Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

Don - apologies for the bold all-caps post, this is an artifact of the posting algorithm (I was prompted me to edit down the word count of my intended posting - when I did so and hit "post reply" the wordage was presented in bold/all-caps).
— January 2, 2015 12:24 p.m.

Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

Don, it's not hard to play Tom McCartney's game, here are two recent articles that negate the breed specific legislation he promotes - it would be nothing more than an exercise in time (wasted time?) to rebut and negate his various Facebook postings, but, as the articles below suggest, it would be redundant to do so, the tide is starting to turn against him - he has earned a infamous reputation on the internet as a pit-bull hating zealot on a crusade, to characterize him as a fanatic would be an understatement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- November 18, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- November 25, 2014: http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/20…
— January 2, 2015 12:18 p.m.

Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

Studies conducted by reputable/credible/cited and provided sources have been dismissed by Don with a ad-hominem response. My long held respect and regard, toward Don's journalistic objectivity, has diminished accordingly.
— January 2, 2015 2:42 a.m.

Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

Don, to further your familiarity with information on dog bite injuries/fatalities, their relationship or lack thereof with respect to dog breed, the relative success/failure and consequences of breed-specific vs breed-neutral legislation, I am recommending you read the following two reports which reference numerous knowledgeable/credible sources. I would ask that you attempt to judge their methods/conclusions/soundness/recommendations on underlying merit and give them equal opportunity to persuade as that being given to Mr. McCartney. Best Regards. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded… https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-p…
— December 30, 2014 5:45 p.m.

Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

Don, if I'm interpreting your response correctly (that you are inclined to discount the studies conducted by learned institutions, and more inclined to be persuaded by the "data" provided by Tom McCartney), then I must respectfully disagree. For example, look at the numerous instances Tom McCartney uses the words "pit bull" in his arguments. Which breed(s) specifically is he referring to? As I've attempted to point out there is no "pit bull" breed and the recognized/related breeds the term refers to are easily mistaken for mixes and other recognized pure breeds. Efforts to enact breed specific legislation are at best well intentioned but misguided, the public at large thinks a problem has been solved, lowers their guard, only to find that dog bites/attacks continue to occur - because of the co-occurrence of non-breed-specific variables, largely a function of dog ownership, identified by the AVMA. My apologies in advance if I am incorrectly understanding your reply.
— December 30, 2014 10:11 a.m.

Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene

A report, published December 15, 2013 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, titled Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009), concludes: "Most Dog Bite Related Fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.". Learn more and read the report summary at: http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javm… A summary of the same study, with additional statistics, is provided by the National Canine Research Council website: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites… "pit bull" is not a dog breed, it is a term loosely used to describe the American Pit Bull Terrier (recognized by the United Kennel Club), the Bull Terrier (recognized by the American Kennel Club), the American Staffordshire Terrier (recognized by the American Kennel Club) and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (recognized by the American Kennel Club). "pit bull" mixes and the above mentioned breeds are often confused with other recognized breeds. The media exploits this confusion and sensationalizes use of the term "pit bull" to grab headline attention when reporting on dog bites/attacks. Test your ability to recognize one of the above mentioned breeds against those frequently mistaken for "pit bulls". Google "find the pit bull", or try the following websites: http://www.pbrc.net/poppysplace/games/AdultFindab… http://mprgroup.net/misc/findpit.html
— December 30, 2014 8:28 a.m.

Should you pay that ticket issued by Ace Parking?

Nguyen contends, “We have police officers for a reason. I realize that cities are strapped for cash right now, but privatizing law enforcement seems like a stupid idea.” Okay, but isn't this a separate issue from debating paying the fine for parking at an expired meter? The city of San Diego uses meter-reader personnel, as opposed to police officers, for monitoring/enforcing parking. This would seemingly make sense; the skill level to evaluate a meter for being expired and writing a citation for vehicles parked at expired meters is significantly less than that required for being a police officer, the city comes out ahead by collecting parking violation revenue and paying less for monitoring/enforcement personnel. Nguyen, if you were parked illegally then pay the fine, if you believe you were parked legally then fight the charges. Your questioning of the intelligence of parking monitoring/enforcement by non-police is a separate issue and should be addressed as such.
— February 6, 2013 11:24 a.m.

Register Staffers Didn't Want Manchester, Says L.A. Times

I just canceled my UT subscription - been wanting to do it for a long time, the NYT article and the UT's handling of Tim Sullivan were what it took to get my wife to agree. It was satisfying being able to explain my position to the UT customer service rep - I wonder how many others are canceling, explaining they can no longer support the motivations/objectives of "Papa" Doug Manchester and his ilk.
— June 19, 2012 3:22 p.m.

Are American Engineers in Short Supply?

QcomGeek and pellis, you will rue the day when your skills, used for the niche Qualcomm has pigeonholed you into, are no longer needed or can be acquired for pennies on the dollar by subcontracting to someone equally as brilliant willing to trade for less. When that day comes you will realize that someone in the finance department, with a degree in business, trumps engineering, and that engineers, from a corporate perspective, are regarded as nothing more than a commodity.
— March 14, 2011 10:47 a.m.

Wall Street Traders Bring Home Far More Than Brain Surgeons

Thanks for your follow up comments Don! Would I be correct in assuming that investors would benefit from lower trader compensation - i.e. more of the profits generated from trading would make their way to the investor instead of the trader?
— January 17, 2011 7:27 a.m.