At music the other night one man postulated that pets are a substitute for caring about human beings, that if people wouldn't lavish their love and care on pets they would have the interest and energy to see to it that people in need all around them and across the globe were cared for.

What say you?

Well...since you asked, I say:

1) A great many of the people all around me and across the globe that are in need, would, given the choice, have me killed by slow torture for not believing in their particular religion or their political political philosophy. I give my pets food, shelter, and affection, and they give me affection back, and sometimes food. The food is small animals or birds that they've killed and bring in and leave on the kitchen floor, and I have to clean up...but they're offered as a bona fide contribution to the household.

2) My pets are neutered. If I attempted to suggest that people who are not able to provide food and shelter for themselves should have it provided to them, but should be prevented from breeding so that the problem will not go on indefinitely, the flood of flames from all you good liberals would probably clog the mudcat to the point where the site would break down, and I would be lucky if the worst that happened to me was that it was demanded thatI were be from the mudcat, and I didn't get any letter bombs.

Well, you asked what I said...Now let the flames begin!

Peter.