Skunks as pets? What cute little stinkers

Posted on February 29, 2016March 4, 2016 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

This has got to be my favorite topic to date. I mean, I’ve heard about people keeping all sorts of interesting pets — pigs, snakes, ferrets, birds, gerbils, rabbits and even rats. But skunks? I’ve never met anyone who has a pet skunk. Or even anyone who wants one for that matter.

Apparently it isn’t all that unusual though. The website skunk-info.org lists seventeen states where ownership of “captive-bred pet skunks is allowed.” If a change reportedly being considered by Tennessee lawmakers actually occurs, the Volunteer State could soon join that list.

According to one news account, the proposed legislation calls for relaxation of existing rules that currently forbid “importation, possession, or transfer of live skunks so that skunk ownership and propagation may be regulated by the wildlife resources commission under its rules for Class II wildlife.”

So far the idea has garnered a mixed reaction and that’s understandable. There are pros and cons to all pet ownership, even for those of us that only have dogs or cats.

In Brief Legal Writing Services owner Alexandra Bogdanovic's cat, Eli. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli under the Christmas Tree. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

The bottom line is that if you’re thinking of getting something more unusual than the average house cat or dog, you’d better know what you’re in for. If you’re serious about getting a skunk, you can find plenty of information on the Internet. At exoticpets.about.com, you can find advice about skunk behavior, health, and more. Among other things, there is information about whether or not pet skunks should be spayed or neutered, finding a vet who can treat them, and the proper vaccinations for pet skunks and how to make sure the new addition to your family isn’t a real little stinker.

As far as I know, you can’t have a pet skunk in Connecticut. But that’s fine with me. I’ve got my hands full with Eli.

A quick trip to the DMV? Yeah, right…

Posted on February 17, 2016February 10, 2016 by alexb2448

So here’s a quick survey for you. If you had a choice would you rather:

Have a root canal
Have a colonoscopy
Go to the Department of Motor Vehicles

Sorry, “None of the above” is not an option.

Seriously. Does anyone like going to the DMV? Does anyone enjoy standing in long lines, filling out confusing paperwork and then sitting around for an hour or two or…

You get the point. And if you live in Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy feels your pain. Or so he says. According to a recent article in The Courant, the state’s chief executive knows just how to make future trips to the DMV quicker.

If you’re so inclined, you can learn all about Malloy’s plan here. Personally, I think the solution is painfully obvious. Hire and train more people. There’s nothing more infuriating than walking into the Department of Motor Vehicles and seeing one hundred people in line and a grand total of twelve DMV staffers on duty to meet their needs. As long as that’s the case, of course you’ll be waiting forever! Furthermore, and this is an important caveat, make sure the staffers on duty know what they’re doing. If there’s one thing that is more aggravating than the scenario I just mentioned, it’s standing in line forever and then having the person in front of you ask the clerk a difficult question. In my experience, it will add at least fifteen minutes to your wait — less if you are lucky.

Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

Of course this idea will generate a backlash from many Connecticut residents and politicians who bemoan the state of its fiscal health and despise the idea of a bloated government workforce.

If the state can’t or won’t expand DMV staff to meet existing needs, perhaps it could simplify or reduce the rules that necessitate trips to the DMV.

There are other options. Some have suggested outsourcing or privatization. Maybe a multi-faceted approach would be best. I guess only time will tell. For now all I know for sure is that something has to give.

Make it stop! A plea for tougher telemarketing laws

Posted on February 15, 2016February 5, 2016 by alexb2448

After hearing her voice at least once a day every day for God only knows how long, I have come to the conclusion that a day without hearing from “Carmen” is like a day without sunshine.

Apparently, “Carmen” is really concerned about me. For some reason my financial well-being means a great deal to her. “She” really wants to help me improve my credit and get lower interest rates. I know because she calls to tell me so. At least once per day. Every day.

Sometimes she calls in the morning. Sometimes she calls in the afternoon. Sometimes she calls when I’m in the middle of dinner. If I don’t answer, she leaves a message. She doesn’t care if I hang up. She just calls back. You’d think she could take a hint. Or not.

I have no idea how she got my cell phone number… but sometimes she even calls on that.

To be honest, I’ve had it. I can’t take it anymore. I’m sick of hearing her funky, computer-generated voice. At this point, I just want “her” to quit bugging me. Are you out there “Carmen?” Can you hear me? If so, just leave me alone already! Please!

On a serious note, I guess I should take matters into my own hands. But here in Connecticut, the only way to keep from getting harassed by telemarketers is to sign up with the National Do Not Call Registry. There’s information on the state’s Department Of Consumer Protection website about how to how to join.

The DCP says it also enforces the “Do Not Call” law, so if worst comes to worst, I guess I can always file a complaint with the agency. The only catch is I’d have to put it in writing.

In the meantime, I’m taking this opportunity to appeal to state and federal lawmakers. I am asking nicely… no, I’m begging you. Enact stricter telemarketing laws. Please!

“Carmen” is driving me crazy!

Utter nonsense or common sense?

Posted on February 12, 2016February 8, 2016 by alexb2448

“I have never met an animal I didn’t like. On the other hand, there are plenty of people I hate.” – Me.

Anyone who has read these posts should know a few things about me by now. First, I love animals. Second, I have definite opinions about the law and related issues. Third, I am not shy about sharing them.

I mean come on, in the last couple of weeks, I’ve expressed my displeasure with the United States Supreme Court and the New York City police commissioner (among others).

So it may come as a surprise that I’m blogging about something that I actually agree with. Specifically, I am applauding Alaskan lawmakers who are trying to break with legal tradition by viewing pets as something other than personal property.

According to a recent KTUU report, state legislators are pondering a proposed rule that allows for the “protection” of pets when their caretakers are getting divorced or are embroiled in domestic violence. If enacted, the law would:

Change the existing regulations so owners of animals confiscated due to neglect or cruelty would have to pay their cost of care through “bond or other security.”
Revise current domestic violence measures to let courts include animals, and their temporary care, when issuing protective orders.
Tweak the divorce and marriage dissolution statutes now on the books so animals’ “well-being” is taken into account in court decisions regarding ownership or joint ownership.

“Pets are often considered part of a family and the courts should be able to consider their well-being,” said Rep. Liz Vazquez, who co-sponsored the bill. “This legislation will make it more difficult for a pet to be used by an abuser to keep a victim from reporting that abuse.”

Eli, the In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot. — In Brief Legal Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

Now from what I’ve read, some Alaskans — who are understandably more pragmatic about animals than those of us who live elsewhere — question the wisdom of this legislation. Apparently they believe other issues deserve a higher priority.

While I fully endorse the proposal, I also understand why some might question it. In particular, I understand why some might mock the idea that courts should be allowed to consider an animal’s “well-being.” Those most likely to do so are the types of people who question the extent of animal intelligence, scoff at the suggestion that the average dog or cat has any self-awareness and shudder at the application of human emotions to our pets.

Personally, I don’t know what goes on in the space between my cat’s ears. But here’s what I know for sure: Eli is smart, sensitive and loyal, among other things. To me he is much more than personal property. He is my best friend. And if anything, I “belong” to him.

There ought to be a law…

Posted on January 29, 2016January 29, 2016 by alexb2448

Dateline — Greenwich, Conn. As I write this, a winter storm is raging.

The aftermath of a December snow storm in Greenwich, Conn. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic — “Just Another Snow Storm.” Greenwich, Conn., December 2010. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

Howling wind. Freezing rain. Sleet. Ice. Snow. You name it, we’ve got it. Or we’re going to get it before the day is over. And then I will spend my birthday cleaning up the mess.

For now I am safe and warm and dry. In fact, I am tucked up on the couch with my favorite fuzzy green blanket and laptop for warmth. The TV is on in the background, providing me with the details from the third Premier League football match of the day. Across the Pond, West Ham is leading Manchester City, 2-1, but I’m hardly invested in the outcome. I’ve got other stuff on my mind.

It suddenly dawned on me while channel surfing between games that there ought to be a law on days like this. Make that several. First of all, there ought to be a law against extensive TV storm coverage. We get it. It’s snowing. It’s windy. It’s cold. Newsflash: it’s winter.

There ought to be a law against any politicians commenting on a storm. What in God’s name do you have to say that we don’t already know? Personally, if I want to know about the weather, I can look out the window. Peering through the glass, I can also tell if the roads have been plowed, or if my neighborhood has been affected by a power outage. Based on personal observation, I can also make an educated guess about storm impacts on local, regional and national transportation. Believe it or not, I can rely on common sense to decide whether or not it’s safe to travel.

Black and white photograph of New York Police Department barriers taken by Alexandra Bogdanovic — NYPD barriers. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

There ought to be a law against snowplows shoving all the ice, sleet, slush and snow into private driveways. I don’t care where you put it. If you can’t think of an alternate location, I’ve got a few suggestions…

There ought to be a law against idiots in sports utility vehicles, or any 4-wheel drive vehicles for that matter. Just because you’ve allegedly got better traction doesn’t mean you can stop on a dime in slippery conditions. In case you haven’t figured it out, the added height of most SUVs equals a higher center of gravity. Turn that steering wheel abruptly at an unsafe speed and I guarantee you will flip your SUV or end up in a ditch.

There ought to be a law against rude and inconsiderate behavior. Calm down. Relax. It’s just another winter storm. It is not the end of the world. Or is it?

Baby, it’s cold outside!

Posted on January 25, 2016January 21, 2016 by alexb2448

Newsflash: it’s winter, it’s cold and it might snow.

Dateline — Greenwich, Conn. As I write this, the East Coast is bracing for a weekend snow storm. And if the media is to be believed, this will be a storm of epic proportions – especially in the mid-Atlantic states.

Here in the greater New York City suburbs, some meteorologists are actually showing some restraint. They say we will only get 4 to 7 inches where I live and more further to the south and west. I’ll take it — but I must confess that I’ll be much happier if this nor’easter is a total dud. I’d really rather not spend my birthday shoveling snow, especially since I’ll officially be one step closer to the big “5-0.”

But all joking aside, the arrival of winter and all of the unpleasantness that it entails raises serious concerns for pet owners, animal lovers and those of us who are also interested in the law as it relates to the health and safety of dogs and cats.

To that end, local and national news outlets publish tons of stories about caring for companion animals during this time of year. One article that recently caught my attention was about a proposed change to existing rules in Ohio. According to the article on nbc4i.com, state lawmakers are considering proposed legislation requiring pet owners to bring their dogs inside in “extreme weather conditions.” Under current laws, people are allowed to leave healthy dogs outdoors as long as they provide adequate shelter.

Connecticut law also mandates that animals have access to acceptable “protection from the weather.” Anyone who fails to provide it may be charged with cruelty to animals. The penalty upon conviction is a maximum fine of $250, up to one year in jail, or both.

In New York, there are comprehensive rules about what constitutes appropriate shelter for “dogs left outdoors” and the penalties for failing to provide it. Perpetrators face fines ranging from $50 to $100 for the first offense, and $100 to $250 for the second and each ensuing offense. Under the law, violators have a set period of time to bring the standard to acceptable standards. Failure to take necessary action within that period can result in another violation.

Personally, I think it boils down to compassion and common sense. Please use both.

Censorship – alive and well

Posted on January 20, 2016January 16, 2016 by alexb2448

“Censorship generally is the deletion of speech or any communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a body authorized to censor.”

– As defined on uslegal.com

A disturbing news report surfaced last week.

Apparently some Russian government-types have been burning some “undesirable” books.

Given the heinous and egregious nature of this conduct, I am sure the Russians would have been happy if this remained a closely guarded secret. Unfortunately (for the alleged offenders) some American media outlets discovered and published accounts of this disgusting behavior.

I found out about it when goodreads.com shared a link to the post on Twitter. Ain’t social media grand?

At any rate, I banged off a snippy response, which was something to the effect of, “And this comes as a surprise?” Not surprisingly, that Tweet didn’t amount to much.

But in all honesty, I wasn’t surprised. Angry? Yes. Disgusted? Of course. Sickened? Absolutely. Flabbergasted, gob-smacked, astonished, taken aback? No. Not at all.

Of course government censorship is alive and well. Let’s face it. In Russia, where Vlad Putin does whatever he wants with impunity, it probably never died. But what you may not realize – or simply refuse to admit – is that censorship is practiced with alarming frequency right here in the good old USA.

The restrictions on freedom of expression to which I am referring go far beyond rules and regulations put in place to limit potential exposure to “offensive” material and to hold those who engage in hateful rhetoric accountable for their actions.

I am referring to the vast majority of the censorship that occurs in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, which is condoned if not officially sanctioned by the politically correct crowd in the government and elsewhere. In an effort to combat the ignorant, misguided and hateful behavior of a vocal minority, the “polite police” are running amok.

Yes, some censorship is blatant. Some is passive-aggressive. Trust me. I speak from personal experience.

Book Cover, Truth Be Told: Adam Becomes Audrey — Image courtesy of Strategic Book Publishing and Rights Agency

You see, I am the award-winning author of what could be considered a somewhat controversial book. In my memoir, Truth Be Told: Adam Becomes Audrey, I share how I met, fell in love with and married the man of my dreams. In vivid detail, I recount how I learned that he self-identified as and planned on having surgery to “become” a woman. I also share what happened after I learned the truth.

Some readers have loved my work. Some have hated it. Most have expressed their opinions in no uncertain terms — which is fine. I have very broad shoulders. There was only one occasion when I was truly insulted, and that was when a local library official told me they’d probably never shelf my book because readers here are “very conservative.”

I wonder what they’ll do if Caitlyn Jenner writes a book.

Initiative spotlights convicted animal abusers

Posted on January 13, 2016January 12, 2016 by alexb2448

If a state task force has its way, it could soon be easier to monitor convicted animal abusers in Connecticut.

Back in October, the co-chairman of the Task Force for the Humane Treatment of Animals classified an initiative calling for the creation of “an animal abuse offender tracking system” as “one of the major proposals for legislation” in 2016.

Existing laws providing for the implementation and management of so-called registries will likely serve as the basis for the proposal, which should be finalized this month and submitted to Connecticut lawmakers when they convene in February.

According to a 2014 report prepared by Connecticut’s Office Of Legislative Research such regulations are already on the books in New York, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Texas and Massachusetts. The report also cites a “model animal abuser registry law” published by The Animal Legal Defense Fund in 2010.

The ALDF’s model law defines an “animal abuser” as a person over eighteen
years of age who has been convicted of a felony violation of [any animal protection
statute] of this state or of the comparable statutes of another state. It mandates when and where an offender must register; the circumstances under which re-registration is required; the personal information the offender must supply; the information the offender must submit pertaining to the incident(s) that resulted in conviction; and the submission of photographs, fingerprints and other identifying characteristics to the law enforcement agency in charge of the registry. It also governs how long an offender must remain on the registry.

Why tougher gun laws will backfire

Posted on January 11, 2016January 6, 2016 by alexb2448

So here’s the official disclaimer: I am not “pro gun.” I don’t even like guns…

They scare me. I’ve never even touched one (unless you count the toy cap guns and water pistols I played with when I was little). The thought of ordinary, law-abiding citizens having access to, much less toting assault rifles and similar firearms makes me sick. That they’re seemingly the weapons of choice for all manner of criminals, terrorists and other “bad guys” is an issue I will touch on later. For now all you need to know is that absolutely no one outside of the military, para-military organizations (law enforcement) and similar groups needs or should have any access to those types of weapons. Period.

Having said that, I am not a “gun grabber,” either. I fully respect and support the right to bear arms afforded to Americans under the Second Amendment. I believe that most law-abiding citizens who have guns believe and engage in responsible gun ownership. I also believe that any laws aimed at restricting access to certain types of firearms – or limiting gun ownership in general – will always backfire. Ultimately these well-intentioned but deeply misguided laws will result in more criminal activity and more violence – not less.

The simple reason for this is one that President Obama and the rest of the gun control gang fail to realize: Laws only matter to those of us who choose to follow them.

Does anyone honestly believe that criminals will be deterred by tougher gun laws? If anything, organized crime groups, gangs, terrorists and their cronies welcome them. Think about it. It’s a simple question of supply and demand. Less or stricter access to “legal” firearms will create an even more lucrative black market. Unfortunately for the general public, the rush to claim the lion’s share of the revenue generated from illegal arms sales could easily result in more competition among certain people who couldn’t care less about who gets caught in the crossfire.

If you don’t believe me, all you have to do is find a U.S. History book and turn to the section on Prohibition…

Then there’s the matter of mass shootings. In their wake, much is made about how the perpetrator obtained his or her weapon(s). While it is largely a moot point, those who call for new gun laws claim stricter rules will reduce public access to the types of weapons used in the course of these tragic events. In a perfect world, that would be true. But we all know this world is far from perfect. Does anyone honestly think that someone desperate or angry or crazy or determined enough to commit an act of terrorism or a mass shooting is all that concerned about the law? If someone is truly hell-bent on committing such a heinous act, he or she will use any means necessary to do so.

So President Obama can weep and stomp his feet, gnash his teeth and threaten to take executive action on the issue as much as he would like, while the rest of the gun control gang sings his praises.

The rest of us can only hope for the best.