With their trusting eyes and desire to please their owners, dogs in many ways represent a perfect audience for a magician.
That was exactly the thought of Finland’s Jose Ahonen, a cross between Dynamo and Cesar Millan, who uses a sleight of hand trick to make a treat disappear in front of the dogs’ eyes.
Cue some frantic searching for said treat from the volunteers.
Almost all the dogs wag their tails in amazement at the trick, but some just run off, either in a magically-induced terror or just in search of some food.
The video, which is currently flirting with pole position on the front page of reddit, shows a pitbull having the time of its life on a bed that is usually off-limits. Its owners aren’t home, but they’ve set up a “hidden”camera to see how well-behaved the dog is when they’re away.
That the dog approaches the bed so cautiously would certainly suggest that it knows what it’s doing is against the rules. It wants up, but knows that, in the presence of its owners, at least, it is not allowed to. But the coast is clear. The dog hops up anyway, and proceeds to absolutely go to town, exhibiting a joie de vivre that defies anyone to assert, as French philosopher René Descarte once did, that dogs are merely machines.
Most people are well aware of Russia’s deplorable LGBT policies, the fairly high risk of some kind of terrorist attack being carried out and the disgusting accommodations the athletes and other visitors have had to endure. Things like no hot water, bins for used toilet paper, no shower curtains, filthy rooms, dangerous water - the list goes on and on.
But beyond all of that, there’s an even worse event going on in Sochi that very few in the “mainstream media” are reporting on.
It’s the needless slaughter of thousands of stray dogs.
Apparently Sochi has an above average amount of stray dogs roaming the town, and officials in charge of the event deemed it necessary to “rid” themselves of this “pest problem.”
See, they’re treating these dogs as “pests” (like we treat roaches, ants or other insects) rather than dogs.
It’s an issue Keith Olbermann has reported about in great detail the past few days. Which is really the only reason why I’ve heard in such great detail about the horrific treatment of these animals.
Olbermann talked about how dogs are being shot with poison darts, or fed poisoned meat, in order to rid the town of this “problem.” Not only that, a pest company was contracted to carry out the slaughter of these innocent animals with the owner of that company calling the dogs “biological garbage.”
The darts being used apparently are some kind of muscle relaxers which causes the dogs to suffocate. A witness said they watched a dog who had been hit with one of these darts die. A death which took 90 minutes.
He also pointed out how many of the strays don’t have a home because their family’s homes were torn down to make way for the Olympics. In other words, they lost their homes because of the Olympics, now they’re being killed because of them.
Dogs respond better to robots behaving in a social manner than those acting passively, according to Hungarian researchers. The study of 41 dogs provides important insights into the mental processes of living creatures.
Jerry Newcombe, spokesman for Truth in Action Ministries (formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, led by the late D. James Kennedy), has a column in the Worldnutdaily defending the idea that there was a literal Adam and Eve like the Bible says. He presents no evidence for this, of course, merely saying that he believes that because he believes in Jesus and Jesus quoted Genesis. Wow, what a compelling argument. But then he tries to argue against evolution and falls flat on his face.
How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind. In Genesis, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” That’s why some dogs are poodles and some dogs are great Danes, while both still remain dogs.
Critics note that Darwinists have tried to make a word game by using undisputed microevolution (if you want to call it that), which can be observed everywhere, and claim it as proof of macroevolution - the theory that one species can change into another and that all life evolved ultimately from a common ancestor.
Those critics are abysmally ignorant. There is no distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Just like one can measure time in seconds (micro) or centuries (macro), the latter is merely the accumulation of the former.
Who knows, maybe this could be better than the real United Nations.
Dashshund UN, an art instalment currently being staged by Toronto’s Harbourfront Centre’s World Stage festival, has critics’ and audiences’ tails wagging.
A dachshund is petted by its owner before the start of a performance installation “Dachshund UN”, where dogs were used to mimic a United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Toronto
The 50-minute show, developed by Australian artist Bennett Miller, involves 36 dachshunds reenacting a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
“It gets the audience to consider human behaviour differently,” Miller told CBC News.
“Shock, delight, cacophony! A meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is staged with the help of specially recruited dachshunds in this wild performance installation. Joyful and chaotic, spectacular and fascinating, Dachshund UN questions our capacity to imagine and achieve a universal system of justice,” Harbourfront Centre’s website states.
“It’s a simple concept. Some choral music with a martial tone and then the curtain rises on four tiers of dogs — apparently a replica of the UN office in Geneva — and then the audience watches the dogs, talks loudly and snaps photos throughout, and the dogs stare back, mostly in bafflement,” Toronto Star entertainment reporter Bruce DeMara writes.
How cute :)
UPDATE: It seems that several links from the original story are no longer available. I am removing them from the links below. Please see:
I added additional links at the bottom, as well.
I have been involved in the world of dogs for almost as long as I can remember. I spent the first 13 years of my life begging my parents for a dog, and then the rest of my life sharing my house, my heart, and my bed with the various dogs I have been fortunate enough to have.
To say I am a dog nut is an understatement. I am their food slave and love giver and they are my everything. I have shown dogs. I rescue dogs. I ran a breed club’s rescue for several years.
Few things sicken me more than people flocking to PETA because they love animals, because too few people know what PETA’s agenda is. It is not to protect animals. It is to ensure that you never own a Spot of Fluffy. They would rather kill an animal than have it “owned”.
When I showed dogs (about 15 years ago), there was a rabid part of PETA, people who would go to dog shows and release dogs from their crates because crating a dog was cruel. Two times, those dogs ran off and were hit by cars. That was not disturbing to the people who released them. It was better dead than owned.
I happened upon a series of articles last year concerning PETA and, for those who are so inclined, I suggest you read about this supposed do-good organization.
Nobody does the euthanasia thing quite like PETA, Ingrid Newkirk’s vaunted animal-rights organization. After long being dismissed as an outrageous slander — just another right-wing slur — this gruesome truth has finally gained traction in the mainstream press: PETA’s headquarters in Norfolk has the highest kill rate in the nation. A rescued pet has the same chances of surviving PETA’s sanctuary as it does of receiving genuine love and affection from Michael Vick.
This isn’t my opinion: It is a legally documented fact. In 2011, PETA killed 97 per cent of the animals delivered into its care.
PETA, for reasons near impossible to comprehend, decided to devote itself to precisely the treachery that inspired Newkirk’s mission in the first place. Her organization now routinely takes in animals, with the gentle lie that it intends to re-home them. It then exterminates them. Generally within twenty-four hours. All of them.
Correction: almost all. Some lucky 3 percent managed to escape PETA’s euthanasia machine last year. How these blessed few got chosen is an interesting question in itself. While we are being precise: the workers at that first shelter were not in fact treacherous — they did not lie about their intentions. They were less vicious than the organization that Newkirk founded in response to their blithe slaughter.
If you intern at PETA’s headquarters in Norfolk, you are expected to condone the killing of shelter animals. On the official application (which you can download here), the only question that requires a response longer than a couple of factual words is:
Have a look at our Web site, review our stance on euthanasia, and let me know if you agree or disagree with it and why.
This is not an organization that an animal lover wants to be associated with.
Paws for Purple Hearts is a unique program that uses dogs to treat soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
The Kindness of Beasts: Dogs Rescue Their Friends and Elephants Care for Injured Kin- Humans Have No Monopoly on Moral Behaviour
When I became a father for the first time, at the ripe old age of 44, various historical contingencies saw to it that my nascent son would be sharing his home with two senescent canines. There was Nina, an endearing though occasionally ferocious German shepherd/Malamute cross. And there was Tess, a wolf-dog mix who, though gentle, had some rather highly developed predatory instincts. So, I was a little concerned about how the co-sharing arrangements were going to work. As things turned out, I needn’t have worried.
During the year or so that their old lives overlapped with that of my son, I was alternately touched, shocked, amazed, and dumbfounded by the kindness and patience they exhibited towards him. They would follow him from room to room, everywhere he went in the house, and lie down next to him while he slept. Crawled on, dribbled on, kicked, elbowed and kneed: these occurrences were all treated with a resigned fatalism. The fingers in the eye they received on a daily basis would be shrugged off with an almost Zen-like calm. In many respects, they were better parents than me. If my son so much as squeaked during the night, I would instantly feel two cold noses pressed in my face: get up, you negligent father — your son needs you.
Kindness and patience seem to have a clear moral dimension. They are forms of what we might call ‘concern’ — emotional states that have as their focus the wellbeing of another — and concern for the welfare of others lies at the heart of morality. If Nina and Tess were concerned for the welfare of my son then, perhaps, they were acting morally: their behaviour had, at least in part, a moral motivation. And so, in those foggy, sleepless nights of early fatherhood, a puzzle was born inside of me, one that has been gnawing away at me ever since. If there is one thing on which most philosophers and scientists have always been in agreement it is the subject of human moral exceptionalism: humans, and humans alone, are capable of acting morally. Yet, this didn’t seem to tally with the way I came to think of Nina and Tess.
Binti Jua lifted the unconscious boy, gently cradled him in her arms, and growled warnings at other gorillas that tried to get close