Why is it that people who preach the loudest about the need for others to be tolerant of their beliefs and customs are the first ones to show a total and complete lack of those very attributes to others?

I believe, to a degree, that we do need to tolerate, even if we don’t agree or accept, other people’s values, beliefs and cultures. Of course there are limits, but in general, as a principal, I do believe this. I guess this was why yesterday when I read news stories about “Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat”, I got pissed off!

We have to respect their religion and culture and now this, on the same day that I come across an article talking about how sniffer dogs in the UK will not be allowed to efficiently do their jobs because dog handlers have to remain aware of “cultural sensitivities.” Because Muslims consider dogs to be ’spiritually unclean”, dogs are not allowed to touch them and even touching their baggage “would be an issue for a Muslim preparing to pray.”

So now it seems that Muslim shopkeepers are offended about a picture of a puppy, a puppy named Rebel, a police dog in training that has proved extremely popular with children and adults since being introduced to the public, aged six weeks old, as Tayside Police’s newest canine recruit.

‘His incredible world-wide popularity - he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website - led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number,” said a spokesman for Scottish Tayside Police force.

This is not a dog, it is a picture of a dog!! Get real!! And of course the police force backed down and apologized for their lack of sensitivity. Now you tell me, who is really lacking sensitivity here??

Read more… »

Well, a judge saw fit to ignore a dead woman’s wishes and cut a bequest from $12 million to $2 million and now there looks like there’s going to be legal shenanigans over a multi-billion dollar trust.

Last year when Leona Helmsley died, she left a $12 million dollar trust fund to take care of her beloved pooch, Trouble. Last month, Manhattan Surrogate Judge Renee Roth reduced that trust by $10 million, leaving $2 million in trust for the care of Trouble. Now, I’m not saying that any dog needs $12 million dollars, what right does anyone have to ignore the will and last wishes of someone?? Like it or not, like her or not, it was her money to do with as she chose.

The judge also chose to give millions to two disinherited grandchildren that she specifically noted were to receive no inheritance.

And now it looks like she left, in a mission statement, a trust totaling somewhere between $5 and $8 billion, that’s right, billion dollars, “be used for the care and welfare of dogs.”

It seems in 2003 she signed a mission statement for her charity trust regarding the disbursement of fund. She originally intended for her trust to be distributed to benefit indigent people and the welfare of dogs, then in 2004 she changed it to just the dogs. The problems comes up because there also seems to be another provision that allows the trustees to distribute the money using their own discretion.

The “mission statement” is not part of her will, but the law favors remaining faithful to the donor’s intent. That means the trustees of the fortune may have difficulty ignoring her wishes, though it has happened in the past.

Read more… »