To herald the 25th anniversary of the 1985 classic, as well as its release on DVD, iTunes, and Hulu, CNN did an interview with Melendy Britt, the actress who provides the voice for Greyskull’s protector Princess.

Read all about it here.

Today was my little kitten’s second trip to the veterinarian, and her first round of vaccinations. While waiting to be seen, I had the dubious pleasure of listening to a man talk about the two cats he was picking up after having them declawed. He complained about the cost, sighed heavily about the detailed aftercare instructions, and whined that he was now the owner of three cats, as one had gotten outside and run away a few weeks prior, and didn’t return home until after he’d acquired the two replacement cats.

There are a few things about this situation that infuriated me, to the point of not only having to literally bite my tongue to keep from calling him a jerk to his face, but also finding myself instinctively giving him a death glare that made the vet tech/receptionist giggle.

1. His explanation for adopting the two new cats. Apparently, his family has a habit of not latching their doors, so the animals (dogs and cats) can push them open to go outside on their own. Their first cat did this, ran off, and stayed gone for a few weeks, during which time he got the two new cats for his children. Runaway kitty returned, and then there were three.

Now, the reason this makes me mad is simple. If you know your cat has a good chance of not only getting outside, but of running off, common sense should dictate that you don’t remove its one real way of defending itself. It can’t climb trees, can’t fend off attackers, nothing.

2. Declawing, unless done for the medical well-being of the animal, is absolutely atrocious. The surgery is brutal, the recovery is painful, and the risk of diminished life is greatly increased. All for the convenience of the pet-owner. The procedure is considered “inhumane” and “unnecessary” in most countries, and — aside from cases in which the procedure is for the actual medical benefit of the animal — is outright banned and illegal in many, such as Brazil, Germany, Finland, and the United Kingdom, to name a few. In fact, most European countries disallow the procedure, as does Australia, Japan, Korea, and China. Even in the US, declawing has been outlawed in places such as the California cities of  West Hollywood, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Burbank, and Culver City, and Norfolk, Virginia.

Most people don’t realize precisely what is involved with an onychectomy (technical procedure of declawing, or “feline amputation”). Many believe it to be nothing more than a permanent manicure, either surgically extracting the nails from the feet, or cutting them off at the quick so they won’t grow back. To put the reality of the procedure into “manicure” terms, look at your hands. See the fingernail? See the first knuckle below your fingernail? Now imagine having everything from that knuckle up chopped off. There, you’d be declawed.

Now, imagine someone doing that to you to prevent possible future scratching of furniture and drapery. Doesn’t sound like a very good reason to hack your fingertips off, does it?

If you’re concerned that your cat will scratch your furniture, buy it scratching posts and boxes. Cats need to scratch, to clean their nails. Contrary to popular belief, cats aren’t sharpening their claws when they scratch. They’re removing skin, dirt, etc from under the nail. If they don’t do this, when the nail retracts into the toe, the gunk trapped under it can cause serious pain and infection. Give your cats good places to scratch, praise them when they use those places, and the clawing of your furniture will become a very rare occurrence.

Having your cat declawed can lead to so many problems that are much worse than the occasional scratch on your sofa or tug of the carpet. Beyond the defensive effects I mentioned above, it can lead to real behavioral problems for the cat. Not having her claws can lead to her not wanting to use her litterbox, as covering her waste with the litter is uncomfortable without the assistance of claws. It can lead to snappishness, since the cat feels vulnerable without his claws.

X-Ray of a declawed cat foot with displaced bone fragments, results of the procedure. This condition will result in a perpetual "rock in the shoe" sensation.

Removing the claws also often leads to back and foot pain, and a lessened ability to jump. Imagine wearing a really uncomfortable pair of shoes every minute of every day.

The pain and discomfort brought on by the procedure is unacceptable in and of itself. Complications that can arise, both physically and emotionally, tip it from “unacceptable” to outright “cruel,” in my opinion.

The saddest outcome is when a human has a cat declawed, and the cat begins displaying those behavioral problems, leading the human to get frustrated with the animal and either making him become an “outdoor cat,” or worse, dumping the cat at a shelter or abandoned road to be rid of him. The human’s actions caused all that pain and misbehaving, and the animal will pay the ultimate price.

All for the sake of a sofa.

Kittens typically beginning scratching at around 8-10 weeks of age. If you begin introducing her to proper scratching tools (carpet, cardboard, hemp, or twine-covered posts, ramps, and boxes), you’ll find that she will continue seeking out those items for the rest of her life. It’s so simple, takes almost no time, and very little money. Your cat will be happy, you will be happy, and your belongings will be safe.

Be a good pet owner. Be a good person. Don’t harm your animals for the sake of your own convenience.

Questions? Feel free to drop them in the comments section!

From now until October 2, it’s officially Banned Books Week. Childhood favorites, high-school traditions, fiction and non-fiction; you’re guaranteed to be surprised by many of the titles and authors who have been regularly challenged, censored, and banned in many U.S. schools and public libraries.

This week of awareness was launched back in 1982 to bring focus on the incredible number of books constantly challenged by school boards, parents, teachers, and communities, desiring their removal from libraries and school reading lists. While it is sometimes understandable that certain books will not be available in grade- and high-school libraries (those with adult or sexual themes, for example), you may be surprised to see many classic titles which are regularly challenged. To Kill a Mockingbird, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, Sleeping Beauty, Lord of the Flies, The Grapes of Wrath, and The Color Purple are just a few that are not only challenged, but actively banned in many areas. And in some cases, the school officials who banned the works had not even read the books themselves.

To see a more complete listing of banned books and authors, please click the following links:

Banned books, Titles A-I

Banned books, Titles J-Z

Banned Authors

Find out who and what is banned in your area, in your local libraries, and, if applicable, in your child’s school system. Some of these banned titles are works of literary art, and kids should not be deprived of reading them simply because of the overzealous, censorous morality of a very loud few. And if you see titles on those lists that you’ve never read, find a copy and read it this week. If your favorite title is on a banned list, reread it, and pass it along.

So, tell me. What will you be reading during Banned Book Week 2010? Parents, what will you be encouraging your child to read?

*scritch scratch scritch*

*SPLASH*

Emma-Wobbles (7-week old kitten): “*indignant yelping meow*“

Mikey (goofy schnauzer): “WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT I JUST WOKE UP?!?!”

Emma-Wobbles: “It certainly wasn’t me attempting a four-footed pirouette on the edge of the water bowl and then falling in! It was not!”

(Emma retreats to sulk in big blue nylon cube toy.  Mikey investigates tiny wet footprints on the hardwood.)

Me: *falling over laughing while emptying kitty-hair-coated water bowl*

(Genie (girl cat) and Dude (boy cat) look on with mildly amused derision, then idly investigate freshly refilled, re-iced bowl.)

 

Good morning, Sunshine.

I’ve recently seen, on Facebook and other sites, the circulation of variations of a “letter” from a doctor ranting about a patient. His problem with the patient is the problem a lot of people have with folks who receive healthcare assistance, food stamps, welfare, etc. The patient, among other things, had a custom ringtone on his cell phone and wore nice clothes. So therefore, the doctor felt, as many people do, that he was abusing the healthcare system.

People say things like that all the time. “I saw a guy in the checkout line who had an iPod in his pocket, a cell phone in his hand, wearing shoes I can’t even afford, and paying with a foodstamp card! That’s what’s wrong with America today! The slackers get everything and us hardworking joes get nothing!” or “You bought cigarettes! You don’t deserve food stamps!” “You bought fast food! You don’t need food stamps!” “You have two cars! You don’t need welfare assistance!” “You’re on disability! You shouldn’t be going to the park! You shouldn’t be shopping!” etc etc etc.

I have a problem with that. Not because I don’t think there are people who abuse the assistance systems. I know there are plenty who do. But I have a problem with people assessing whether or not another individual deserves the assistance they see them using, based on what they’re wearing or what the appear to have. Why? Because you do not know that person’s situation. What if this person recently became unemployed, after having a steady job for years? What if he just got laid off from a company he’d been with for a long time, and needed temporary help? What if those nice things he has on were bought when he was still employed? Should he not be allowed to use them or wear them until he becomes employed again, because it offends the pride of hypersensitive, judgemental people looking for any reason be able to snidely comment, “Yeah, I’m paying for that (insert slur of choice here) to have those” or to hate on whichever politicians they don’t like?

I know people who save for months and months to buy their kids really nice shoes for Christmas. Who save money to buy their spouse a nice gift for their birthday. They aren’t being frivolous. But according to anyone who sees them with those things (or heaven forbid, hears a custom ringtone on their cell phone – a phone which, by the way, a person can get for less than thirty bucks and a prepaid card at WalMart), they’re users and abusers who manipulate the system and take advantage of hardworking Americans. People who have been legitimately injured on a job they’ve had for a long time, and cannot work (sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently) due to that injury. Who has the right to judge someone’s entire life by their shoes? By their clothes? By whether or not you think they look “disabled” enough to legitimately be injured and unable to work? Who has the right to categorically assess someone’s character in the twelve seconds they are in their presence?  The correct answer to that question is: no one.

Yes, there are people who take advantage. Yes, there are lowlifes who try to ride the taxpayer dime. But you know what? They’ve been doing it for generations. It’s not something new that you can suddenly start noticing just so you can blame whatever legislation you think is unfair. Things will forever need tweaking and adjusting. But when I see good, smart people regurgitating that tired old,”He paid with a foodstamp card and had a nicer phone than me so he CLEARLY doesn’t need foodstamps!” It just irks so much. Because in order to believe that, you believe you can assess someone’s entire circumstances by their external appearance, or whether they have a pack of cigarettes in with their purchases. And maybe you can. I know I’m not that intuitive.

Then do your part! Join the fight for vocabulary by adopting these neglected words, and use them as often as you can! Go to www.SavetheWords.org and adopt yours today!

Me: “Well, I don’t have any kids, for one thing. And for another, sting rays aren’t aggressive creatures in the slightest. They’re completely docile.”

Woman: “You don’t have kids? What’s wrong with you?”

Me: *exchanging glance with nurses* “Beg pardon?”

Woman (from here on out, known as “Momzilla”): “You’re a woman and you don’t have kids. Why not? Kids are precious gifts from god! Life is not complete without kids!”

Me: “Really? I think life is not complete without living it the way each individual sees fit for themselves. My husband and I love to travel. We love being able to go and come as we please. I have no desire to clean butts for years, sink 93% of my life’s savings into Mattel products, or stress every day about whether or not I’m permanently screwing up another human being. If you’re happy doing all of that, more power to you. I’m not.”

Momzilla: “So can you just not have kids or something?”

Me: “Are you serious?”

Nurse (who is a terrific Mom, and has great kids, and knows I don’t want any for myself): “So, Hope, tell me what to buy to be able to dye my hair your color…”

…….

Here’s the thing, boys and girls. I’m not opposed to people having children. I don’t hate children. I have a nephew, and I positively adore him. He’s great. I have friends with children, and they’re terrific. My friends are awesome parents, and they’ll raise awesome kids. Heck, I compulsively check one friend’s kid-blog for updates on her son, because by his third week of life he was already cooler than I (artist for a mom, musician for a dad, there’s no competing with that!) I like being an aunt, both official and unofficial. But I have no desire to be a mother. It’s just not in my DNA. When I was younger, sure. I thought I’d be a mom. Why? Because I was a girl, and girls were moms, and I never gave it much thought otherwise. Once I started getting older, though, and realized that even the simple thought of pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing made me vaguely nauseated and annoyed, I figured out that motherhood just would not be in the best interests of me or any kid unfortunate enough to have me for a mom.

So why does this offend people? Why do momzillas seem to take personally the fact that I don’t want to become one of them? Deal with it, I just don’t. I give incredible kudos to those people in the world who are able to be terrific parents with amazing kids. Keep up the good work. Not all moms are momzillas. Not all kids are brats. But I’ll guarantee you that every momzilla has a brat.  And every reluctant mother has a child who isn’t loved half as much as it should be. I’m in that second category, and I recognize this fact. Isn’t it better that I acknowledge this, and don’t do that to a child?

Both my parents wanted me and my brother, and they doted on us like mad. Things weren’t always perfect (know any family that is? Pshaw–not with teenagers around!) but we always knew we were loved and wanted. Knowing that feeling, why in the world would I condemn a child to anything less than that, by having one myself? Sorry, I may be selfish, but I’m not cruel. No matter how many people think I should be just because of my procreational abilities.

Okay, rant over. Moving on

This amuses me, it really does. Why? Because English-speakers rarely speak actual English. They butcher it. They abbreviate it. They see “grammar” as something debateable and unnecessary. Bad spelling isn’t seen as a fault, it’s seen as a humorous trait. Grown adults can’t figure out the difference between “there,” “their,” and “they’re.” Emails are scattered with semicolon-dash-parentheses notations of smiley faces, used liberally in order to express intent. It’s much easier, after all, to tack on a graphic than to attempt to clearly convey your thoughts through words. Txt-speak is rampant. We abbreviate words that have no need for being abbreviated. “You” becomes “u.” “Too,” “to,” and “two” are all represented numerically: “Me 2!” “Meet u @ 2!” and “Going 2 bed.”

Even funnier are the rancid accents often used by the “Speaka da language” folks. What to see irony in action? Watch a redneck lecture immigrants on how to speak English.

Am I guilty of bad grammar? Sure, probably more often than I care to admit. Grammatical mistakes are perfectly reasonable. “If  y’all wanna live in America, learn to talk American!” is not.