Lazy Dog Application Form 2014: Fill & Download for Free

I got fussed at for throwing out a knee jerk answer-so this is fleshed out a little for the guy that said I “didn't do my homework…”This was my answer to “Why Don’t We ban Pit Bulls Because They Are SOOOO Vicious-we need to protect the children..” It will be applicable here I think!Yeah, we have the same problem—since over 76% of fatalities of young black men in the US are caused by other young black men -it seems reasonable that we apply the same bans against black people-You know, to ‘stop the violence’ and ‘protect the children’.So far my ‘Ban the Blacks’ program keeps meeting with ridiculous resistance: people trying to claim the I am pursuing this agenda without addressing pesky things such as fact and actual statistics. Kinda like all of the statistics that show Breeeeed Specific Legislation doesn’t work.And before anyone unleashes any well meaning shit on me, a formal girlfriend (Why yes, she IS Black! How did you know?) suggested I started this whole column with this smart-ass take.I mean, according to the Telegraph the UK has had OVER 17 deaths due to dog bites since 2005; practically an epidemic.We can ignore preventable causes of death -such as Coronary Heart Disease which racked up a minuscule 376,157 in 2016 alone, or Lung Cancer (Somewhat preventable) which took almost 185,316 just as long as we are concentrating on the .00003001%. We want to really make a difference in this brave new world.As far as ‘Protect the Children’-no. Just no. You can’t haul a crew of crumb-snatchers into Mickey D’s for colas and deep-fried whatever and meat-like substances and tell me ANYTHING about wanting to keep your children safe.Chicken McNuggets are awesome!Breed Specific Legislation is Similar Other Forms of Discrimination. (Didn’t we have a movement with the Jim Crowe laws that oppressed anyone with dark skin in order to stop rapes and murders?? And how well has THAT played out?)You see, Homo Sap has had witch hunts before.Here’s some Biology 101.Breeds of dogs are analogous (or similar) to the populations of humans we often refer to as ‘race’.Different species–Homo sapiens, Canis lupus familiaris (the domestic dog), and Felis catus (domestic or “house” cats)–have numerous subpopulations organized by various factors, such as geographic isolation or selective breeding to name a few.In other words, different populations of dogs we call ‘breeds’ can be more common in some places than others. We can also influence the organization of dog populations by our selective breeding practices.All of this means that the group of terrier breeds often referred to as ‘pit bulls’ are, biologically speaking, just domestic dogs like every other subpopulation of the species.But we can take an analogy between dogs and humans a step further. Dogs are mammals like us (well, most of us, anyway) , which means we share similar features or traits that place us in that taxonomic grouping, traits often due to our shared evolutionary histories.One might even say that dogs have relevant brain structures and exhibit the behavior suggestive of individual experiences and a ‘point of view.’ (Admittedly, this point of view might be from beneath the counter where a particularly tasty prime rib is standing prior to carving) From this we can infer that each individual dog experiences aspects of the world from a particular perspective similar to how we each experience the world from a different perspective based on our own personal histories (emotional, psychological, etc.).All of these similarities between dogs and humans seem reasonable, and certainly verifiable by anyone who owns dogs or works closely with them.The claim that dogs, and other non-human animals, are some Cartesian automata (or machines) without minds, individual personalities, or the capacity for pain experience is a fancy of only the most radical skeptics in philosophy of mind. So let’s stick with our reasonable starting point.The similarities above are commonly used to support arguments against the discrimination of certain dog breeds. That is, breed discrimination is wrong (or, more importantly, ineffective) for the same reasons we think discrimination against humans grouped into certain categories is wrong (e.g. categories such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation).Discrimination historically seems to be a bad thing when it causes unequal or unfair treatment and harm. Anti-discrimination laws are in place to “prohibit us from singling out individuals for less favorable treatment because of certain traits (Moreau 2010, 143).As a discriminatory regulation, Breed Specific Legislation is exactly what it sounds like. Regulations are put in place that single out individual dogs due to a common set of physical traits. Often the reason given for a ban on those breeds with the target traits is an assumed connection with aggression towards humans. . Such differential treatment results in targeted dogs receiving unequal treatment that often results in harm to them, such as death.Given the value of life (among most people, anyway) , a loss of it calls for careful consideration.We often look back to discriminatory laws concerning humans enacted twenty or even thirty years ago and feel embarrassed about the systemic injustices they were used to enforce.This includes the blood donor controversy concerning gay donors, racial segregation laws up to the mid 20th century, and the residential school system that took place in Canada (sorry, US, you don’t get to escape this either. Remember Ruby White?) up until the 1990s just to name a few.Thankfully, we’ve seen what some might call moral progress. For example, bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned across North America. We continue to work on discriminatory issues as a nation and through grassroots movements on social media, such as challenging the glass-ceiling for women in the workforce.What all of these morally-charged social changes have in common is a general condemnation of discriminatory practice based on physical characteristics or behaviors.The lesson of the story goes something like this: we’ve learned that judging a book by its cover is an unsound judgment as time and time again we discover that what’s inside doesn’t always meet our expectations. In other words, we’ve discovered that discriminatory judgments like this are epistemically suspect–there are no grounds for thinking that outward characteristics, such as physical traits or particular orientations, necessarily determine individual psychology and behavioral tendencies. But how does all of this talk of social movements concern dog breeds?If it is wrong to judge the individual personality and behavioral tendencies of someone because of that person’s race or other physical characteristics we must carefully scrutinize the claim that all pit bulls (even though we don’t have a concrete on what this means) are ‘vicious’ and ‘should be banned’.That is, to say that entire populations of dogs are vicious because of some connection between viciousness and the way they look should cause alarm bells–this is the very same discriminatory line of reasoning now recognized to be problematic and outdated as described above.Breed Specific Legislation is Scientifically Unfounded( this is IMPORTANT-one doesn’t follow a premise simply because wants to believe it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary…oh, wait a minute…) so any attempts to justify discrimination against breeds labeled ‘pit bulls’ rely on one alleged factor that is supposed to distinguish those dogs from the rest: aggressive behavior. Folks in favor of BSL (Breed Specific Legislation for those of you that are having trouble keeping up) often speak to the aggressive behavior these dogs were bred for “in the pits” from when dog fighting was considered a sport to the thug-like enterprise we know it as today.There is, however, a tendency to ignore research on aggression, which is problematic for at least two reasons. The first comes from work in cognitive ethology and the second from biology.First, cognitive ethology is the study of animal mental experiences (Ristau 2013). And “it has been recognized for many years [i.e. since at least 1923] that aggression is not a unitary phenomenon” with studies that analyze the relationship between inter-species and intra-species aggression (Huntingford 1976). Way back in 1966, K. Lorenz distinguished between two situations in which aggressive behavior is known to occur: [1]inter-specific or ‘between species’ aggression versus [2]intra or conspecific aggression as fighting within the same species. In categorizing aggression we find a distinction between aggressive behavior within species and between species.In other words, we have good evidence to support a distinction between dog-dog (conspecific) aggression and dog-human (interspecific) aggression. We see real examples of this distinction all the time, such as dogs in shelters who are described as needing ‘one dog homes’, but nevertheless make excellent family pets.Furthermore, the aggression pit bulls might show in the fighting pits (though not all do and are often killed because of that) does not immediately translate into aggression towards humans (oopsy. Better make sure no one knows about this little fly in the ointment…).In fact, if our concern is what the dogs were “bred for,” then dogs that showed aggression towards humans during dog fights were likely not selected for as it would be detrimental to the handler. Given that aggression has also been analyzed in terms of the function it serves in addition to “its motivational basis” (Huntingford 1976, 485), this suggests that the function of aggression in the fighting pit along with the motivations to do so are very different than your standard loving home, which counter-conditions against such behavior. In sum, to say that all pit bulls are aggressive is often a statement made in ignorance concerning the evident nuances of aggressive behavior generally.Second, one cannot assess the nature of particular dog breeds in a vacuum–biology has something to say about the relationship between genes and the phenotypic expression of them, such as behavioral tendencies.In popular media, Cesar Milan (a.k.a the Dog Whisperer) claims that all dogs are a product of their environment–change the environment and you then change the behavior of the dog (another one of those pesky, verifiable facts, dammit) .Alternatively, particular advocacy organizations have taken a stand against Milan’s position and claim that dog characteristics “are all about genetics” (Pit Bulls Against Misinformation is one organization).Despite the disagreement, both sides emphasize the need for responsible and knowledgeable handlers to manage and address dog behavior. These claims are based on direct experience in handling dogs in training and rescue. Alternatively, those who support BSL typically claim that pit bull breeds are inherently aggressive such that it’s in their genes to be that way. So is dog behavior due to nature or nurture?To address that question, one should not ignore how the nature-nurture debate over the cause of phenotypic traits reached a far more sophisticated conclusion after the biologist R.C. Lewontin published a landmark paper in 1974. This paper marks the beginning of the interactionist consensus concerning the relationship between genes, environment, and phenotypic expression (traits such as behavior included). This means that all traits (physical characteristics, behavior, etc.) result from a complicated interaction between genetic and environmental factors.Since 1974, there has been a live debate over which factor more heavily influences the phenotypes, in addition to the role of information theory, innate versus acquired characteristics, and phenotypic plasticity (Pigliucci 2001, Kaplan 2000, Northcott 2006, Griffiths 2009, Tabery 2014 to name just a few).If all of this sounds complicated, it’s because it is.The point is that talk of a single cause of dog behavior is not supported by scientific and philosophical literature, which has been around for over forty years. So aggressive behavior is not only due to genes and it’s not only due to the environment, but instead results from a complicated interaction between both. Therefore, to say the all pit bulls are inherently aggressive due to genetic cause is insensitive to tons of relevant research on the multiple causes of phenotypic traits.Overall, what we learn from studies on the nature of aggression and the relationship between behavior, genes, and the environment matter for public safety when the aim is to manage our complex companionship with another species, which lives so closely alongside us. How to put into practice what we learn from our research is up to the policy makers and animal professionals, which brings us to the final point.-Breed Specific Legislation is Condemned by Animal Professionals. (I mean, why would any of us accept the word of trained professionals that work with dogs in the field, as opposed to listen to 3 second sensationalist media bites and the extensive and exhaustive research done by John Stewart? Well, you SHOULD-he’s got two pit bulls, and has gone to bat for them repeatedly.)To put this plainly, BSL is downright lazy policy-making. It takes actual work to construct animal control regulations that truly make a difference to public safety. Why? Because a multitude of experts must be consulted, which includes research into what counts as an expert and pursing verbal or written suggestions and direction for how to shape the laws. A similar instance might be likened to the 1994 passing of the “Hate Crime Laws”. In these, a gay man was brutally murdered by gay-bashers, so we passed a bunch of laws to ‘stop’ this kind of behavior. Funny, because I thought that Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, and bloody MURDER were already illegal. But passing these EXTRA laws certainly made us feel good about our politicians “standing up for our safety” (sound familiar?) and passing yet another set of ineffectual laws.)Animal professionals that count as “dog experts” will be anyone with significant knowledge about dog breeds and behavior through experience by occupation (i.e. working directly with dogs) or through research by obtaining facts from reliable sources (i.e. competent knowers in a certain field, such as cognitive ethology for example).Veterinarians, rescue agencies, humane societies, and animal control officers all fit the bill. Notice that law enforcement officials (unless directly trained in dealing with dogs), as well as journalists who think they’re tracking a pattern, are not included on this list. Being more famous does not automatically incur more credibility.The opinions of animal professionals are not just some opinions among many, they are the only opinions that actually matter when trying to determine how to reduce dog bite incidents and maulings. Not all opinions carry the same weight in a given contextThe sorts of people a dog expert category excludes are those of us who have little to no experience with dogs, as well as people whose only experience with a dog is a bite incident. As traumatizing as a serious bite incident might be, that the person has been attacked does not make that person an expert on dog behavior.We must be careful of those who pose as experts, such as certain website hobbyists and others who cook up statistics and facts outside of peer review. Ignoring the testimony of actual animal professionals is tantamount to ignoring the testimony of doctors for legislation concerning euthanasia–alarming and negligent especially for matters of public safety.It’s very well-known that animal professionals condemn Breed Specific Legislation for various reasons, such as its ineffectiveness for promoting public safety and its near impossibility to enforce.Why is BSL ineffective? In 2014 The American Veterinary Association published a peer-reviewed summary that concludes pit bull type breeds are not found to be disproportionately dangerous in controlled studies.Read that again: the absolute defining AUTHORITY on this matter concluded that pit bulls are not automatically bloodlust enfueled ravenous baby eating automatons.They also find that breed bans cannot be expected to work even if some breeds could be identified as high risk. Here are some other minor reputable sources that discuss the problem, although none of them have the fine investigative reporting standards of John Stewart (I actually like him-using his name here is not intended to be snarky) and the Guardian UK: ASPCA, Home | BAD RAP, Pit Bull Rescue Central, The National Canine Research Council, The American Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, the American Temperament Testing Society (which shows American Pit Bull Terriers scoring better than Golden Retrievers on temperament tests in 2008), the Human Society of the United States, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, as well as numerous (if not all) provincial SPCAs in Canada. I haven’t even begun to mention individuals. But somehow they must all be wrong, and a few sensationalists journalists must be right.Reminds me of this:And there are many more including associations, rescues, and animal control operations that operate at both the provincial and municipal levels that reject BSL. The voice of these professionals should heavily influence the direction of legislation. It’s up to public officials to translate that information into laws. Unfortunately, the enactment or continuation of BSL clearly indicates how public officials are ignoring the people they should be listening to. In doing so, they inevitably fail to protect the public.Why is BSL nearly impossible to enforce? There are discrepancies with visual identification compared to actual DNA (Voith et al. 2013). To complicate identification further, the use and meaning of the term ‘pit bull’ is disputed.‘Pit bull’ is often used as an umbrella term used to refer to at least four different types of terrier breeds who share similar characteristics and history: The Staffordshire Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), and the American Bull Terrier. Using this term is not as accurate as identifying dogs by their specific breeds. But the scope of ‘pit bull’ as slang has widened to the dismay of some advocacy groups.For example Pitbulls Against MisInformation (PBAM), as well as Bully Breed Soldiers Unite (BBSU) condemn a liberal use of the term and maintain that only the APBTs should be referred to as ‘pit bulls’. This is likely for a number of reasons, but restricting the use of the term prevents other breeds that merely look similar from misidentification by the media and society generally.Breed identification is extremely difficult, especially for persons without training. What is the point of enacting regulations which cannot be enforced? This is impracticality at its finest, which results in a waste of public funds. Breed misidentification by non-professionals who minimally interact with and track the actions of dogs, such as many police officers and journalists, fuels public hysteria.Public hysteria demands action from public officials, but hysteria is not an excuse for enacting regulations that do not promote public safety and ultimately waste our tax dollars at the same time.So there it is. Breed Specific Legislation is outdated, scientifically unfounded, and condemned by animal professionals. This means that BSL is enacted when it shouldn’t be.It’s continued when it shouldn’t be. As a matter of public safety concerning dogs, animal control regulations require careful attention to detail; the research matters. At this point, there is no good reason to continue a spotlight on particular breeds as if it’s supposed to increase the safety in our communities. So what should we do now? Non-human animal issues, especially those concerning companion animals, are social issues.Breed Specific Legislation is just one of many animal issues that matter.For example, offenses against animals in the Canadian Criminal Code have not been substantively updated since 1892 (with a bestiality loophole?!?! Come on people).At least Animal cruelty in the States is now considered a felony and investigated by the FBI, which means that the U.S. is exploring how to address animal cruelty as a first step in preventing larger crime.Moreover, Best Friends Animal Society in the U.S. took on the task of rehabilitating and rehoming most of the 50 dogs found on Michael Vick’s property in 2007 ( I was directly involved in this as part of our Rescue group).Many of these dogs went on to achieve Canine Good Citizen Status in addition to therapy dog certifications. Best Friends changed the way fighting dogs were treating in the years to follow as the public began to view them as victims in need of rehabilitation.Yet for some reason the massive dog-fighting bust in Chatham, Ontario early this year has yet to see any progress in determining the fate of those dogs, who are still kept in an undisclosed location by the Ontario SPCA.Additionally, the Obama Administration spoke out against BSL claiming it to be “largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”In May 2016, Arizona became the 20th State to prohibit cities and counties from enacting or enforcing breed-based dog regulations with others States soon to follow.There are many real examples to turn to in order to address the complexity of breed-neutral regulations that decrease dog bite incidents.For the record, I believe that Breed Specific Legislation is being used as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that your politicians are not doing their jobs.I honestly and truly do not believe it's misguided, or a misunderstanding, at least not at their level.A great majority of this information came from Alison K McConwell-thanks for your help! She is a contributor on A Philosopher’s Take if you guys want to look her up.This is Ms. Faith. She just got rolled and creamed by not one but two cars, and she is scared shitless and in a lot of pain in this photo. PITBULL!! AAHHHHHHH!! SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!I was the one who ran screaming with her into the local emergency Vet for Triage; she was covered in blood and whimpering.Yet, all she did was keep licking me (supplication) as if she was asking me to make it stop hurting-as she was bleeding out all over my back seat. Burned dog hair and flesh is pretty damn acrid.No biting, no snarling-just another soul that is begging for help.Which is the way that I interpreted it, quite literally.Today, she has scars that form a roadmap of the London underground down her side from all of the third degree burns that she got when she was swept up under truck #2 against the exhaust manifold.She runs, barks, hates baths, and plays with her owners pretty much every day.This is NOT the face of a mean animal.here she is being petted and loved on after 12 ablative treatments where they literally rip the dead skin off.It was her last treatment-she is a little groggy because they took her out to McDonalds for a treat and to celebrate. My understanding is that she feel asleep in one of the kids laps on the way home.And for those of you who may be interested, DAVE CONSIGLIO of Consiglio Devastations LLC (Everyone Dies™ ) and I have a SURPRISE coming for you all in the next few weeks! Stay tuned!

There is so much good stuff to learning from consulting. Here are the top 30+ things I would recommend learning. . . links to blog posts. Hope helpful.Hypothesis-based consulting: guessing the answers to client problems (09/26/12)What we call hypothesis-based consulting, some cynics call educated guessing. Either way, it is a smart way to break down complex or ambiguous problems, and quickly start driving towards an answer. Hypotheses start early in the process, go broad at first, but then get narrowed down quickly. It can be unnerving to some clients, but it works.Why do consultants use PowerPoint so much? (12/1/12) Good presentations are succinct. They may have a 60 page appendix, but the summary will be terse and have a point of view. Using the analogy of a tree, the presentation is the fruit. There is no reason to show off all the minutiae. You need to really boil it down to its essence. .Consulting PowerPoint Presentations: 4 Steps (12/5/12). To be clear, it is more than just making fancy graphs, but it is a large part of what we do. Executives are often very visual people. They have busy schedules and short attention spans. Sometimes, you only have 2 hours with a CXO (CEO, CFO, COO, COO, CIO, CMO) at the end of 4 month project – so you need to make sure that your presentation makes an impact.Better PowerPoint: 6 ways to make your point (4/30/12) What’s the so what?You will hear this phrase used on projects a fair amount. It is certainly not the best usage or even politely worded, but it is critical: Your presentations need to have a point . . .What is a good excel model? (11/13/12) Recently, I was given an excel model that was like the Titanic: large, slow, overly ornate, and structurally unsound. Not only was it frustrating to work with and laborious to fix, it was also a bit laughable. It did not answer even the most basic questions . . .Data analysis in 20 minutes (10/2/2014) Consultants are in the business of taking messy, unorganized data and turning it into information, and hopefully, some insights. Here is a simple example of excel clean up. . .Why consultants love best practices (6/10/12) Management consultants use the phrase “best practices” often. Perhaps too often. A few pictures that help explain why best practices are so popular with consultants and clients. . .How consultants interview clients (11/4/12) This week my team interviewed more than 20 people, everyone from VPs down to the analysts and clerks. The interviews were a gold mine of insights – especially since we were still in the early days of the project and collecting data. My throat was killing me, but these interviews helped us get our bearings on the client’s business, the personalities, and the politics. Every consulting project has interviews and here are my top interviewing tips . . .DMAIC: A great consulting tool for process improvement (4/28/12) Ask any consultant, and I mean ANY consultant (strategy, process, IT) and they will know what DMAIC stands for. It is an abbreviation for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve,Control. It is a tool often used in process improvement projects. . .SIPOC: Consulting framework to untangle problems (2/14/13) SIPOC is an ugly sounding acronym, but it is a useful way to think through problems. Clients often present consultants with complex processes that seemingly don’t have a start or a finish. Sometimes, the best thing is to stop digging. Take a step back and think through the problem. Untangle the problem in a more structured way . . .Consultant’s tool: what is a maturity model? (7/1/12) What really surprises me is that many clients have trouble explaining what is exactly wrong and what they want done. They often talk about symptoms – flat revenues, dropping margins, or increased receivables – not the root causes.A maturity model gauges the client’s maturity in a number of areas and points out the areas of improvement. It’s actually a simple thing that often looks like a report card or an excel table. It looks simple, but there is good stuff there. . .Lean means no waste. No TIMWOOD (2/11/2014) Lean is obsessively focused on doing only what is critical and what is valued by the customer. The way of thinking inherently believes in opportunity cost. You should only do what matters (to the customer). Put another way, if the customer wants 100, you should deliver 100. If you deliver 110, you wasted effort. . . The lean fundamentalist asks, “What is the customer really willing to pay for?” Anything more than that is really waste.Six Sigma: Consultants eat your own dog food (3/15/2014) Do you have boring, low-value added parts of your business that need to be standardized? By squeezing out the variability (read “craziness”) out of the process, you will be more efficient. Reduce the variability in the boring parts of your work to allow more time, freedom, and margin to innovate and deliver real value to your clients. . .Clients hire consultants to GET TO YES (12/6/12) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In written by Roger Fisher and William Ury is perhaps the most famous book on negotiations. It’s been endorsed by people who use these lessons daily – diplomats, lawyers, and business people because this stuff works. Fortune 500 organizations have a terrible time implementing these simple things and, as a result, often hire management consultant for help . . .Consulting advice: Help your clients save face (4/4/14) This is a simple concept that is critical for consultants and sales people to understand. Never put your client in a situation where you are directly and publicly disagreeing with them. Never box them into a corner where they might be ashamed of the situation. Never embarrass them. It’s a very Asian business culture concept of harmony, and it is super-applicable to consultants. Some of the most deadly phrases . . .How consultants do industry research (5/12/12) Management consultants need to be quick learners. Junior analysts are routinely asked to support proposals and projects across different industries. The good ones are fast, and proficient with Excel and PowerPoint. The great ones get up-to-speed quickly on the industry dynamics and can add in industry specifics to the pitch. . .4 reasons why management consultants love data (4/15/12). Management consultants are always on the prowl for good data. After all, it is the stuff that client recommendations are made of. To a cynic, it might seem obvious. The title of this post would be a kin to: “Why chefs love ingredients” or “Why district attorneys like evidence” or “Why gardeners like sunlight.” Even so, what exactly about the data do consultants love so much?Saying YES to clients can get consultants in trouble (8/29/12) When the client asks for something – new research, some ad-hoc analysis, an extra workshop – it usually seems like a reasonable request. After all, they pay the bills and shouldn’t they get the most out of their consultants, right? Experienced consultants and lawyers will tell you there are many reasons why being overly agreeable can create problems. . .Pauses: a consultant’s public speaking tip (4/20/12) Good speakers pause. After they finish one thought, they don’t rush to the next sentence. They don’t rattle off useless verbal fillers (uh, ah, um, well, so, right, hmm). Instead, they embrace that millisecond of silence, harness the awkwardness, and force the listener to pay attention. Many people call it the pregnant pause. . .What is scope creep? (1/29/13) Generally, this means that the client wants more work done for the same amount of money. It’s not pretty and it’s no surprise that consultants dread it. It usually means late nights, grumpy analysts, dissatisfied clients, and potentially lower project margins. All bad things. . .Structuring problems: Consultants use buckets (05/16/13) Consultants use buckets. I know it sounds pedestrian and unsophisticated, but it’s harder than it looks. When you are trying to crack a complex problem, inevitably you will start to group things. Structuring problems forces you to organize your thoughts, and reflect on what your key messages will be. It is the first step in turning data into insights.Frameworks: Distill your thoughts until they are 80 proof (1/21/14) Consultants are structured thinkers. They may not have as intuitive a grasp on the topic as the client – after all, the client has been living in this field their entire life – but consultants excel at piecing together bits and pieces of data until it starts forming an outline of a story. . . .The best short-answer to give clients? It depends (5/13/2013) “It depends” is a phrase you hear a lot in both business school and management consulting. To some, it might seem like a boring half-answer, timid, or worse – mentally lazy. As weird as it might seem, it is often the best short-answer to give a client.Cracking the case interview (8/11/2013) This format of interviewing is tough, but also a lot of fun. The interviewer gives you the problem and background, and it is up to the candidate to think through the problem, and selectively ask questions to solicit the information needed to get to a solution. 70% IQ, 30% EQ.Resumes are bait (11/7/13) I was on the recruiting team at a Big 4 consulting, and we looked through hundreds of resumes every year and 90% of them went into the trash. We probably spent less than 15 seconds on a cover letter and 30 seconds on a resume. Basically, the resume review was quick and violent.The way I see it, the entire purpose of a resume is to get invited for an interview. Period. Getting an interview means the fish took a bite at the bait. Resumes = bait.Finders, Minders, and Grinders (1/28/14) Managing a Professional Services Firm by David Maister is a consulting classic. For those interested in the economics of partnerships and want to know how managing partners think of their business model, you have to read this book. There are three archetypal roles that roughly line up with these job titles in the respective industries. . . finders (partners, principals), minders (senior managers, managers), and grinders (senior consultant, consultant, analysts)Consultant, what’s your leverage model? (3/16/2014) Leverage is how consulting firms make money. As I discussed in a previous post, professional services firms – lawyers, accountants, marketers, consultants – are built on organizational pyramid structures. There are fewer partners than analysts, no surprise. The ratio of finders, minders, and grinders (senior, middle, junior resources) affects the types of projects they can handle and also their profitability. . .18 excel modeling tips. (12/11/2015) This week I coached a new consultant in creating an excel model. Here are some of the words of advice I gave him. I wish I knew these pointers 20 years ago. . .Consulting proposals: 12 common mistakes. (12/19/2014) . In consulting, writing proposals and statements of work are the lifeblood of the firm. It is akin to fisherman throwing out nets, or farmers planting seeds. If you are not putting together proposals and pitching potential clients, you are dead. . . .Competitive Intelligence 20 tips (10/28/2014): When I was working overseas, I was on a competitive intelligence project. It might sound super-crafty, and Mission-Impossible, but it was not. It was actually quite boring. Lots of meetings to share information, and try to piece together the competition’s strategy and tactics. Very ethical and process-driven initiative.Data Analysis in 20 minutes (10/2/2014). Consultants are in the business of taking messy, unorganized data and turning it into information, and hopefully, some insights. Here is a simple example of excel clean up, and the steps to copy, paste, filter, sort, and cleanse data. For most consultants, the data cleansing would 7-10 minutes (takes some trial and error) and the graphics would be another 10 minutes, if (s)he knew what graph they wanted to make. . .Consulting formula: Think + write + communicate + revise (8/04/2014) On a large project with so many moving parts, people, stakeholders, and organizational history that I sometimes get lost in the activities, status reports and project management mess. Stop. I need to come back to the basics of consulting. This post is written to myself, for myself. Gotta get back to basics:IT implementation worst practices: healthcare.gov (11/3/2013) IT implementation is “bread and butter work” for consulting firms. It often involves dozens of consultants, multiple locations, and sometimes 2-3 years for a full roll out of an enterprise resource plan (ERP) like SAP or Oracle. These are big hairy projects that cost dozens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. It’s big money.What is RACI? (05/18/2015) This is a tool consultants use on any project which requires clear definition of roles and more communication on a new process. When you have more than a handful of people involved, it’s very easy to get confused and make incorrect assumptions on who is doing what. Confusion = frustration = lack of adoption = failure.

This was my answer to “Why Don’t We ban Pit Bulls Because They Are SOOOO Vicious-we need to protect the children..” It will be applicable here I think!Yeah, we have the same problem—since over 76% of fatalities of young black men in the US are caused by other young black men -it seems reasonable that we apply the same bans against black people-You know, to ‘stop the violence’ and ‘protect the children’.So far my ‘Ban the Blacks’ program keeps meeting with ridiculous resistance: people trying to claim the I am pursuing this agenda without addressing pesky things such as fact and actual statistics. Kinda like all of the statistics that show Breeeeed Specific Legislation doesn’t work.And before anyone unleashes any well meaning shit on me, a formal girlfriend (Why yes, she IS Black! How did you know?) suggested I started this whole column with this smart-ass take.This is Ms. Faith. She just got rolled and creamed by not one but two cars, and she is scared shitless and in a lot of pain in this photo.I was the one who ran screaming with her into the local emergency Vet for Triage; she was covered in blood and whimpering.Yet, all she did was keep licking me (supplication) as if she was asking me to make it stop hurting-as she was bleeding out all over my back seat. Burned dog hair and flesh is pretty damn acrid.No biting, no snarling-just another soul that is begging for help.Which is the way that I interpreted it, quite literally.Today, she has scars that form a roadmap of the London underground down her side from all of the third degree burns that she got when she was swept up under truck #2 against the exhaust manifold.She runs, barks, hates baths, and plays with her owners pretty much every day.This is NOT the face of a mean animal.I will include another picture of her later-that’s how I make sure you read everything!!Back to our original question: I mean, according to the Telegraph the UK has had OVER 17 deaths due to dog bites since 2005; practically an epidemic.We can ignore preventable causes of death -such as Coronary Heart Disease which racked up a minuscule 376,157 in 2016 alone, or Lung Cancer (Somewhat preventable) which took almost 185,316 just as long as we are concentrating on the .00003001%. We want to really make a difference in this brave new world.As far as ‘Protect the Children’-no. Just no. You can’t haul a crew of crumb-snatchers into Mickey D’s for colas and deep-fried whatever and meat-like substances and tell me ANYTHING about wanting to keep your children safe.Chicken McNuggets are awesome!Breed Specific Legislation is Similar Other Forms of Discrimination. (Didn’t we have a movement with the Jim Crowe laws that oppressed anyone with dark skin in order to stop rapes and murders?? And how well has THAT played out?)You see, Homo Sap has had witch hunts before.Here’s some Biology 101.Breeds of dogs are analogous (or similar) to the populations of humans we often refer to as ‘race’.Different species–Homo sapiens, Canis lupus familiaris (the domestic dog), and Felis catus (domestic or “house” cats)–have numerous subpopulations organized by various factors, such as geographic isolation or selective breeding to name a few.In other words, different populations of dogs we call ‘breeds’ can be more common in some places than others. We can also influence the organization of dog populations by our selective breeding practices.All of this means that the group of terrier breeds often referred to as ‘pit bulls’ are, biologically speaking, just domestic dogs like every other subpopulation of the species.But we can take an analogy between dogs and humans a step further. Dogs are mammals like us (well, most of us, anyway) , which means we share similar features or traits that place us in that taxonomic grouping, traits often due to our shared evolutionary histories.One might even say that dogs have relevant brain structures and exhibit the behavior suggestive of individual experiences and a ‘point of view.’ (Admittedly, this point of view might be from beneath the counter where a particularly tasty prime rib is standing prior to carving) From this we can infer that each individual dog experiences aspects of the world from a particular perspective similar to how we each experience the world from a different perspective based on our own personal histories (emotional, psychological, etc.).All of these similarities between dogs and humans seem reasonable, and certainly verifiable by anyone who owns dogs or works closely with them.The claim that dogs, and other non-human animals, are some Cartesian automata (or machines) without minds, individual personalities, or the capacity for pain experience is a fancy of only the most radical skeptics in philosophy of mind. So let’s stick with our reasonable starting point.The similarities above are commonly used to support arguments against the discrimination of certain dog breeds. That is, breed discrimination is wrong (or, more importantly, ineffective) for the same reasons we think discrimination against humans grouped into certain categories is wrong (e.g. categories such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation).Discrimination historically seems to be a bad thing when it causes unequal or unfair treatment and harm. Anti-discrimination laws are in place to “prohibit us from singling out individuals for less favorable treatment because of certain traits (Moreau 2010, 143).As a discriminatory regulation, Breed Specific Legislation is exactly what it sounds like. Regulations are put in place that single out individual dogs due to a common set of physical traits. Often the reason given for a ban on those breeds with the target traits is an assumed connection with aggression towards humans. . Such differential treatment results in targeted dogs receiving unequal treatment that often results in harm to them, such as death.Given the value of life (among most people, anyway) , a loss of it calls for careful consideration.We often look back to discriminatory laws concerning humans enacted twenty or even thirty years ago and feel embarrassed about the systemic injustices they were used to enforce.This includes the blood donor controversy concerning gay donors, racial segregation laws up to the mid 20th century, and the residential school system that took place in Canada (sorry, US, you don’t get to escape this either. Remember Ruby Bridges?) up until the 1990s just to name a few.Thankfully, we’ve seen what some might call moral progress. For example, bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned across North America. We continue to work on discriminatory issues as a nation and through grassroots movements on social media, such as challenging the glass-ceiling for women in the workforce.What all of these morally-charged social changes have in common is a general condemnation of discriminatory practice based on physical characteristics or behaviors.The lesson of the story goes something like this: we’ve learned that judging a book by its cover is an unsound judgment as time and time again we discover that what’s inside doesn’t always meet our expectations. In other words, we’ve discovered that discriminatory judgments like this are epistemically suspect–there are no grounds for thinking that outward characteristics, such as physical traits or particular orientations, necessarily determine individual psychology and behavioral tendencies. But how does all of this talk of social movements concern dog breeds?If it is wrong to judge the individual personality and behavioral tendencies of someone because of that person’s race or other physical characteristics we must carefully scrutinize the claim that all pit bulls (even though we don’t have a concrete on what this means) are ‘vicious’ and ‘should be banned’.That is, to say that entire populations of dogs are vicious because of some connection between viciousness and the way they look should cause alarm bells–this is the very same discriminatory line of reasoning now recognized to be problematic and outdated as described above.Breed Specific Legislation is Scientifically Unfounded( this is IMPORTANT-one doesn’t follow a premise simply because wants to believe it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary…oh, wait a minute…) so any attempts to justify discrimination against breeds labeled ‘pit bulls’ rely on one alleged factor that is supposed to distinguish those dogs from the rest: aggressive behavior. Folks in favor of BSL (Breed Specific Legislation for those of you that are having trouble keeping up) often speak to the aggressive behavior these dogs were bred for “in the pits” from when dog fighting was considered a sport to the thug-like enterprise we know it as today.There is, however, a tendency to ignore research on aggression, which is problematic for at least two reasons. The first comes from work in cognitive ethology and the second from biology.First, cognitive ethology is the study of animal mental experiences (Ristau 2013). And “it has been recognized for many years [i.e. since at least 1923] that aggression is not a unitary phenomenon” with studies that analyze the relationship between inter-species and intra-species aggression (Huntingford 1976). Way back in 1966, K. Lorenz distinguished between two situations in which aggressive behavior is known to occur: [1]inter-specific or ‘between species’ aggression versus [2]intra or conspecific aggression as fighting within the same species. In categorizing aggression we find a distinction between aggressive behavior within species and between species.In other words, we have good evidence to support a distinction between dog-dog (conspecific) aggression and dog-human (interspecific) aggression. We see real examples of this distinction all the time, such as dogs in shelters who are described as needing ‘one dog homes’, but nevertheless make excellent family pets.Furthermore, the aggression pit bulls might show in the fighting pits (though not all do and are often killed because of that) does not immediately translate into aggression towards humans (oopsy. Better make sure no one knows about this little fly in the ointment…).In fact, if our concern is what the dogs were “bred for,” then dogs that showed aggression towards humans during dog fights were likely not selected for as it would be detrimental to the handler. Given that aggression has also been analyzed in terms of the function it serves in addition to “its motivational basis” (Huntingford 1976, 485), this suggests that the function of aggression in the fighting pit along with the motivations to do so are very different than your standard loving home, which counter-conditions against such behavior. In sum, to say that all pit bulls are aggressive is often a statement made in ignorance concerning the evident nuances of aggressive behavior generally.Second, one cannot assess the nature of particular dog breeds in a vacuum–biology has something to say about the relationship between genes and the phenotypic expression of them, such as behavioral tendencies.In popular media, Cesar Milan (a.k.a the Dog Whisperer) claims that all dogs are a product of their environment–change the environment and you then change the behavior of the dog (another one of those pesky, verifiable facts, dammit) .Alternatively, particular advocacy organizations have taken a stand against Milan’s position and claim that dog characteristics “are all about genetics” (Pit Bulls Against Misinformation is one organization).Despite the disagreement, both sides emphasize the need for responsible and knowledgeable handlers to manage and address dog behavior. These claims are based on direct experience in handling dogs in training and rescue. Alternatively, those who support BSL typically claim that pit bull breeds are inherently aggressive such that it’s in their genes to be that way. So is dog behavior due to nature or nurture?To address that question, one should not ignore how the nature-nurture debate over the cause of phenotypic traits reached a far more sophisticated conclusion after the biologist R.C. Lewontin published a landmark paper in 1974. This paper marks the beginning of the interactionist consensus concerning the relationship between genes, environment, and phenotypic expression (traits such as behavior included). This means that all traits (physical characteristics, behavior, etc.) result from a complicated interaction between genetic and environmental factors.Since 1974, there has been a live debate over which factor more heavily influences the phenotypes, in addition to the role of information theory, innate versus acquired characteristics, and phenotypic plasticity (Pigliucci 2001, Kaplan 2000, Northcott 2006, Griffiths 2009, Tabery 2014 to name just a few).If all of this sounds complicated, it’s because it is.The point is that talk of a single cause of dog behavior is not supported by scientific and philosophical literature, which has been around for over forty years. So aggressive behavior is not only due to genes and it’s not only due to the environment, but instead results from a complicated interaction between both. Therefore, to say the all pit bulls are inherently aggressive due to genetic cause is insensitive to tons of relevant research on the multiple causes of phenotypic traits.Overall, what we learn from studies on the nature of aggression and the relationship between behavior, genes, and the environment matter for public safety when the aim is to manage our complex companionship with another species, which lives so closely alongside us. How to put into practice what we learn from our research is up to the policy makers and animal professionals, which brings us to the final point.-Breed Specific Legislation is Condemned by Animal Professionals. (I mean, why would any of us accept the word of trained professionals that work with dogs in the field, as opposed to listen to 3 second sensationalist media bites and the extensive and exhaustive research done by John Stewart? Well, you SHOULD-he’s got two pit bulls, and has gone to bat for them repeatedly.)To put this plainly, BSL is downright lazy policy-making. It takes actual work to construct animal control regulations that truly make a difference to public safety. Why? Because a multitude of experts must be consulted, which includes research into what counts as an expert and pursing verbal or written suggestions and direction for how to shape the laws. A similar instance might be likened to the 1994 passing of the “Hate Crime Laws”. In these, a gay man was brutally murdered by gay-bashers, so we passed a bunch of laws to ‘stop’ this kind of behavior. Funny, because I thought that Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, and bloody MURDER were already illegal. But passing these EXTRA laws certainly made us feel good about our politicians “standing up for our safety” (sound familiar?) and passing yet another set of ineffectual laws.)Animal professionals that count as “dog experts” will be anyone with significant knowledge about dog breeds and behavior through experience by occupation (i.e. working directly with dogs) or through research by obtaining facts from reliable sources (i.e. competent knowers in a certain field, such as cognitive ethology for example).Veterinarians, rescue agencies, humane societies, and animal control officers all fit the bill. Notice that law enforcement officials (unless directly trained in dealing with dogs), as well as journalists who think they’re tracking a pattern, are not included on this list. Being more famous does not automatically incur more credibility.The opinions of animal professionals are not just some opinions among many, they are the only opinions that actually matter when trying to determine how to reduce dog bite incidents and maulings. Not all opinions carry the same weight in a given contextThe sorts of people a dog expert category excludes are those of us who have little to no experience with dogs, as well as people whose only experience with a dog is a bite incident. As traumatizing as a serious bite incident might be, that the person has been attacked does not make that person an expert on dog behavior.We must be careful of those who pose as experts, such as certain website hobbyists and others who cook up statistics and facts outside of peer review. Ignoring the testimony of actual animal professionals is tantamount to ignoring the testimony of doctors for legislation concerning euthanasia–alarming and negligent especially for matters of public safety.It’s very well-known that animal professionals condemn Breed Specific Legislation for various reasons, such as its ineffectiveness for promoting public safety and its near impossibility to enforce.Why is BSL ineffective? In 2014 The American Veterinary Association published a peer-reviewed summary that concludes pit bull type breeds are not found to be disproportionately dangerous in controlled studies.Read that again: the absolute defining AUTHORITY on this matter concluded that pit bulls are not automatically bloodlust enfueled ravenous baby eating automatons.They also find that breed bans cannot be expected to work even if some breeds could be identified as high risk. Here are some other minor reputable sources that discuss the problem, although none of them have the fine investigative reporting standards of John Stewart (I actually like him-using his name here is not intended to be snarky) and the Guardian UK: ASPCA, Home | BAD RAP, Pit Bull Rescue Central, The National Canine Research Council, The American Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, the American Temperament Testing Society (which shows American Pit Bull Terriers scoring better than Golden Retrievers on temperament tests in 2008), the Human Society of the United States, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, as well as numerous (if not all) provincial SPCAs in Canada. I haven’t even begun to mention individuals. But somehow they must all be wrong, and a few sensationalists journalists must be right.Reminds me of this:And there are many more including associations, rescues, and animal control operations that operate at both the provincial and municipal levels that reject BSL. The voice of these professionals should heavily influence the direction of legislation. It’s up to public officials to translate that information into laws. Unfortunately, the enactment or continuation of BSL clearly indicates how public officials are ignoring the people they should be listening to. In doing so, they inevitably fail to protect the public.Why is BSL nearly impossible to enforce? There are discrepancies with visual identification compared to actual DNA (Voith et al. 2013). To complicate identification further, the use and meaning of the term ‘pit bull’ is disputed.‘Pit bull’ is often used as an umbrella term used to refer to at least four different types of terrier breeds who share similar characteristics and history: The Staffordshire Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), and the American Bull Terrier. Using this term is not as accurate as identifying dogs by their specific breeds. But the scope of ‘pit bull’ as slang has widened to the dismay of some advocacy groups.For example Pitbulls Against MisInformation (PBAM), as well as Bully Breed Soldiers Unite (BBSU) condemn a liberal use of the term and maintain that only the APBTs should be referred to as ‘pit bulls’. This is likely for a number of reasons, but restricting the use of the term prevents other breeds that merely look similar from misidentification by the media and society generally.Breed identification is extremely difficult, especially for persons without training. What is the point of enacting regulations which cannot be enforced? This is impracticality at its finest, which results in a waste of public funds. Breed misidentification by non-professionals who minimally interact with and track the actions of dogs, such as many police officers and journalists, fuels public hysteria.Public hysteria demands action from public officials, but hysteria is not an excuse for enacting regulations that do not promote public safety and ultimately waste our tax dollars at the same time.So there it is. Breed Specific Legislation is outdated, scientifically unfounded, and condemned by animal professionals. This means that BSL is enacted when it shouldn’t be.It’s continued when it shouldn’t be. As a matter of public safety concerning dogs, animal control regulations require careful attention to detail; the research matters. At this point, there is no good reason to continue a spotlight on particular breeds as if it’s supposed to increase the safety in our communities. So what should we do now? Non-human animal issues, especially those concerning companion animals, are social issues.Breed Specific Legislation is just one of many animal issues that matter.For example, offenses against animals in the Canadian Criminal Code have not been substantively updated since 1892 (with a bestiality loophole?!?! Come on people).At least Animal cruelty in the States is now considered a felony and investigated by the FBI, which means that the U.S. is exploring how to address animal cruelty as a first step in preventing larger crime.Moreover, Best Friends Animal Society in the U.S. took on the task of rehabilitating and rehoming most of the 50 dogs found on Michael Vick’s property in 2007 ( I was directly involved in this as part of our Rescue group).Many of these dogs went on to achieve Canine Good Citizen Status in addition to therapy dog certifications. Best Friends changed the way fighting dogs were treating in the years to follow as the public began to view them as victims in need of rehabilitation.Yet for some reason the massive dog-fighting bust in Chatham, Ontario early this year has yet to see any progress in determining the fate of those dogs, who are still kept in an undisclosed location by the Ontario SPCA.Additionally, the Obama Administration spoke out against BSL claiming it to be “largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”In May 2016, Arizona became the 20th State to prohibit cities and counties from enacting or enforcing breed-based dog regulations with others States soon to follow.There are many real examples to turn to in order to address the complexity of breed-neutral regulations that decrease dog bite incidents.For the record, I believe that Breed Specific Legislation is being used as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that your politicians are not doing their jobs.I honestly and truly do not believe it's misguided, or a misunderstanding, at least not at their level.A great majority of this information came from Alison K McConwell-thanks for your help! She is a contributor on A Philosopher’s Take if you guys want to look her up.Here Ms. Faith is being petted and loved on after 12 ablative treatments where they literally rip the dead skin off. Not a clear picture-she was squirming happily a little.It was her last treatment-she is a little groggy because they took her out to McDonalds for a treat and to celebrate.My understanding is that she feel asleep in one of the kids laps on the way home.Now, if you want to talk about something truly horrifying it, check this out!"Spoiler Alert!-Everybody Dies™" by Consiglio & Wetmore