Dog discarded rather than taken to shelter
This letter is for the person who discarded his/her elderly dog like he was just trash. I will never understand how someone could be so heartless. It’s the same as leaving a defenseless child to fend for him or her.
If you were in dire circumstances and could not keep him, were you so cowardly that you could not bring him to the county shelter to rehome? I know you do not care about what happened to him because you never made a lost report or came to the shelter to claim him. He would surely have died if Hanover Animal Control had not found him. He was by the side of the road. He could not walk. They rushed him to the emergency vet thinking he’s been hit by a car. However, being a dachshund, he was suffering from a back issue.
They lovingly cared for him with cage rest and meds until I adopted him. You see, I am an old rescuer and cannot sit by while a senior dog languishes. He’s mine now. He is getting all the love and care I can give him for as long as he has left.
When his time comes, I will place him next to the other innocents I have rescued, loved, and lost. But, I cannot figure out why he walks around my house crying as if he is looking for someone. It makes me sad to think that he misses you even though you don’t care.
Responding to letter about comments
(Editor’s note: The following was addressed to “Dear Nancy Patterson”.)
The nature of your remarks, along with flaws contained therein, regarding my op-ed “Nation should embrace systemic unity, not racism” demanded this response, submitted without malice to set the record straight.
Before launching into my rebuttal, I must first set the table. When publishing, (1) reproach is a double-edged sword through which authors and public critics are accountable for errors, oversights or bias and (2) research to establish fact is always necessary, a habit I acquired through years of publication, not only with op-eds but with major works and my weekly message, “Two Minutes with Christianity.”
Instead of criticizing the central theme of the op-ed, you concentrated mainly on systemic racism, particularly in law enforcement, using data that contradicts one of my statements, while questioning if I had read the data you cited.
Allow me to first address two of your comments, one inconsequential and the other unacceptable.
l Inconsequential: the subject op-ed did not quote either JFK or Abe Lincoln, both of whom have been quoted in previous op-eds by me. Perhaps you were referring to those op-eds, not this one.
l Unacceptable: Your interpretation/rewording of my views and statement regarding the Chauvin-Floyd incident, “he says Derek Chauvin is just a bad apple and we should forget it and be happy Blacks and Whites ‘stand in line together’ now” is not an accurate summary of my perspective or my statement that not only condemns Chauvin, as well as other incidents of social injustice, but calls for action, “The death of George Floyd at the hands of a Caucasian thug, who was then a trusted public servant of the law, is tragic as is any incident of social injustice. However, selected outliers like Derek Chauvin, despicable as they may be, indicate the need for improved vetting and ongoing monitoring/accountability, but they do not support the allegation of systemic racism in law enforcement, a conclusion widely inconsistent with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examination of the matter using accounts from victims, not law officers.”
When selectively characterizing others, direct quotes as opposed to summations, appraisals or conclusions are best to avoid harmful effects.
My conclusion that racism is not systemic in law enforcement was and remains based on the Jeffrey H. Anderson, March 5, 2021, article in the Wall Street Journal, which refuted Joe Biden’s claim of “Systemic Racism” in Policing.
The entirety of the article, which includes extracted data and the link to the cited report, can be found with a simple Internet search; thus, in the interest of brevity, only a few extracted paragraphs that summarize the findings are provided here:
“… In a report released days before Mr. Biden’s inauguration, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examined whether people of different races were arrested to a degree that was disproportionate to their involvement in crime. The report concluded that there was no statistically significant difference by race between how likely people were to commit serious violent crimes and how likely they were to be arrested. In other words, the data suggested that police officers and sheriff’s deputies focus on criminals’ actions, not their race.
“The BJS report did not take cops’ word for who commits crimes. Rather, it relied on victims’ own accounts of who committed crimes against them, as reported through BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey.
“The NCVS, which dates to the Nixon Administration, is the nation’s largest crime survey. Its results are based on about 250,000 interviews annually with U.S. residents, who are asked whether they were victims of crime within the past six months. In addition, the NCVS gathers data on who actually commits crimes — according to the victims — thereby providing an independent source of data not reliant upon police records …”
My source and yours used different measuring sticks: (1) yours, rate of threat and physical force against Blacks and Hispanics vs. Whites; (2) mine, arrests. And if one digs deep enough into either report, perhaps other key factors skewed data one way or the other, such as the resistance rate of lawbreakers that led to law enforcement actions. As always, truth is an elusive quarry.
As for lauding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. while criticizing progressives, a broad term that covers quite a bit of ground, the op-ed defined progressive as “those who serve themselves with little or no regard to the consequences.”
Under the umbrella of that definition, Dr. King, a selfless man who gave his life to remove oppression in America, is most certainly excluded.
Although you and I have different political affiliations, we are both human beings and Americans who likely share love for our nation. We should respectfully agree to disagree, a habit absent Inside the Beltway, an arena where political gamesmanship abounds and is recklessly prioritized.
May God bless you.