If your cat has to be in an e-collar to keep her from licking a wound, how the hell can you feed her? Do you have to remove the e-collar at each feeding time? What if they want to drink during the day?

...metaphorical spoons, that is. 'Cause I am out of spoons. Completely out of deal. Olive's new care routine is challenging, both for her and for us. She hates the E-collar. She hates getting her growing list of meds. She's tired, and we're tired, too. As it stands, if I didn't have to drag my ass into Terra Firma today, I would probably just say screw work and sleep all day. But my boss is getting surgery today, so it's pretty much the one day that I can't call out.

Bone weary, that's me today. And when I get home, I have to do a number of household things, not the least of which is washing towels so we have a good supply of clean things onhand for Olive's leg.

I got about four hours' worth of sleep last night. We moved Olive's pet stairs away from the bed so she wouldn't hurt herself on them with the e-collar on, and she somehow managed to get on our bed anyhow. She was determined. At least after a half hour, she settled down on my chest, rested the cone on my face, and fell asleep. I was too exhausted to protest, and we stayed that way 'til 5am, when all the kitty alarms went off and the feeding/cleaning/medicating cycle began anew.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,” the conservative Tea Party favourite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them." (IE, all acts of horrific violence happen in a vacuum, divorced of context.)

VS.

"...should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence" (IE, you liberals are going to incite violence with your accusations against me, because violence does NOT happen in a vacuum!)

Has no one pointed out to Palin that these two statements are in direct opposition? Logical coherency, HOW DOES IT WORK?

I guess liberals calling out violent rhetoric actually incites violence... not, you know, the original statements about reloading, second amendment remedies, bullets over ballots... etc. Or something. What do I know?


2. Blood Libel: Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

AKA, the criticism y'all are leveling against me for my appallingly violent rhetoric is exactly like the religious persecution faced by the Jews throughout the ages!

(Those words, they do not mean what you think they mean, Sarah. Oh, and bee tee dubs, "blood libel" has been used throughout centuries as a context to justify inciting violence against Jews, jsyk. So much for the whole "violence happens in a vacuum" theory, huh?)


3. Add to that, Representative Giffords is Jewish, and try not to hulksmash your keyboard.


4. I'mma just leave this here: The Guardian: Blood libel – what does it mean?

You see, I think I would do that anonymous commenting meme that's going around, but I think at this point in time, my comments would pretty much amount to:

"WHY YOU GOTTA BE SO POLITICAL, GOD!" /Napoleon Dynamite voice

or

"WHY YOU GOTTA TALK ABOUT YOUR CATS ALL THE TIME, GOD!" /Napoleon Dynamite voice

...and quite frankly, I'm fucking unapologetic on both of those scores.