How Jon Snow Never Met His Mother

The following post is of a speculative nature.  Spoilers are contained within.  Reader discretion is advised.  Some of these realizations I had on my own, and some of these I've read other people hash out in comments and wikipedia articles across the internet.  These are very commonly held theories.  If I get any facts wrong, please correct me in the comments.  Is everyone who worries about spoilers and theories gone now?  Nope?  Need to do a few more lines of text so that Google + doesn't put spoilers in the preview?  Okay, we can do that.

So, for my Mother's Day special, I thought I'd talk about the most elusive mother in the Game of Thrones franchise:  Jon Snow's mother.  Ned Stark, bless his heart, promised to tell Jon about his mother next time he saw him, and then promptly died in King's Landing, never seeing his alleged bastard again.

Jon Snow was conceived during Robert's Rebellion, and Ned brought him home afterward, never having told his wife who his mother was.  We assume he was brought home from Dorne, and that was likely where Jon was born, but that doesn't necessarily mean his mother was Dornish.

Wylla, the name Ned gives Robert Baratheon, would be too easy.  If that had been the truth, Ned could have just told Jon that name in that moment.  She was of no consequence.  There would have been nothing to stop him.  I don't think of Ned as a man who embarrasses easily.  He's a stoic silent type, sure, but I don't believe it's because he's so ashamed of his sins that he can't talk to his own son about them.

A more interesting theory is Ashara Dayne.  The reason I sat down to write this blog post today is that something Oberyn Martell said on the show a few weeks ago kind of set off some alarm bells in my head. "We don't despise them in Dorne," Prince Oberyn said.  His paramour Ellaria Sand is a bastard.  He has eight bastard daughters.  Ashara Dayne was from Dorne, and the Daynes were a family of consequence.  If Jon Snow were a Dornish bastard, Ned would never have taken him from Dorne, because Dornish customs would have given him some advantages he wouldn't have in the other six kingdoms.  Being a bastard is not considered a dishonor there, even though it's colored that way through Westerosi eyes.  Ashara allegedly had a stillborn girl at around this time, which would make the times match up with Jon's birth, but even this could have been completely made up, and even if it weren't, there were many other potential fathers for her child at Harrenhal.  Why would they make up a dead daughter to hide a relationship with Jon Snow?  Even with the circumstances of Ashara's death by suicide following the death of her brother and of Elia Martell, Jon would have been better off with the remaining Daynes, and Ned was pragmatic enough to see that.  And while we're on the topic of Elia Martell, here's an interesting thing to note:  Ashara was close to Princess Elia.  She was her handmaiden, they spent a lot of time together.  Ashara's brother was a member of the King's Guard, serving Rhaegar Targaryen to his last breath.  They were well connected to the royal family, and probably knew a lot more about what was going on than Ned did.

The most persuasive theory remains that Lyanna Stark is Jon Snow's mother.  The best evidence for me is Ned's continuous remembrances of his sister pleading with him to promise her something.  Ned doesn't even dare to think about what that something was, least the readers hear his thoughts and tell Robert Baratheon the truth.  Rhaegar Targaryen famously spirited away Ned Stark's sister, and that was King Robert's motive for Robert's Rebellion, as she was promised to Robert, and he was infatuated with her.  Rhaegar Targaryen's interest seemed to begin at the tournament at Harrenhal, where Lyanna is crowned the Queen of Love and Beauty, and she at the least was moved by his musical skill.  Later, she was taken away the the Tower of Joy, where she was inevitably found soaked in blood in bed, begging Ned for something.  Oh, what could it be?

Elia, Rhaegar Tagaryen's wife, had just been raped and murdered for her marriage to Rhaegar Targaryen.  Her children had been slaughtered like animals by the Mountain.  I agree with the general impression that the thing Lyanna Stark begged for was Jon's life.  If Robert Baratheon knew Jon Snow was Rhaegar Targaryen's son, he would be in danger, because he was a potential heir to the throne.  It would make sense that Eddard Stark wouldn't want to talk to Robert about Jon.  It would make sense that Ned would lie to Robert to protect Jon.  Wylla was an easy name to give, she was a lowborn woman of little consequence, much like the mothers of Robert's bastards.  Wylla may have even been Jon's wet nurse, it would make sense for Ned to name her.  It would even have made sense for Wylla to lie about Jon to others, because if she were his wet nurse she might have gotten attached to him and wanted him to live.  Wylla may have been present at the tower of Joy, she may have known the truth about him and been part of the conspiracy.

I also believe that Elia Martell was in on the conspiracy, partly because of Daenyrs Targaryen's visions in the house of the undying.  Elia could have no more than two children, and Rhaegar believed his children were part of a prophecy that he believed required one more child.  Metaphorically speaking, the dragon must have three heads.  I believe Elia was aware of his intention of having another child, and knowing the Dornish view on bastards and the behavior displayed by her brother, Oberyn Martell, I believe she supported Rhaegar's decision.

My top ten favorite movies of all time.

I keep changing my list, so I may look at this later and think, 'How could I leave out ______?'

But for this particular moment, this is it.  The big list.  The top ten all time best films ever.  For favorite franchises, I'm going to give only one film a spot instead of having my top ten list be composed of (for example) nine Avengers movies and Jurassic Park.  There are no artsy superior films here, only ten movies I would happily watch again today.

 10.)  Airplane!  This is probably the funniest movie ever made, but then I'm a woman who likes puns and wordplay.  I laugh my head off every time I see this movie, and I've probably seen it a dozen times.

9.)  Labyrinth:  Every movie on this list is extremely nerdy.  I don't like chick flicks or historical dramas or most slapstick comedies.  I prefer fantasy and science fiction films.  Labyrinth is probably the nerdiest movie on this list.  It appeals to me on so many levels.  David Bowie was born to be a magical dancing goblin king, it was the most logical casting choice of all time.  Jim Henson really showed the strength of puppetry as an art with his work on this film.  The movie is full of memorable songs, distinct puppet characters, and unique writing.

8.)   The Lord of the Rings the Two Towers:  So far, this franchise has five drastically different movies.  Of those five, the Two Towers is my favorite.  These five films are all very visually compelling, exciting, humorous movies.  The Two Towers stands out with its darker tones, its critical character development for Aragorn and Gandalf, and its gorgeous soundtrack.

7.)  Star Trek:  The first film of the recent series really brought the appeal of this 60's franchise into focus.  I'm a diehard Star Wars fan raised by diehard Star Wars fans, and so I went into that experience with certain prejudices.  That first film really changed my perspective on Star Trek, and now I like Star Trek as a franchise more than Star Wars.

6.)  The Empire Strikes Back:  I have such a love hate relationship with Star Wars.  There are parts of this franchise that are just irredeemably terrible, and parts that I remember with fondness.  The things I love most about the series are all from the original trilogy.  The Empire Strikes back is the strongest film of the three, with its compelling love story, Luke's loss of innocence, and great new characters and locations.  It's hard to be a Star Wars fan and not also a fan of Boba Fett.

5.)  The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra:  This 50's horror movie spoof is hilarious and very quotable.  The endearing thing about this film is its ridiculousness.  It is intentionally campy and poorly written in the most clever way.  This film was available on Netflix last time I looked.

4.)  Captain America the Winter Soldier:  This was a close race, because I loved Thor the Dark World so much, with all its twists and turns and that superb Tom Hiddleston acting.  This film, though, was a game changer.  I won't spoil the film because it's still in theaters and I want everyone to enjoy it the same way I did, but it was a very impressive film.

3.)  Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest:  The second installment of the Pirates franchise introduces Davy Jones and Tia Dalma, who play large roles in the mythology of the series. "What would any of you do? Would you sail to the ends of the earth and back to fetch back witty Jack, and him precious Pearl?"  This series is one of my favorites, although that is a controversial opinion.  I've heard many people express a general opinion that the films aren't any good, that they're too goofy, or even that they get progressively worse over time.  I like them, though, even if they are maybe a little campy or even sometimes bad.  I like the humor, the characters, and the strange mythology involved.  The movie industry doesn't make enough good pirate movies in my opinion.  I would pay serious dollar bills to see a good adaptation of the "Monkey Island" video game series.

2.)  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2:  This film wrapped up the Harry Potter series with a bang.  The final installment revealed critical details about the life of double agent Severus Snape, who is my favorite character from the series.  I made it all the way through that whole film series without crying until I got to that horrible, devastated facial expression Alan Rickman made during the flashback sequence at the end of the movie.  After that there was no holding back that dam.  It's hard to pick a favorite out of a series with eight films, but this one really captured some of my favorite elements from the books.  One of my favorite scenes in the film is the one where Luna Lovegood told Harry off for failing to listen to her, because it was so unexpected.

1.)  Jurassic Park:  This is one of my favorite movies of all time, because it's a monster movie about people getting eaten and I still remember the names of all the major characters.  This film is very, very quotable.  "Nah-ah-ah, you didn't say the magic word!"  "I'm going to run you over on the way back down!"  "Clever girl."  "What do you call a blind dinosaur?"  "When you've got to go, you've got to go."  I could quote most of this movie verbatim, because I've seen it an enormous number of times.  This is the movie I watch to cheer myself up when I'm sick.  My favorite ride at Universal is the Jurassic Park ride.  I liked hanging out in the replica of the Jurassic Park main building more than I liked "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter."  I'm not as into the sequels, but I'm excited about the new upcoming film "Jurassic World."

That's my list.  Honorable mentions include "The Last Unicorn," "The Princess Bride," "Oz the Great and Powerful," "Batman Returns," and many others.

Why yes, I sass that hoopy frood, and he does indeed know where his towel is.

I'm rereading the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was among my favorite books from my youth.  So far, it's been very worthwhile.  I'm relating to Arthur Dent much more as a neurotic adult than I did as a neurotic teenager.  I remembered the book as very humorous and rich, and I was not mistaken.  I've read about five chapters aloud to my nephew, and he seems to be enjoying it.

I didn't remember how much alcohol is in this book.  I was a little surprised.

Anyway, I haven't read quite enough to discuss it in more detail.  I will say that I love the clever tone of the book, and yes I do in fact sass that hoopy frood.

Day three... Why Pit Bulls?

I'm the sort of person that when I find a problem, I have to chew on it for a little while.  I'm still not over the idea that 58,000 people feel so strongly about a dog that mauled a little boy that they'd go like a Facebook page set up for the dog and not the child.  I can understand dog lovers wanting mercy for the 2.7 million animals put down every year due to overpopulation.  This dog would not be my priority to save when so many animals that have never caused anyone harm are destined to die.  When a story like this really catches my attention, I run down every lead I can find to get at the truth. 

In this case, I'm talking about the much maligned pit bulls. There are advocacy groups on both sides that make unbiased information virtually impossible to find by clogging up Google searches and setting up dozens of web pages that either sugar coat the situation or try to frighten the browser with anecdotes.

It's very difficult to find reasonable explanations as to why 5% of the US dog population is caught up in 78% of last year's dog bite fatalities, and why sometimes when bad things happen, people rally around dogs rather than pitying the families involved.

I'm not a strong believer in the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan, but I'm quickly becoming somewhat hard pressed for answers.  He defends pit bulls, and is quick to point out that the dogs that bite him the most frequently are chihuahuas.  That statement is inherently flawed, because the dog's temperament has very little to do with its fatality rates.

 The chihuahua is what Eddie Izzard would call a  "small yapper type dog."  I tried to find some actual evidence that a chihuahua has ever been involved in a dog bite fatality.  There is at least one Wikianswers post that says it happened one time, but then I couldn't find a credible news source or any real life statistics that show a chihuahua has ever killed a person.  There are plenty of news stories about a person being bitten or even viciously attacked by chihuahuas, but I think a dog that small has a very difficult time killing even a small person.  It'd be like someone coming after you trying to drown you with only a teaspoon of water.  It's allegedly possible, but it's probably pretty difficult.

I did find a couple of news stories about small dogs killing infants, including a Jack Russell terrier killing a baby, which is horrible.  It is possible for things like this to happen, especially to a newborn left unattended.  As I mentioned in another post, newborns are 370 times more likely to die of dog bite related injuries than adults.  Infants are very easy for an animal to kill.  In fact, I was able to find instances of babies being killed by ferrets.  Leaving a baby alone with any animal is not a good idea.  It's difficult to find statistics on things like how many babies have ever been killed by dogs weighing less than 20 pounds, or how many people have ever been killed by ferrets.  Those sorts of things don't happen often enough that people think to keep statistics on them.  Most of the headlines I found about ferrets or small dogs killing babies were a few years old.  Instances resulting in death are infrequent.

Going back to what Cesar Millan said about the number of times he was bitten by chihuahuas, that might be an indication of aggression.  Indeed, pit bulls perform well in tests that determine aggression.  But aggression is not necessarily an indicator of whether the dog will cause a fatality, as you will see in this case.  The family owned the dog for eight years without ever having a problem, and suddenly the dog killed their two year old son.  An aggression test was given to the dog after the incident, and the dog passed.  Here's another dog, this dog was adopted 24 hours before he attacked his owner.  This is a dog that passed temperament tests very soon before being involved in an incident.  That indicates to me that there's more to fatalities than simple aggression.  Notably though not damningly, both of these dogs were pit bulls.

In one of my previous posts, I mentioned that 78% of all dog bite fatalities last year were from pit bulls or pit bull mixes, but why?  Let's look at exactly what a pit bull is.  The Wikipedia says that pit bull is a generic term based on physical characteristics.  The wikipedia even goes on to say that the same pit bull can be registered in two different breed organizations as two different breeds of dog, the Pit Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  When is a pit bull not a pit bull?  Apparently while it's also a pit bull.  There's also the breed called American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is apparently also a pit bull.  The wikipedia lumps in mixes of those three breeds as pit bulls.

But the Wikipedia goes on to say "visual identification of mixed breed dogs is not recommended by the scholarly community."  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  Pit bull is a generic term for a dog with a certain appearance, but you're not suppose to use that term to describe the dog's appearance if you don't already know by some other means that the animal is a pit bull?  This is the dumbest academic argument I've ever read.

I've seen a lot of youtube comments that claim many dogs involved in fatalities reported by the media are not real pit bulls.  But what even is a real pit bull if we're talking about three fast and loose breeds of dogs and all mixed breeds that spring from them?  It's hard for me to buy the "that's not a real pit bull" argument when there isn't really a solid definition of what a pit bull is.  If pit bull isn't a breed of dog, it's a way a dog looks, why are we debating whether or not the animal should be considered a pit bull if it looks like a pit bull?  Does every dog involved in a fatality have to be AKC registered before we can consider the statistics involved relevant?


It's becoming clear to me now that passions are high on both sides of the argument, between people who feel strongly about dog bite fatalities (and luckily in Kevin Vincente's case, only very severe injuries) and people who see mentioning the breed of the dog involved in the case as an accusation of all dogs of that general amorphous shape (as pit bull is not a breed of dog).  That is an exhausting sentence, which reflects an exhausting situation.

On one end of this debate (that really shouldn't be much of a debate) are people like Millan, who believe that any dog can be rehabilitated.  Millan is not, by the way, without his detractors.  On the other end, there are people who believe pit bulls are universally vicious.  And on both sides of this argument there are the families of the victims, some of which were pit bull owners themselves.

After days of study, I'm beginning to believe there is no understanding, and that the pit bull is a mythological creature.

Regardless of what the truth about pit bulls is, I disagree with Millan on one important point.  I believe that because dogs are animals and not automatons, they can snap suddenly even with intense training.  I think it just happens.  I think dogs have thoughts and feelings, and for whatever reason, whether it's the dog's temperament or a tooth ache or a fit of jealous rage, sometimes dogs just flip out.  Sometimes it's a dog that has a rocky past, sometimes it's a dog that has never been mistreated and has always been a member of the family.

I've seen so many families in past news reports over the last few days in shock over what their own dog did, to themselves, to their children, or to a passer by.  These are trusted family dogs that just suddenly lose it.

Another layer to this problem, as I see it, is the tendency in dog owners, breeders, and people writing about dogs to believe all dogs of a certain breed have certain personality traits.  Let me give you an example, this is from the Wikipedia page for the Bedlington Terrier:

Their courage has been compared to a bulldog's, and some dogs have extinguished candles at the request of their owner. They are also known for their intelligence and tenacity when it comes to taking on vermin. Bedlingtons are quite fond of fighting, and are prone to jealousy when around other dogs. One dog would become so jealous when around other dogs that he would grab them by the throat and attempt to kill them. One man stated that "this dog was about fit to kill any other dog of his weight" and compared him to the fighting dogs used in dog fighting. They have also been used in pit fighting.
However, both the AKC and the ASPCA call the breed "mild" and "gentle" and recommends it as being good with children. PetFinder says the breed is soft in temperament, companionable, demonstrative, loyal, and a quiet housedog. Although the breed may chase small animals outside, it is accepting of them inside. Playful and cheerful, the breed can be high-strung and excitable, and is prone to being headstrong. The New Zealand Kennel Club warns against keeping them with dogs that have dominate personalities, "as once challenged they are terrifying fighters, despite their gentle appearance", but otherwise the breed is good with other dogs.

That grouping of information has the same kind of nonsensical vagueness and lack of cohesion as astrology.  The dog is both good with other dogs and terribly jealous and aggressive with other dogs.  It's mild and gentle but it can kill practically any other dogs in the same weight.

What this all makes me think is that we have a tendency to assign personality traits to dogs based on anecdotal evidence, and those personality traits become a fixture of how the animal is perceived even when the combined traits don't make any sense taken together, and any one dog is prone to vary wildly from the standard. Whole breeds of dogs are stereotyped and then when the dog doesn't act the way it's suppose to, he's a special snowflake. That explains some of the fear and also some of the romanticism involved in the ownership of any breed.

The conclusion I've come to is that I am opposed to BSL (breed specific legislation) not because I think pit bulls are universally safe, but because I know fits of extreme violence against people are rare in comparison to the number of pit bulls there are living in this country.  The American Humane Society is against it.  I've come to feel that dogs are like people in the respect that you can't generalize that all dogs of a certain type or breed are any certain way in terms of personality.  If pit bulls didn't exist, I think some of the bad pet owners who cause at least a few of the horrifying situations I've been made aware of over the last few days would go buy another big scary looking dog.  If it wasn't the pit bull, it might be the rottweiler, the doberman, or the boxer that would become the most common assailant.

Pit bulls are certainly more dangerous than chihuahuas, and I'm not in a hurry to rush out and buy one for a child under seven.  Regardless of whether you own a pit bull, you should know that chained dogs are involved in 25% of all dog bite incidents.  In fatal instances, 24% of the time the dogs were unrestrained and off their property.  These are things we know, if you have a fence that will hold your dog in and hold children out, your dog will be less likely to kill someone else's child.  Of fatal attacks, 92% are done by male dogs, 96% of which are not neutered.  If you neuter your dog it lowers the odds it will be involved in a fatality.  Where dogs are concerned, this is where the focus should be.

Most of the focus, however, should be on survivors like little Kevin Vincente, victims who've lost their lives, and families who pick up the pieces.

If you need to be reminded why people love dogs after all that, and if you've made it this far, I'm sure you will, here's a Youtube playlist.  These are videos of real life heroes who happen to be dogs, a few of which are pit bulls.

Update on Kevin, the victim in the dog bite incident.

Reports are saying the boy lost most of his teeth and is unable to open one of his eyes.  58,000 people have joined the Save Mickey group to support the dog.  Only 134 people have joined Unbiased Support for Kevin Vincente.  It's just so wrong to me that this dog has more people pulling for it than this great kid who is shown here hiding his face from the camera.  It breaks my heart.  No child should ever have to feel like that.

I don't care about the dog.  Put the dog in a rescue where he won't be exposed to children, and I won't care what you do with him.  Or euthanize him, it won't hurt my feelings. 

Whatever is done with the dog, somebody should do something for this kid.  Show this kid you love him, that the dog isn't more important than he is.  Show him he can go on like this, and that people will still love him no matter what he looks like.  He has no one here but his mother and his big brother, who is only a year older than him.  His grandma is in Guatemala, she can't come hug him and make him feel good. 

It's just so wrong that this kid has so much surgery ahead of him, and he'll have scars and damage the rest of his life, and people aren't showing him the same support they're showing the dog that disfigured him.  Ugh.  I just don't understand that.  I don't understand that people can raise thousands of dollars to defend a dog in court, and they're not doing as much as they could be doing to help this family pay its medical bills.  This kid is four, and people are resorting to name calling and trying to rally against the baby sitter who is at this point irrelevant.  The concern here should be about helping this kid and his mom.

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.