Dog Bite Fever: Pit Bulls in the Media. The Animals. The owners. The Children.

I know I post all kinds of crazy things on here.  Today is no exception.  Apparently I like controversy, so I'm opening up a conversation with you about pit bulls.




Clearly this is a tragic situation.  The kid was very badly injured.

Some people think that the child is responsible for what happened, but the poor little guy is four.  Four year olds are not rational.  They're barely more than babies.  They learn a lot at that age, but they're also stubborn, willful little people who know a tiny amount of what they need to know to get by in life.  Bad things obviously happen to unattended four year olds.  But it's extremely easy to get distracted while preparing a snack, or the toddler could sneak off while you're in the bathroom.  And, let's face it, doggies are interesting for little people.  One minute, their just standing around, both of them minding their own business, the next the child's head is in the dog's mouth, and he's being shaken violently.  And this is a good kid, my kind of kid.  The kid that likes super heroes, especially Iron Man.  And now he's going to need surgery.

On the other side of this discussion are 50,000 people who have rallied to save the dog through a facebook page called "Save Mickey."  I looked for a Facebook group for people supporting the kid through his recovery and the series of plastic surgeries he will have to have, the one I found has only 130 supporters.  The dog was on a chain in its own yard.  Pit bulls are not an inherently bad breed of dog, though they are frequently mentioned in the media related to dog bite statistics and deaths.  They're big working class dogs, common in North America, and known for their stocky, muscular build.  I've known many pit bull owners over the years, none of whom has ever mentioned any incidents to me.  Anecdotally, one particular comrade of mine is a pit bull owner, and I know that animal to be a sweet creature.

But here are the facts:  Large breed dogs can do more damage than smaller dogs.  Don't believe me?  Look at lists of "dangerous dog breeds."  I'm not saying this particular list of breeds provides an accurate description of a dog's inherent temperament, but just looking at the dogs, what do they all have in common?  They're not small lap dogs.  The Chihuahua bites.  It can be mean spirited and rotten, right?  But it's not on this list, because it's a tiny little dog with a tiny little mouth that can't reach very far to bite you, and an adult human being can easily overpower it.  The dogs on this list, they're all big dogs.  It stands to reason that big dogs can do more damage to a person in a small amount of time even with a person resisting the damage than little dogs can do.  It's not because little dogs are better, or sweeter, or don't need to be socialized.

Pit bulls, along with other large breed dogs, have a lot of qualities that make an attack from them more dangerous.  They're muscular.  They have a lot of bite pressure.  They have a heavy body that can be used to knock people down, which is dangerous enough by itself when you're talking about an elderly person who can easily break a hip.  When a healthy person is prone, it's easier for an animal to get at the head and neck, which can lead to fatal attacks. 

Last year, there were 32 fatal dog attacks in the US.  By the same source, 78% of the animals involved were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.  Possible reasons for this:  they're large dogs that can do a lot of damage quickly, pit bulls are popular dogs in the US (with this source siting 5% or less of the US dog population), and it's not a breed so much as a fuzzy group of breeds, so it takes less genetic similarity to be considered a pit bull than it does for a dog to be considered (for example) a German Shepherd.  This source sites 56% of the fatalities last year as children under 7.  Sixty-one percent of these kids were four or younger, like Kevin.  Ninety-two percent of children who died in dog attacks last year were killed by pit bulls.

Here's a link to another dog bite fact sheet, but I'll go ahead and tell you what I found interesting from the statistics they've gathered as well.  92% of the animals involved (this list includes non lethal bites) are male dogs, 94% of which had not been neutered.  25% of the animals were chained.  Chains are not a good preventative measure against having your dog attack a child.  The insurance industry pays out over a billion dollars in damages because of this problem every  year.  Unattended newborns are 370 times more likely to be killed by a dog than an adult.  That is some really, really awful information there, and if you want to read the whole list, I encourage you to do it.

This source lists a resource for parents to teach their kids about safe dog handling, which is for kids from age 4-7.  We can't be sure that this would have prevented Kevin from having this problem, after all, he's four.  Kids at that age are very dangerous, not because they're bad or foolish, but because they're inexperienced and curious.

The dog fact sheet linked above has some suggestions for responsible pet ownership, and if you're a dog owner, I urge you to follow these directions.  Statistically, neutering your dog greatly reduces the risk of it biting a child.  Training and socialization are crucial elements of dog ownership.  Get your dog use to other dogs and people, and the world will be safer for it.  Good fences make good neighbors, keep your dog behind a fence.  Don't leave your dog on a chain.  Don't leave a baby alone with a dog.  Those are all really good suggestions.

I'd like to add, make yourself aware of animals living in your neighborhood, and assess yourself as a dog owner.  If you have a dog that shows aggression, please, take whatever steps are necessary to protect your neighbors.  Seriously.  Things are going to happen.  Knoxville has a map of places where dangerous dogs live, and it's because there are incidents.  I urge you to love the children who live in your neighborhood more than you love yourself or your dog.  There is absolutely no shame in doing the responsible thing in this situation, even if it is painful.

The point of all of this is not to disparage pit bulls or their owners (many of which are fine dogs owned by fine people), it is merely to provide relevant dog bite and fatality statistics and address the overwhelming majority of respondents to this case who rush to the aid of the dog to the exclusion of the child.  I've seen people expressing the concern that it's wrong to punish the dog for what it has done because it doesn't understand and isn't responsible for its actions.  Putting the dog down would not be a measure to punish the dog, it would be a measure to protect children who will eventually be exposed to the dog.  There is no malice or justice involved in this process, only a cautionary measure taken to prevent potential further incidents.  This is a dog that has killed another dog and injured a child severely.  I've heard people say there's no such thing as a bad dog, and maybe that's true, but I think there is such thing as a dangerous dog, and I think it's reasonable to say this particular dog has proven dangerous.  It should never be allowed near a child again.  If they can safely keep it penned at an animal sanctuary, good.  The safety of children should be the primary concern.

If you take nothing else away from having read this blog entry, remember that statistically, neutering your dog and keeping it behind a fence that will hold it rather than on a chain where children can walk up to it seems to dramatically decrease the odds that the dog will bite a child.  If everyone who keeps an unsupervised outdoor dog were to do these two things (neuter the dog and keep it behind a fence), I think dog related deaths would become much rarer.

If Kevin's story has touched you the way it touched me, or if you just feel like helping a kid in need, here are some ways you can help Kevin.  You can donate to his medical care fundraiser.   You can buy him some supplies for his hospital stay (things like Batman pajamas and tasty snacks to cheer him up) using his Amazon wish list.  Or, you could show support to the family by liking a Facebook page set up to support the child.  I chose to send the kid some oreos, some books, and a Superman cape, because he really is a super kid.

Happiness is a cold book.

Post by Game of Thrones.


The new trailer for A Game of Thrones series 4 looks amazing, I'm really looking forward to April.

In the meanwhile, I've just purchased Terry Pratchett's new book Raising Steam!  I'll let you know what I think of it soon.

Finally, A Worthwhile DC Title

Here's some background for people who don't know me personally.  I'm a pretty hardcore Marvel comics fan.  I don't do DC.  I use too, before the New 52 was a thing.  I was a pretty regular reader of Gotham City Sirens.  I loved that cast.  Catwoman, Harley, and Ivy.  All of them awesome, well developed female characters with flaws and interests.
And then the New 52 happened.  It completely reset that world I liked so much.  It infuriated me with new, more skimpy costumes for women.  Catwoman's actions didn't make any sense anymore, she just became this thrill seeking character with ridiculous scenes of Catwoman and Batman having rooftop liaisons and pouring diamonds over her breasts.  It just completely lost me.  I didn't want to read that even a little bit.  The friendships that won me over to GCS were gone overnight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the characters I liked were saintly in the first place.  Harley allows herself to be continuously abused.  Ivy drugs people with her plants.  Catwoman steals from rich people.  All three of them are criminally insane.  But they're awesome female villains, or they were before the New 52.
 I swore off DC.  After Harleygate,  I was so deeply disillusioned with DC comics as a company, I was pretty sure they were never getting my money again.
 Enter Injustice: Gods Among Us.  It's just a video game novelization, right?  I mean, it's not even canon.  It's a little pocket universe created for the purpose of making an interesting video game.  Maybe that's what DC needs to do.  Their characters and plots are so warped and twisted from the way they started, maybe they should just go ahead and throw any notion of canon out the window and just write a series of what if books.  Who would think that's a viable strategy to revitalize a project like this?
The thing Injustice Gods Among Us is most similar to so far, I think, is the Marvel Civil War arc.  Some people hate Civil War, but I love it.  It's high drama.  It tests relationships.  It forces characters to confront some of their issues.  It's fast paced and unafraid of applying preasure to the main characters by killing off major characters and fan favorites.  This series really condenses a lot of action and drama to each issue.
I love the way this series treats characters like Aquaman as and the Flash as the major players they were designed to be instead of demoting them to the back seat their characters frequently take.
I found myself riveted by interactions between characters who have never come across each other before.  Oddly enough, I came out of volume 1 shipping the Green Arrow with Harley Quinn.  OTP.
DC is still doing an awful job at the character design level when it comes to female costumes.  In this particular book, however, the actions of all my favorite characters are in line with who those characters are.
One of my favorite scenes, one that I think was very daring, was an accusation by Superman that Batman loved the Joker, that he kept him alive because he enjoyed their games.  The writing in that scene was so spot on, so true to the anger those characters felt towards one another.
I ate it up, and now I want to read some more.

The Ideal Relationship

One of my previous posts went into detail about some very messy fictional relationships that I think are better examples of romantic love than the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine in Wuthering Heights.  That's kind of like making a list of books that have more developed love stories than Twilight.  Wuthering Heights would be one of those, by the way.

It got me thinking about what my ideal relationship would be like.  And I think I know.  I'm certainly not looking for a relationship.  I have other goals, and not an excessive amount of interest.  But if I'm ever up to the challenge of falling in love again, I hope I find someone I can build a relationship with that works the way Gomez and Morticia Addams do.

I want a relationship of equals with someone who appreciates my zeal.



Someone who can tolerate my odd hobbies, and maybe even share them.



And I hope I find someone who enjoys my awkward dancing.



So, basically, I'm an eccentric romantic.  I'm definitely not looking for a relationship.  But for me, Morticia and Gomez have the perfect relationship.  They share a world view.  They have some interests they enjoy together, but then they each have their own hobbies they do alone (Morticia's gardening and knitting, Gomez's train set).  They care deeply about each other.  They each have their own agency, but they don't fight over details or belittle each other the way some sitcom families do (like the Munsters). 

I'm more of a Gomez than a Morticia.  I'm passionate and excitable more than graceful or demure.  I can be pretty, but I'm not about pretty.

So, while I appreciate the dark romantic stories of "The Phantom of the Opera" or "The Great Gatsby," I understand that those are not healthy relationships of equals, and if you're going to have a relationship, you should want a healthy relationship of equals.  I'll probably talk more about some relationships I like on another occasion.

Sebastian Stan to play Bucky Barnes for 9 movies

WARNING:  The following post may prove spoiler ridden for those of you who are not comic book readers.  This post includes information of a speculative nature.

Sebastian Stan has signed on to play James "Bucky" Barnes for 9 movies.  Interestingly, Chris Evans is signed to play Steve Rogers for 6 movies.  Lets' do some math.  Let's imagine that The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier count for two Bucky movies.  We know that three of Chris Evan's movies as Steve are The First Avenger, The Avengers, and The Winter Soldier.  We also know that Evans will play Rogers in The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron, and Captain America 3.  We don't know what other films Bucky is going to be in, only that there are five of them up in the air.  One could certainly be Captain America 3, another could be the Black Widow movie.

This leaves potential for Bucky to be in movies without Steve.  Now.  What is Bucky doing in movies without Steve?  Could we be moving on to Bucky Cap?  Will Bucky Barnes become Captain America?  Are we going to be seeing a Marvel Cinematic Universe Civil War arc?

If we are, it's possible things are going to go very differently.  Robert Downey Jr. is signed for Avengers 2 and 3, but not for an Iron Man 4.  It would be harder to set up Civil War without Tony gung ho for a registration act, and they would need a lead in for that, possibly using characters like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

Here's another interesting tidbit:  Tom Hiddleston is signed to play Loki for five movies.  We've seen three of them, Thor, The Dark World, and The Avengers.  He could be convinced to do more movies, but for the contract he has, that's two more appearances of Hiddleston Loki.  Remember that Loki could easily become Lady Loki in a future title, or even Kid Loki.  Chris Hemsworth is signed for Thor 3 and Age of Ultron.  I've seen some speculation that Thor 3 could involve Surtur, which would lead to some interesting storyline developments for Loki.


All of this, of course, could be impacted by salary disputes by the talent involved.  We shall, of course, see.


But I'm thinking Civil War, and very likely Bucky Cap there after.

Thanks for being there for me, T-Pain.

This is probably the most ridiculous blog post you'll read today, but hear me out.  Sometimes I get low.  Sometimes I make mistakes, like reading Wuthering Heights for fun.  Sometimes I have trouble finding a job, get lost downtown looking for a trolley stop, and walk around in circles with only my own foul mood to keep me company.  Sometimes I miss people I don't know anymore, and sometimes I miss the me I use to be.

When times get rough, I take a little advice from my buddy T-Pain, who reminds me to snap my fingers and do my step, because I can do it all by myself.

I know that's not what he means in his hit song "Buy U A Drank (Shawty Snappin')."  But I think what matters is the impact the words have on me.  It's one of those communications principles, the message that is received is just as important as the one sent.

And for me, "Buy U a Drank" isn't about getting drunk and having fun, it's about getting up when you're low.  "Snap yo fingers, do your step, you can do it all by yourself," becomes an almost literal benediction for me.  "Let's get gone, walk it out, just like that that's what I'm talking about," are like words of encouragement for my progress.

All the rest of the lyrics are completely lost on me, meaningless.  I don't drink or enjoy a party lifestyle, so all of that is irrelevant to me.

As ridiculous as it may sound, "Buy U A Drank" only speaks to me on a spiritual level.  He reminds me, oh, yeah, I can do this.  I do have money in the bank.  I'm just going to snap my fingers, do my step, and do this all by myself.

So, thanks, T-Pain.  You've really helped me out.

...but have not love...

I had a conversation the other day about something rather nerdy.  I'd mentioned Wuthering Heights, and a comparison was made between Heathcliff and Loki in the Avengers movies.

They are comparable.  They're both regrettable foundlings.  They both ruin the lives of the families who take them in.  But I think there's a huge difference, the thing that I think makes one more insidious to me than the other.  You may not agree with me when I say that I think Heathcliff has the blacker heart, but here's my reasoning.

My perception here is that Heathcliff's motive doesn't really hold up.  When you love someone, and I mean actually love someone, you care more about that person's happiness than your own.  Sure, you fight to the greatest of your ability to make the relationship work.  Real love is worth fighting for.  But the things you should be fighting are things like poverty and expectation.  You should never be fighting the other person.

I guess the real comparison I want to make is between Heathcliff and Jay Gatsby from the Great Gatsby.  What Gatsby does is essentially the same as what Heathcliff tries to do.  Heathcliff and Gatsby go out and try to make their fortunes to become better contenders for Cathy and Daisy's hearts.  The difference is that while Gatsby's only aim is to win Daisy back, Heathcliff is possessed by rage and desire for vengeance.  He wants to punish everyone in reach for a few lost years, even and especially people who had nothing to do with it.  He even goes so far as to punish Cathy.

Gatsby makes a different decision.  The way I read it, and this is somewhat interpreted, Gatsby takes the fall for Daisy when she hits a woman with Gatsby's car.  Gatsby's pain and death were irrelevant, because Daisy would live.  Love isn't about winning

The whole premise of the book is that Heathcliff is driven by two things: his love for Catherine, and his desire for revenge against the people who kept them apart.  He chooses hate, pain, and death over the person he's meant to love.  He destroys her and her family, all because of his own selfishness.  Love is not a word that describes that action.

Half Heathcliff's motivation evaporates without love behind it, and all that's left is ugliness.  He's got the dark passions of some of the best tragic love stories, but he hasn't even got the Phantom of the Opera's heart.  Erik lets Christine go, he spares Raoul, he rejects his own jealous possessive nature because when you love someone, you have to want what will make them happy.  Erik is evil and he still gets this right by the end.  Real love inevitably causes pain, but real love cannot corrupt your heart to hate.  Hate is all Heathcliff's heart seemed able to do without Catherine.

There's certainly a parallel with Loki.  They're both found, taken in, and treated as though they are less than the rest of their families.  They're both alienated and dehumanized.  They're both obsessed with their foster sibling.  They both do irreparable harm.  There the similarities end.

I don't buy that Loki's crimes are done in the same state of mind.  Loki is not a human being, nor is he Asgardian.  He's a Joten, a creature known for its treachery and malice.  For a frost giant, Loki is remarkably restrained.  He also had no inkling of the fact he was adopted or that he wasn't Asgardian until he was an adult, which makes him question his entire belief system.  During his time fighting the Avengers in that film, he is being manipulated by the cosmic cube and strong armed by an alien race.  His actions in Thor:  The Dark World are less defensible, but still, Loki sees himself as a foreign prisoner denied justice.  And, given many excellent opportunities to kill Thor, Loki has yet to do it.  Movie universe Loki, anyway.

I don't think Loki is really driven by hate at all.  He's driven by a desire to prove himself, certainly, and envy of his brother.  To quote the man himself, "I only ever wanted to be your equal."  He's driven by desire for power.  He's certainly suffering from some mental illness.  But he doesn't hate Thor in any way that counts.  He'll hurt him, he'll side against him, he'll break his brother's toys in a tantrum.  When it comes down to it, though, when all is said and done, Thor is alive, and the only good reason is because Loki still loves him.

So, the conclusion I come to is that Loki isn't as detestable as Heathcliff.