

There are many reasons why shelters kill animals at this point in time, but pet overpopulation is not one of them. In the case of a small percentage of animals, the animals may be hopelessly sick or injured, or the dogs are so vicious that placing them would put adoptive families at risk. (This killing is also being challenged by sanctuaries and hospice care groups, a movement that is also growing in scale and scope and which all compassionate people must embrace). Aside from this relatively small number of cases (only seven percent of the animals in Tompkins County), shelters also kill for less merciful reasons.

They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.

Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.

What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation. It is as faulty a syllogism and as untrue a proposition as exists in sheltering today. But people believe it, and because they do, local governments under-fund their shelters, appoint and retain incompetent employees in animal control, and give shelter directors the carte blanche they need to kill because the problem is portrayed as insurmountable.

This also begs the question of why pet stores and commercial breeding operations (sometimes referred to as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills”) are still in business. Hobby breed enthusiasts notwithstanding (since these groups often support No Kill and assist in animal rescue), pet stores and puppy/kitten mills are motivated by profit, and they would not go into the business if homes weren’t available. In addition, the more animals dying in a given community) which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which show homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals as this is usually accompanied with under-performing staff, poor customer servie, and dirty and unwelcoming facilities.

- Excerpt from Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd

In my recent correspondence with a pet rescuer who has yet to embrace No-Kill, I saw firsthand the phenomenon that Nathan Winograd discusses in Redemption: that we hear so much about pet overpopulation, but has anyone seen it?

The e-mailer wrote:

[Shelters] only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?

Why yes, I’ve heard of it quite a lot. I’ve also heard extensively about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If the modus operandi of the shelters in this country were to throw dogs off cliffs because the Easter Bunny commanded it, there’d be an uproar. If you had to trade Santa Claus a euthanized shelter dog for each present, the tragedy of “Christmas Puppies” would have a much darker and more sinister outcome.

I’ve heard a lot about “pet overpopulation,” but I’ve never seen a feral dog colony or a single dog starving in the street. I’ve never seen a dog abandoned at the dog park. Every loose and stray dog that I’ve picked up has always had a tag and an owner. I’ve never seen a pet store going out of business. The breeders I got my dogs from two decades ago are both still in the breed with occasional litters. Every breeder I met in the last few years who are active in some aspect of the dog world are actually “growing” their business. They are all expanding their activities and having more frequent litters. The only breeder I know who is “getting out of the business” was paralyzed in an accident.

Last October I became a dog breeder and just a few weeks ago I became a dog seller. I certainly didn’t get any hint that there was a Border Collie overpopulation problem. I had to go out of state for both of my last two dogs, and I sold two of the four puppies out of state. If I were just out for money I could have sold my litter five times over in one week. That’s all it took to find really good homes. One week. And I’m only catering to a very small fraction of the dog owning and buying world. People who are interested in purebred Border Collies who have had the breed before, who have a good sized yard, who won’t have to leave the animal at home for long periods of time, who are active and healthy themselves, who are willing and able to offer vet care to a high standard to the pup, who are willing to sign a contract, who agree to spay and neuter their pets or who pay a premium to keep them intact, who are willing to pay a premium for pedigreed dogs, who are willing to pay a premium for extensively health tested dogs, who are willing to put up with my interviewing them, who are interested in dog sport, etc.

I found four really excellent homes for four really excellent puppies and a handful of other A+ to A- homes that I’d gladly sell a dog to, and by that I mean make a contractual and emotional commitment to for the lifetime of that dog. Around 10 homes that would probably make excellent homes for a Border Collie but who just didn’t outshine the best homes, or excellent homes who just weren’t ready for a Border Collie now (new baby or too many very young children which would mean little time to train the dog during the crucial early months, their current dog is old and infirm and probably wouldn’t appreciate a new puppy, excellent experience with other breeds but brand new to Border Collies, too many Border Collies already, etc.). And then a slew of people who may or may not be great homes but who were either too far away, too inexperienced with dogs or Border Collies, or who were uninterested in training for dog sports for me to take a chance and who would be better served by a breeder in their area or a different breed of dog. And that doesn’t count the legions of callers who just wanted a price quote on a puppy.

In other words, if an aspiring Breeder like myself, first time breeding, who is an elitist, ultra picky about where my puppies go, selling puppies in the $450-600 price range (unregistered BCs go for $100, average price for a papered dog off of a Ranch is probably $250-300, show quality pups being sold to show homes sell for $600 and up, and rare colors like Merles go for about twice the market price for each of those classes), selling dogs in a relatively unpopulated area of the country, can find homes and put people on a waiting list in only a week, I have no evidence of a pet overpopulation problem.

The very existence of all these new designer dogs speaks volumes against a pet overpopulation problem. If there are mutts overflowing our shelters, filling the streets, and bringing about their own destruction, why are people paying $1200 for “designer” mutts? Perhaps it’s a shelter advertising problem, not a pet overpopulation problem. If shelters have too many dogs coming in, why are they importing them from overseas, and across our borders?

If I had to go out of state for my last two dogs, and so did two of my puppy buyers and many of the potentials, that speaks to a greater demand than supply, not an overpopulation problem.

I’ve licked my finger and placed it in the wind, and every indicator tells me that dogs are getting more popular, more homes are opening up their doors to them every day, and as we grow as a society our animals are becoming even more significant and being given higher status at every turn.

If we wouldn’t throw dogs off cliffs for the Easter Bunny or sacrifice puppies for Santa Claus, why are we so accepting of killing dogs for another myth that there is little evidence for: the “pet overpopulation” problem?

The Myth of Pet Overpopulation

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”

— William Shakespeare (circa 1600)

Sometimes the obvious eludes us. We are told something so often that we accept it a priori. We ignore evidence to the contrary, even overwhelming evidence. It is so because we believe it is so. And we believe it is so because we have been told it is so for as long as we can remember. Each time we say, read, or write it, we reconfirm it. It is so. It is so. It is so. But pet overpopulation is not so.

There is little reason why most people, your average animal lovers in the United States, would know pet overpopulation is a myth. The one fact that would dispel the myth is something they almost never see consistently because they do not go to shelters everyday. But animal rescuers see it. Animal activists see it. And others in sheltering do also. They see it daily, but still believe in pet overpopulation. What do they see every time they go into animal she
lters? They see empty cages. Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages.

The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department kills every day despite empty cages. A veterinarian who tried to keep more animals alive by keeping the cages full was fired in 2005, in part, due to staff complaints of “too much work.” In September 2006, the Department killed twenty-five kittens because they had a cold, despite empty cages. In Eugene, Oregon, activists noted a high percentage of empty cages at their local shelter in the summer of 2006 due to killing that shelter management blamed on pet overpopulation and lack of a cat licensing law. The Lane County Animal Regulation Authority kept all but a half dozen cat cages empty at the height of the busy season, even though it killed approximately 70 percent of cats during the last year, many of them ostensibly for “lack of space.” According to local activists, doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia before a new leadership team took over later that year, I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005 on a day they were killing “for space.” These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic–and endemic–to animal control.

Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others–such as Tompkins County before my arrival–require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day–animals who might or might not come, animals who might come after those animals killed could have been adopted, lost animals who might be reclaimed, thereby opening up space without the need to kill, animals who instead could have been transferred to rescue groups or placed into foster care.

There are many reasons why shelters kill animals at this point in time, but pet overpopulation is not one of them. In the case of a small percentage of animals, the animals may be hopelessly sick or injured, or the dogs are so vicious that placing them would put adoptive families at risk. (This killing is also being challenged by sanctuaries and hospice care groups, a movement that is also growing in scale and scope and which all compassionate people must embrace). Aside from this relatively small number of cases (only seven percent of the animals in Tompkins County), shelters also kill for less merciful reasons.

They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.

Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.

What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation. It is as faulty a syllogism and as untrue a proposition as exists in sheltering today. But people believe it, and because they do, local governments under-fund their shelters, appoint and retain incompetent employees in animal control, and give shelter directors the carte blanche they need to kill because the problem is portrayed as insurmountable.

This also begs the question of why pet stores and commercial breeding operations (sometimes referred to as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills”) are still in business. Hobby breed enthusiasts notwithstanding (since these groups often support No Kill and assist in animal rescue), pet stores and puppy/kitten mills are motivated by profit, and they would not go into the business if homes weren’t available. In addition, the more animals dying in a given community) which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which show homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals as this is usually accompanied with under-performing staff, poor customer servie, and dirty and unwelcoming facilities.

- Excerpt from Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd

Suicides increase over the holidays? Not true.

[A] pervasive myth is that more people try to commit suicide over the holidays, but numerous studies have failed to find a peak of suicides during the holidays, according to [Doctors] Vreeman and Carroll.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine, said he wasn’t surprised that there was not an increase in suicides during the holidays, because people tend to be surrounded by other people in December. He wondered, however, what happens after the holidays.

“There are such high expectations around the holidays,” he said. “Holiday anxiety and depression are very common, so a better question might be whether or not people are more unhappy during the holidays.”

We lose most of our heat through our heads? Not true.

Your head, like the rest of your body, releases heat, but it’s no more important to shield your head than to protect other parts of your body against the cold.

There’s a cure for hangovers? Not true.

Another common holiday myth surrounds hangover cures. Although most everyone has a favorite that they swear works for them, the only real cure for a hangover is not to drink excessively in the first place. Also, Siegel pointed out that some hangover cures, such as aspirin or acetaminophen, can actually create troubles, such as liver problems or stomach irritation, in people who’ve been drinking.

Sugar makes kids hyper? Not true.

At least 12 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials have looked at the effect of sugar on children, and none found evidence for the sugar-equals-hyperactivity myth. In one study, children weren’t even given sugar, but their parents were told they had been — and parents who thought their children had eaten sugar rated their behavior as more hyperactive.

Eating at night makes you gain weight? Not true.

[E]ating at night won’t make you fat as long as what you’re eating doesn’t put you over your normal daily calorie total. Generally, they said, people who eat at night tend to gain weight, because those calories consumed nocturnally are in addition to three regular meals and snacks.

And in case you think that Christmas is the only time of year when people are duped into believing unfounded myths, then the good Doctors have some more myths for you to reconsider:

• People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day
• We use only 10% of our brains
• Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death
• Shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker, or coarser
• Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight
• Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy
• Mobile phones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals.

There’s no scientific basis for any of those commonly held beliefs!

Tis the season of delusional traditions. Something about the waning daylight and colder weather means people believe the strangest things, and these lies are really good at staying around for a long time.

(1) There is no Santa Claus, despite the rather detailed mythology surrounding him.
(2) There is no Son of God, despite the rather detailed mythology surrounding him.
(3) There is no problem with Christmas Puppies, despite the rather detailed mythology around them..

…I’ve discussed those all before. So here’s a new one:

(4) There is nothing toxic about Poinsettia plants for humans or pets. So hurry up and get to Costco, they are selling the largest Poinsettia plants I’ve ever seen. Monstrous. But not deadly.

In veterinary school we are taught that Poinsettias are poisonous to animals. In truth the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) does not even include poinsettias on their list of poisonous plants. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals lists poinsettias as “not poisonous to pets”. So where did all the holiday fears come from?

In 1919 a 2 year old girl ingested poinsettias and died later that day of unknown causes. It was believed that plant was the cause of her death, but it was never confirmed. So then poinsettias began to be classified as a toxic plant.

Decades later, the public even petitioned for a label warning of their toxicity be placed on retail plants, but the government denied the request for lack of evidence.

In 1996, Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh participated in a study where ~23,000 children were admitted through out the year for suspected poinsettia poisoning. Of all those children there was “no toxicity of any kind” found.

The Ohio State University finally proved that poinsettias are non-toxic to both humans and pets. All parts of the plant were tested, including the leaves and the sap, and nothing threatening was found.

- Robert Woods, DVM

Do keep your pets away from large quantities of Mistletoe and Holly berries, though. Those can be toxic and deadly if not treated promptly.

PetConnection is all over this.

You have been told that today is the birth day of Christ, that Christ is divine and died for our sins, that he performed feats of magic and is omnipresent. You have also been told that Santa Claus has a workshop staffed with elves on the North Pole and that he flies a magic sleigh powered by reindeer carrying a bag of toys, and is omniscient.

Adults who actually believe in one are thought to be certifiably insane, and people who don’t believe in the other are heathens and infidels. Such cultural declarations come from a cult that has matured into a religion. How sophisticated.

Jesus is not the reason for the season, and as far as most of the world is concerned, his divinity is about as real as Santa Claus. There exists no document that details what day Christ was born on, and certainly nothing that says it was December 25th. The church can’t even pin down the year, despite reorganizing the entire calendar to do so, and no one disputes that the date was placed, not divined from evidence. Then again, it’s supremely difficult to find even one thing about any religion that is divined from evidence.

So why December 25th? Well, it was the day of the Winter Solstice and the most important feast of the year on the Julian Calendar. In the tradition of the orgiastic Saturnalia festival, itself an outgrowth of pagan sun worship, the Roman emperors supported the worship of the Sun god as the official state religion. The Winter Solstice being the shortest day of the year is the day celebrated as the death, and rebirth of the “Undefeated Sun God.”

The followers of the pagan sun god were the most significant official cult in Rome three centuries after Christ’s death, right about the time when the Christian cult was making a play for increased membership. Early Christian depictions of Christ co-opted the pagan imagery for Sol/Apollo/Helios: the halo and the seven rays of sun [think Statue of Liberty]. He was even given the name “Sun of Righteousness.” It is no coincidence that the holy mass occurs on Sunday, the day of the sun, which Constantine decreed as the Roman day of rest in honor of the Sun god.

The image of Christ has been reinvented over the centuries to suit the times and the image-makers, and when the Christian cult wanted to entice the pagans to join, they dare not mess with the most celebrated and joyous feast of the year. So instead of fighting it, they adopted it and assured the pagans that they’d still be given license to get drunk and screw with abandon, just like they had “always” done during the Winter Solstice. Co-opting the festival was an advertising ploy to assuage fears that the new cult in town wouldn’t be as much fun as the old cult. And the complaints of the devout, noting so poignantly that the orgiastic elements of the holiday did in no way complement the reverence that should be paid to worship of the man-god, are as old as the Christian adoption of the holiday itself.

Tertullian, a second-century priest and the “Father of the Latin Church,” was a prolific scholar and author; he gave us the terms “trinity,” “old testament,” and “new testament” and is the first church scholar to declare Christianity as the one true religion. He also spoke of the sinful adoption of pagan rituals carried out by the early Christians:

The majority of Christians have by this time induced the belief in their mind that it is pardonable if at any time they do what the heathen do…

By us, the Saturnalia and New-year’s and Midwinter’s festivals and Matronalia are frequented–presents come and go–New-year’s gifts–games join their noise–banquets join their din!

Oh better fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself!…We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!…

But “let your works shine,” saith He; but now all our shops and gates shine! You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians… Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons!

- Tertullian, On Idolatry, Chapters XI-XV

So bitching about losing the true meaning of Christmas is nothing new, at the very time the Christian church jumped on the Winter Festival bandwagon, manufacturing a holy meaning, its scholars were complaining that inducing the pagans to join the fun came at the expense of encouraging idolatry. Fifty years ago, rock and roll and television was denounced as idolatry in churches across this nation and the globe, yet today the televangelists and their Mega Churches have rock and roll bands backing them up on stage and professional audio/visual engineers beaming their message out over the airwaves.

Enticing the masses to your services with a little razzle-dazzle is nothing new.

Co-options of pagan imagery and doctrine within the Christian cult were common and fundamental in the doctrine. Jesus as Apollo, Mary as Isis, the stories are as old as time and Jesus and Mary simply a modern name for an ancient concept.

Almost everything we enjoy about Christmas is a commercial, either stolen from an older religion or an actual advertisement selling a product.

The lighting of candles and decorated wreaths are a tradition from Roman times, and the laying of garlands over doorways is particularly pagan.

The Christmas Tree is stolen from ancient pagan traditions in Germany, imported to England by Queen Victoria’s German husband.

The gingerbred men, another manifestation of the ancient Roman tradition of human sacrifice. Man-shaped cookies and breads were popular fare during the Saturnalia.

Mistletoe is a Nordic symbol of the poison that was once used to kill the sacrificial victim of the Solstice festivities, and the tradition of kissing under it is likely a synthesis of the sexual license practiced during the holiday.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is the creation of an ad man for Montgomery Ward, used to at
tract more holiday sales.

The gift-giving aspects are older than the associations with St. Nicholas and even the gifts of the Magi, stemming again from the popular Roman custom of tribute paid to the Emperor and by slaves to their Masters. One aspect of Saturnalia turned the household upside down for a day (and later a week) requiring the masters to offer gifts up to their slaves and the slaves to send down mock punishments to their masters.

The red-suited Santa Claus is not the invention of Coca-Cola, although the company’s famous advertisements did much to popularize a singular image of the man. Santa himself is an amalgam of the Turkish St. Nicholas, the Dutch Sinterklaas, the German Christkindlein, and a host of imagery from across Europe and even modern American poets: the sleigh, the reindeer, the bag of presents, the Christmas Eve ride, coming down the chimney, and even the milk and cookies. Some of these elements are made from whole cloth while others are inherited from previous depictions of local gods, such as Woden who was known to have a long white beard and fly around the sky on a magical horse.

So the next time you hear that “Christmas is too commercial” you can laugh at the fool who doesn’t understand that it’s the sanctimonious and devout true believers that are spoiling the party for the rest of us, not the other way around. And don’t put up with their bullshit at Easter either. That’s another perfectly good Pagan ritual and orgy that’s being ruined by prudish church types trying to make us all feel bad about a little chocolate and nookie.

Caveat does a nice recap of several other dog blogs covering the issue with some advice thrown in. Raised By Wolves chimes in with an excellent bit of psychoanalysis of the people who buy dogs from store windows in malls. It’s well worth the long read. SmartDogs notices the trend and repeats the rules (no gift pets, no pet stores). Everyone’s favorite No Kill advocate, Nathan Winograd, exposes a few more myths about Christmas Pets. No Christmas Puppies is such a staple over at Pet Connection that they leave the category link up all year round.

And why not? The advice isn’t any different than the slew of posts last year:

The most popular Christmas meme was “Don’t buy Christmas Puppies!” Pet Connection ran a slew of posts on the topic: Holiday shopping season begins, and the puppy-millers are ready!, A pet is not a toy. A pet is not a toy. Rinse. Repeat., As another storm moves in, remember the puppy-mill dogs …, Christmas puppies: Testing my own advice, How to ‘save’ puppy-mill dogs: Don’t buy them, Christmas adoption bans; followed closely by Lassie Get Help: A dog is not a toy. Also: puppy mills suck.; Champlain Valley Pug Rescue tells us Why puppies should not be given as Christmas presents.; Lexiann at Favorite Pets questioned Puppies as Christmas Presents; The Bark Magazine blog agreed: Santa says: Adopt, Don’t Buy; and Johann the Dog kicked the trend off early: How much is that doggie in the window? And who could forget PeTA and their “Adopt, Never Buy” campaign.

That’s a lot of attention given to Christmas Puppies. Keeping that in mind, take a stab at the following questions:

• There are more {Dogs or Cats} as pets in America
• More households have {Dogs or Cats} as pets
• Pets given as gifts are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs purchased at pet stores are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs born in the owner’s home are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs adopted from a shelter are {More or Less} likely to end up back in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for under $30 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for over $100 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter

Rank the following sources of pets from where you believe most pets come from to the fewest number of pets come from:

Animal Shelter
Breeder
Friend/Family
Gift
Newspaper/Private Party
Pet Store
Puppy/Kitten from Own Pet
Stray
Veterinarian
Other

Now what do you suppose the facts on the ground would be to justify the “No Christmas Puppies,” “Adopt, Don’t Buy,” and “Don’t give an animal as a gift” messages?

It would be logical to assume that (1) Puppies are a larger problem than Kittens (both in numbers and in propensity to buy on a whim), as you don’t hear much at all about “No Christmas Kittens.” It would be logical to assume that (2) Giving a pet as a gift makes that pet more likely to be relinquished to a shelter. It would be logical to assume that (3) Pet store puppies are more likely to end up in shelters. It would be logical to assume that (4) a large percentage of people buy pets at Pet Stores. It would be logical to assume that (5) people who buy pets for money do more harm than good. It would be logical to assume that (6) people who buy pets from breeders or private parties are more likely to relinquish their pets than people who adopted them from shelters.

It would also be logical to assume that Gifts and Pet Stores are popular means of acquiring puppies.

All those assumptions are wrong. Just like you were once duped into thinking that there were flying reindeer–at least one with a radioactive glowing nose, an immortal fat old philanthropist, and the birthday of Jesus, if you believed any one of those assumptions above, you’ve been just as duped.

There are more Cats as pets in America. In 2001 there were an estimated 68.9 million cats and 61.6 million dogs as pets. Cats are also more likely to be acquired on a whim than dogs (more on that later).

Although, more households have Dogs as pets. In the same survey, 36.1% of US households had at least one dog (1.6 average) and 31.6% of housholds had at least one cat (2.1 average); another survey found that in 2000, 39% of homes had dogs and 34% had cats. AVMA Survey, 1997, 2002; APPMA Survey 2002.

Pets given as gifts are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs purchased at pet stores are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs born in the owner’s home are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs adopted from a shelter are More likely to end up back in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for under $30 are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for over $100 are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Pets given as Gifts account for only 7% of acquired dogs and only 8% of dogs are bought at Pet Stores. The most common source of dogs is from Friends and Family at 34%.

onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_-GbegCZNlt8/R4QYQL4d7nI/AAAAAAAAAVc/oVGxLcPcl-M/s1600-h/10a_risk.factors.dog.relinquishment.gif">

As Table 10a shows, the data collected by Patronek et al (1996a) refute at least one cherished belief (that dogs received as gifts or from pet stores are more likely to be given up) and confirm a number of others (that age is an important factor in relinquishment of dogs).

The shelter community needs to be concerned that dogs acquired from their facilities are more likely to be relinquished and should emphasize the importance of pet care-givers establishing strong relationships with a veterinarian (their “other family doctor”).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

As much as these bloggers mean well and their posts do shed critical light on the abomination that is the puppy mill industry, they’re barking up the wrong tree and smearing breeders right along with puppy mills. The message about puppy mills has obviously gotten through, and there’s only 8% more of the market that needs to be taken away from them before they’ll be a memory. But it’s apparently true that puppy mills do a better job of producing pets people keep than breeders of all merit and shelters when those are lumped together.

It also is pretty damning that equal numbers of people adopt from shelters and take in strays; yet, the dogs adopted at shelters are twice as likely to end up back in the shelter than the dogs taken in as strays. And shelter dogs fare worse than any other source, even free dogs.

The slandering against the puppy mills has splashed on to all breeders. And not one of those bloggers who railed against pet stores and gift puppies acknowledged that both of those factors actually keep pets in homes MORE than any other source. It’s confusing, it’s mind blowing, but it turns out that gift pets and pet store pets are the MOST likely to stay in homes and pets adopted by people who care so much that they “rescue” from shelters end up going back to shelters more than any other source.

And how about this for mind blowing, if you visit a vet with your dog AT LEAST ONCE, you decrease your chance of abandoning your pet by 86%. Take your pet to the vet at least once per year and halve your remaining chance. Twice or more per year, halve that chance again!

The relinquishment rate being so high for newborn puppies speaks again to the need for expanding the spay/neuter message even though 70% of dogs are already desexed. What else than ooops! pregnancies can account for all of those relinquished puppies and kittens and the largest source of dogs being what I can only imagine are ooops! litters from friends and family.

If you are a breeder, the most important benchmark of the ethics of you being one is your ability to sell the puppies you create. If you can’t sell puppies you are not a breeder, or at best a failed one. If you have to give puppies away to free or dump them in shelters, you are a failure.

The above chart is interesting. Very interesting. Most dogs and cats are acquired for little money from friends and family. The acquisition of dogs is also more likely to be planned than on a whim, which is not true for Cats. More cats are acquired on a whim than planned:

Pet care-givers acquire dogs and cats from a variety of sources. These sources are believed to play an integral role in pet population problems. According to the APPMA National Pet Owners Survey, pets in 1998 were acquired as indicated in Table 7 (APPMA 2000, 2002). Use of those sources marked with an asterisk indicates that some forethought and planning usually went into the acquisition of the pet.

The total percentage of dogs acquired from such sources is 74 (or about 48 percent of the identified sources); the total percentage of cats acquired from these sources is 38 (or about 29 percent of the identified sources). This indicates that cats are more likely to be acquired on a whim.

Other surveys have shown similar differences between the sources of dogs and cats. Nassar, Mosier, and Williams (1984) found that in Las Vegas cats (24.5 percent) were much more likely to be acquired from the stray population than dogs (8 percent), but only 9 percent of cats were purchased compared with 26 percent of dogs. In Massachusetts 71 percent of pet care-givers had planned to acquire their dogs, going to such sources as breeders (33 percent), shelters (16 percent), and pet stores (7 percent) (MSPCA 1996).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

So there you go. Data found on the HSUS website speaks volumes to myths that people believe: That shelters do a good job at keeping pets in homes with their careful selection programs and temperament tests. Turns out that random loose dogs taken in off the street are twice as likely to stay in that home. That buying dogs is less ethical than adopting them, turns out that buying dogs even at pet stores is more successful than adopting them or getting them free from friends and family. That puppy mill and gift pets are the most likely to be abandoned. Turns out that they’re not.

Go figure.

Well, I’m here to help. To save your Thanksgiving and what little dignity you have left, TURN OFF THE POWER to the oven. This will kill the current to the lock solenoid that is keeping your door shut against your will and will allow you to open your door presto.

You can either make a mess of your kitchen pulling it out from the wall to unplug it, revealing all the dust bunnies, dog food, plastic bag ties and new biological life forms growing under your stove, displacing the gravy and mashed potatoes cooking on the top burners…. or you can go to your breaker box and cut the power to your 220V kitchen appliances (if your breaker is unlabeled… 220V are the big switches, not the small ones for regular outlets. You’ll probably see three sizes… the small switches, big switches, and the master bar that turns off the whole box. Go for the big switches).

Give it 10 minutes if it doesn’t open at first, your oven might have a backup battery as a safety feature. If this doesn’t work, go out for Chinese as you’ll have to dismantle your stove to get it open. And be sure to book an appointment with the neighborhood twelve-year-old to come over and reset your clocks so they don’t flash 12:00 all year.

Now, how would one get themselves into a Turkey hostage crisis, you ask? Well, perhaps you thought you’d start Thanksgiving with a clean oven and you let your self-cleaning oven clean itself and it didn’t let you open the door again in time to start your Turkey. Yeah, that takes hours and hours and hours and your oven won’t let you in until it’s nice and cold again. Who would have thought? You probably called Mom and decided to move Thanksgiving to her place or at least borrow her oven. Next time, go for a sponge and some elbow grease and about 5 minutes of work. It’s better for the environment and your electric bill to boot.

Perhaps you were so impressed last year with Alton Brown’s brine-your-bird method to produce moist and juicy turkey that you took his advice again this year, expanding your technique to include a 30 minute broil at 500°F. Perhaps you thought that the handy little door clasp was there to secure the door against heat loss, especially since you’re using a thermometer that snakes its way out of the door and sticks on the front of your oven.

And perhaps your oven interpreted the 500°F and the self-clean lock to mean that it needed to keep your oven closed until it cooled off, Turkey or no. And perhaps you didn’t realize this until the 30 minutes was up and your cold-on-the-inside, crispy-on-the-outside Turkey was ready for its “Turkey Triangle” breast plate of tin foil and a more moderate cooking temperature of 350°F.

And why would I know all about this? Oh, no reason, really.