Adams County Humane Society: Fill & Download for Free

Interesting question.It depends on what you mean by should.Is it practical to scour the South and rename all the streets, towns, cities, and counties named for Confederate leaders? Is this a winnable fight? Does the federal government possess the power to force localities to rename themselves? No. Do states government possess such a power? No. In most cases, the people living in those places are proud of their Confederate heritage and like those names just as they are. Other times, the local inhabitants are not history buffs and don’t know enough about Civil War history to be bothered.Memphis, TN is a majority-black city. Presumably the inhabitants would prefer to have their streets named after civil rights leaders rather than Confederate leaders and battle victories. Yet there is a Beauregard Ave, a Manassas Street, and a Manassas High School. And as recently as 2013, there were parks named Confederate Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Nathan Bedford Forrest Park.[1] The city finally changed those names to more neutral-sounding ones 7 years ago, but if you look at a map of the South, you will see at least as many streets named after Confederates than after civil rights leaders. [2]You can tell a lot about a society by what and whom it seeks to glorify. This brings me to my second point: should we still have places and monuments named after Confederate leaders.What was the point of the Confederacy? Slavery. They felt so strongly about their desire to enslave and oppress black people that they were willing to tear their country apart over it. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just read what their Vice President had to say on the matter:[3]But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.The man wasn’t just saying that he was a racist—pretty much everyone was back then. No, he was saying that Africans were inferior, and that this was the foundational idea for the government white Southerners had founded. He continued:…As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.The inferiority of blacks was divinely ordained. And their position was to remain at the substratum of Southern society. For this, white Southerners were ready to fight, even if they should have the whole world against them.Now, let us ask again: are these people we should be honoring?I think you already know the answer. I have encountered 3 main lines of reasoning against ridding ourselves of Confederate monuments:The monuments are about remembering history. And those who seek to take them down are trying to erase history. This argument is so silly that it is scarcely worth replying to. You might take the time to explain to a child why it was a faulty line of reasoning. But an adult who reasons thus is a complete waste of time. Apparently, people in Germany will never remember who Hitler was unless they build monuments to him and name their streets and parks after his henchmen…The Confederates are worth honoring because they fought for the noble ideal of states’ rights. To this, two answers.Theirs was not a fight for states’ rights. They vehemently opposed the right of northern states not to return escapees from slavery.They were not heroes who merely happened to have a few incidental racist ideas; their racism was central to their identity. The whole point of the war was to establish a society where blacks constituted the substratum.The Confederate cause, flag, and monuments are about Southern pride. I have encountered this argument so many times that I am not sure if people realize what they are actually saying. Ladies and gentleman, allow me to present to you this man. His name is James Enos Clyburn. Most people know him as Jim Clyburn.He is a Representative from South Carolina. He is also the House Majority Whip.Because this is not apparent to some, I am going to have to spell it out: this individual is a human being, a full human being, entitled to the same consideration accorded to people of a lighter complexion. He is not less human or less American than others. And, having been born and raised in South Carolina, he is every bit as much of a Southerner as Jefferson Davis or Jeff Sessions.The Confederacy and its symbols cannot possibly represent him or be objects of his pride. And he is not alone. There are millions and millions of African American Southerners. The only way one can claim that Confederate symbols are symbols of “The South” is by denying the full humanity of the black people who live there.This argument is circular in the extreme.White supremacist rebels found a new government whose foundation is the enslavement of blacks.The symbols of this white supremacist government get called “Southern” because the opinions of black people don’t matter in a racist society.We are told that the symbols in question can’t be racist because they are about “Southern pride” rather than white supremacy.This is a bad argument, and an inadvertently racist one to boot. There shouldn’t be any place of honor whatsoever for the Confederate cause in a nation that does not wish to glorify white supremacy.Footnotes[1] Memphis changes names of 3 Confederate-themed parks[2] The South's Penchant for Confederate Street Names, Mapped[3] Cornerstone Speech

Some cats are just escape artists and will NOT be kept in the house. I had one of those and I feel for you because I am adamant about keeping them indoors. I had one a LONG time ago that was like that. Eventually I had to accept that this guy needed to go outside. He'd only suffered one serious injury - cut his head open on something - that needed surgery, but we had him for 19 years before he finally passed away. Another one when I was a kid was an indoor/outdoor cat. He disappeared one day and I never saw him again. I cried for months and to this day I still wonder what happened to him.Depending on where you live, keeping them indoors is a necessity, apartments especially.Some things you can try:1: A Feliway diffuser in the house. Odorless (to us) pheromone diffuser that makes the house smell safe and like home. That COULD help reduce the need to go outside.2: There are cat repellant sprays at the pet store. There are a couple of brands you can try. I have a very stubborn guy who's very willful that I couldn't keep away from the front door, so I bought this herbal/organic cat repellant and sprayed it around the threshold. This SOB decided it was the most fascinating thing he'd ever smelled and I couldn't drag him away from it. Best to try it on something first - maybe an old, clean wash cloth. Really, any way to make the doorway unattractive.3: Make sure kitty has a place where she can lounge to watch the goings on outside. Watch the screens though so keep the windows closed. It takes no time at all for kitty to shred the screen and make good their escape.4: Have a cat condo and plenty of cat toys. Mine LOVE balls and dangly things and they chase each other up and down the condo and have a great time with it.5: Do something different in the house. Move things around occasionally, bring in new things for them to investigate.Anything you can do to make things indoors more interesting for the cat will help. If, on the other hand, nothing works and you are in a suburban setting like a house a block or two from a major road, then please get the kitty chipped and used to wearing a collar and as always spaying or neutering is a must as well as keeping her current on shots.Animal Services (at least in my county) chips all the animals they take in with the American Kennel Club (yeah - my cat is registered with the AKC, what a roar). The rest of mine I took to my vet who chipped them with Pet Microchip for Dogs and Cats. It was a $50 charge and they're registered for life. Check with your veterinarian, humane society and animal services on what arrangements they have, because some services require a yearly subscription.Good luck!Pet Microchip for Dogs and Cats

1. In the 1970s, John Harris, a Californian, toured the nation with “tame” wolves to promote public sympathy for preserving wolves. In July, 1975, "Rocky," one of Harris' wolves, attacked a one-year-old girl by biting her in the face. The girl was brought close to the wolf for a picture, an action encouraged by Harris.2. In Maryland, a man kept a wolf in his basement and this animal turned and savagely bit and clawed his two-year-old son.3. In New York City, a wolf bit a woman as it approached her.4. At a zoo in Idaho, a little girl walked up to a cage housing a wolf and reached through the bars to pet the wolf. The wolf bit the arm. The arm had to be amputated.5. Mr. Edward Rucciuti, former curator of publications for the New York Zoological Society and author of KILLER ANIMALS, personally witnessed a 12-year-old boy savagely attacked in the Bronx Zoo. This boy climbed a high fence in order to pet the wolves. The wolves (male and 2 females) immediately attacked the boy, ripping at the boy's clothing and flesh. The boy instinctively curled up in a ball, protecting his head, chest and abdomen. He then crawled into the moat in front of the exhibit with the wolves chewing his back and legs. Once the boy made it to the water, the wolves ceased their attack. The boy crawled out of the moat and collapsed. Mr. Rucciuti was amazed that the boy was still alive due to the severity of the bites.6. San Diego Zoo (1971) A 15-year-old boy climbed the fence and tried to take a shortcut across the exhibit. He didn't know there were wolves in the exhibit and tried to run when he saw them. The wolves grabbed him by the leg attempting to drag him off. The boy grabbed a tree and hung on. Two bystanders jumped in the enclosure and attacked the wolves with tree branches. The wolves did not attack the two men, but continued to maul the boy. Dragging the boy and swinging their clubs, the boy was pulled out of the enclosure. The wolves in the enclosure were all young animals and it was thought that if the animals were mature, the boy would have died before being rescued.7. A few months after the attack on the boy (#6), a man scaled the fence and swung his arms in the exhibit to get the attention of the wolves and got it by being bitten severely on both arms.8. 1973 - Another boy tried to cross the same compound and was attacked, a security guard shot and killed one of the wolves, and the other fled as the boy was pulled to safety.9. 1975 - Small zoo in Worcester, Massachusetts, a two-year-old lad was savagely bitten on the leg when it slipped through an enclosure opening. The boy's mother and 2 men could not pull the boy free. The wolves did not stop ripping the boy's leg apart until a railroad tie was thrown in the midst of the wolves.10. 1978 -- A wolf bit a child in Story, Wyoming. The wolf was penned at a local veterinary clinic for observation. During that time, the wolf escaped its pen and killed a young calf. Wyoming law prohibits the keeping of wild animals as pets, so the animal was shipped to Ohio, where it had come from. The owner of the wolf went to Ohio and brought the wolf back to Wheatland, Wyoming. It was reported the wolf attacked and killed a child in that area shortly thereafter.11. September, 1981 - A two-year-old boy was mauled to death by an 80-lb, 3 year-old female wolf in Ft. Wayne, Michigan. The boy wandered within the chain length of the wolf.12. August 2, 1986 (Fergus Falls, Minnesota) - A 17-month-old boy reached and grabbed the fencing which kept his father's pet wolves enclosed. One wolf immediately grabbed the boy's hand and bit it off. The mother was at the scene and received lacerations freeing the child from the wolf.13. July 1988 (Minnesota Zoo) - A teenage volunteer reached through the wire fence to pet a wolf and was bitten. The wolf was put to sleep and tested for rabies – negative.14. May 15, 1989 - 2-year-old Timothy Bajinski was bitten by a wolf hybrid in his mother's Staten Island, New York backyard. Mrs. Bajinski has been charged with keeping a wild animal.15. May 1989 - Lucas Wilken was bitten by two wolf hybrids in Adams County, CO (Denver Area).16. June 3, 1989 - Three year old Alyshia Berczyk was attacked and killed by a wolf in Forest Lake, Minnesota. The wolf had bitten her severely and had injured her kidneys, liver and bit through her aorta. Alyshia was playing in a backyard when she got too close to the chained wolf that grabbed her dress and pulled her down, attacking her.17. July 1, 1989 (Kenyon, Minnesota) - Peter Lemke, age 5, attempted to pet a chained wolf and was attacked. He lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon, suffered a tear in his stomach, and bite wounds on his arms, legs, buttocks and neck. While being life-flighted to the hospital, Pete arrested 3 times but was saved by medical personnel. The Lemkes have incurred over $200,000 in hospital bills. Pete has a colostomy bag, but doctors are hopeful they can re-attach his colon and get it to function normally in later surgeries.18. September 3, 1989 - A wolf and a dog entered a corral belonging to Leona Geppfart of Caldwell, ID and attacked a 6-month-old 400-pound Hereford calf. Geppfart attempted to scare the animals away and they turned on her and she retreated to her house. A short time later, a law enforcement officer arrived and as he approached the corral, the wolf lunged at him. The officer stopped the animal with his shotgun.NOTE: This list of wolf attacks is by no means exhaustive. They are simply listed to show that attacks have occurred both in the wild and other settings.