Bailley at Work

Commentary by Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

Police Dog “Bosco” Moves Out of Intensive Care

Anytime one of my fellow dogs is injured I am, of course, concerned.  In particular, Bosco, a Zanesville, Ohio Police K-9, as I am told, is getting better after receiving two gunshot wounds in the line of duty.  He is being taken care of, pardon the expression, at the Ohio State University Veterinary Hospital.  That is one good thing about Ohio State, i.e., they have a Veterinary Hospital, and seem to be taking care of Bosco very well.  I am told that the Zanesville K-9 Unit is paid for entirely by donations.  People wishing to contribute to Bosco’s care can send donations to the Zanesville Police Department, K-9 Fund, 332 South St., Zanesville, Ohio  43701.  However, I wouldn’t give another dime to anything at Ohio State based upon their quarterback as discussed in a recent commentary.

Bailley, "The Legal Beagle"

Sunday, September 6, 2009 Detroit Free Press Article "America's top quirk?  Pet Worship"

It has been brought to my attention that an article in the Sunday, September 6, 2009 Free Press, written by a guy named Rodney Muhumuza, was entitled "America's top quirk? Pet Worship".

Below is a copy of the article because I think it is disgusting.  I believe dogs have increased in importance to Americans for a long time for definite reasons and that Americans appreciate dogs accordingly.  This guy comes into our country for a few months and "observes" that somehow or another, even though we love dogs and that they provide unconditional love without controversy, he wants to take a poke at us.  I think it is despicable.  First of all, Americans get along well with their animals including their dogs which help them, now and then, cope with life.  This guy doesn't get it and hopefully Americans, as well as my fellow dogs, will write this guy at his web site and tell him that he needs additional insight into how our country works.  As he says, "in a country that's still grappling with notions of race and the human condition, the United States could take several leaps forward if its citizens loved their neighbors - and spouses - as they love their pets."  Now I think it is fine for everyone to love their spouses and their neighbors but that shouldn't detract from their love for dogs, and people shouldn't complain about it.  I just hope that some dog doesn't bite this guy.

Bailley, "The Legal Beagle"

America’s top quirk? Pet worship

By RODNEY MUHUMUZA
It’s a good sign when, as a foreigner, you are frequently asked to state the most intrigu­ing thing you have noticed about America.
  It means that someone cares enough to ask, as people did when I visited Detroit. But goodwill cannot be taken for granted, espe­cially if your response unchar­itably slips into territory as be­loved in America as pets.
  Still, I must take the neces­sary risk in the name of hon­esty, including when I was asked what I found to be the most confusing thing I had observed in the five months I have worked in the United States. “This thing about Ameri­cans and their pets,” I started, “is just incredible. ... I don’t get it.”
  To be sure, there is nothing puzzling about a nation collec­tively rejecting all cruelty to animals, or even loving their pets as much as they love their children. What’s bewildering, however, is the inconsistency inherent within the sense of royalty Americans bestow on their pets.
  I arrived in the United States just days before the White House unveiled the so­called first dog Bo to a frenzied news media, and several weeks before Michael Vick was re­leased from prison, where the footballer had been sent for financing a dog-fighting ring.
  The charges against Vick, who has since returned to professional football, had shocked the nation, igniting a storm that set him on the dubi­ous path to become one of America’s most hated men.
  Only a decadent man could finance the kind of cruelty Vick’s operation perpetrated against dogs. But it’s certainly not uplifting when people seem unwilling to forgive him after he serves his time and accepts his mistakes.
  That’s to say nothing of the media coverage the Vick affair garnered, often at the expense of other important stories, sometimes with little regard for other human tragedies.
  If it’s remarkable that nearly all Americans can uncondition­ally love their dogs, it’s also incredible that there is nothing a once-admired athlete could do to gain the forgiveness of so many Americans.
  Even as a troubled economy leaves many people unem­ployed and drives families to the brink of bankruptcy, it’s not hard to see that it’s safe to be a pet in America. And one sus­pects that businesses dealing in dog stuff can’t spell the word “recession.”
  I have seen families carrying their dogs — beautifully packed in aerated bags — on flights; heard of a laid-off reporter who left his two dogs with a loving family before decamping to deadly Afghanistan; seen a frivolous cable TV ad in which one company, claiming to love puppies, accuses another of hating them; seen men caress­ing their dogs as they hurl profanities at their friends; and observed seemingly lonely women walking happy dogs.
  These human-canine rela­tionships all seem perfect. Yet they are also glaringly uneven, and I find it an absurd contra­diction when someone cheer­fully embraces independence but needs a dog’s shoulder to cry on when life gets messy.
  In a country that’s still grap­pling with notions of race and the human condition, the Unit­ed States could take several leaps forward if its citizens loved their neighbors — and spouses — as they have loved their pets.
  Yes, they can.
  For the doubters, analyze this: “Do you have children yet?” I asked an American friend, a married man. “No,” he told me, “but I have a dog.”
 | RODNEY MUHUMUZA IS A UGANDAN JOUR­NALIST WORKING AT THE KANSAS CITY STAR AS AN ALFRED FRIENDLY PRESS FELLOW.

Ohio State Has Gone to the Bad Dogs

Now many of you know that I associate with people at the office who are, for the most part, Go Blue Michigan diehards.  I have tried to stay out of the Michigan State v Michigan foray because many of the clients of The Meisner Law Group, P.C. have affiliations with Michigan State.  However, Ohio State is a different matter and I was just advised of an article in USA Today of 9/9/2009 which commented on Terrelle Pryor’s wearing of an eye patch providing tribute to Michael Vick.  Now I have already commented on Michael Vick and the National Football League in an earlier commentary, but now this thing of Terrelle Pryor giving homage to Michael Vick at Ohio State is more than I can ingest without barking out a comment.  Frankly, I don’t like Ohio State and now I have reason not to like their quarterback who turned his hind on Michigan and went down the road to Columbus.  Terrelle Pryor may well be a good quarterback, but coming out for Michael Vick unnecessarily is a “doggone” shame and I am glad that their coach now has to deal with a  lot of dogs barking at him, including those that wear the scarlet and gray.   Enough barked!

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

“Blue Dogs” or Corporate Shills?  Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2009

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

“One Good Judge and One Bad Judge”

Now being associated with a law firm, I know from experience that sometimes Judges make mistakes, and that is what appellate courts are for.  However, I must comment on some recent decisions which affect us dogs and, which in one instance, has not set well with me, but in the other instance, is a fair resolution.  First, I note that the New Zealand Supreme Court said that it was permissible for owners of dogs to eat their own pets as food.  That to me is a disgrace and, among other things, fraud.  I would never want to live with a family or be adopted by anyone who has any intent on eating me.  It is bad enough for we dogs now with the economy being what it is to get our own food let alone having to worry about our masters trying to eat us.  Shame on them.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

“Blue Dogs” or Corporate Shills?  Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2009

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

“One Good Judge and One Bad Judge”

Now being associated with a law firm, I know from experience that sometimes Judges make mistakes, and that is what appellate courts are for.  However, I must comment on some recent decisions which affect us dogs and, which in one instance, has not set well with me, but in the other instance, is a fair resolution.  First, I note that the New Zealand Supreme Court said that it was permissible for owners of dogs to eat their own pets as food.  That to me is a disgrace and, among other things, fraud.  I would never want to live with a family or be adopted by anyone who has any intent on eating me.  It is bad enough for we dogs now with the economy being what it is to get our own food let alone having to worry about our masters trying to eat us.  Shame on them.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

VICK NEEDS A LICKING

When will this Vick thing end?  I would like to lick him, not with my tongue, but with a bulldozer at my control.  I am told the National Football League is offering Michael Vick sweaters and/or jerseys for dogs.  It is bad enough that I have to watch the NFL football games instead of Caesar on the Animal Channel.  Now, in effect, adding insult to injury, the NFL is taking advantage of the humans’ desire to resurrect Michael Vick by selling jerseys for dogs.  Any dog whose parents, other relatives or friends that buys a Michael Vick jersey for a dog, in my judgment, belongs in a dog house.  I cannot understand how Michael Vick and the NFL have the audacity to offend us dogs given the circumstances.  I think you should write the NFL and your congressman because of the presumably anti-trust exemption that the NFL basically gets for operating.  I sniff bad faith in this regard.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

THESE DARN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS DON’T LIKE DOGS

 I firmly believe, based on what I have seen that we dogs are beginning to assert more control all over the country, as we should.  We are man’s best friend; even the President appreciates the need to get one of us in the White House.  We make everyone’s lives happier and we provide unconditional love, which if that was existent in humans, it would result in the divorce rate being zero.

Having barked at that, I now want to point out an injustice which is occurring in Condominiums and other Community Associations.  My associate, Robert M. Meisner, Community Association attorney, has advised me that many of the Condominium Documents provide for a size or weight limitation on pets and, in particular dogs, in the projects.  Now I must admit I like to eat and will grab at almost any food which is put before me, but that should not be a reason why I should be kept out of living at a Condominium.  And, while I am particularly short for a Beagle, some of my Beagle friends may be in excess of eighteen (18”) inches high which I have seen as a limit on the height of a dog allowed to be in a Condominium project.  Personally, I think that stinks and is unreasonable.  If they don’t want dogs in the Condominium, then just say so and I won’t make an issue.  But, if they put an arbitrary limit on the size and weight of a dog, I see no rational basis for it.  As a matter of fact, I am advised that the Michigan Court of Appeals agrees with me in its unpublished decision in the matter of Bear Creek Village Condominium Association v Kaye E. Clark, Court of Appeals Docket No. 104101 March 23, 1989.   In that case, the human judges recognized that, in effect, the size or weight of a dog has no reasonable bearing on the potential for problems caused by some of my kind.  Yet, in spite of that decision, a bunch of Condominiums continue to try to implement those restrictions that cause humans to get rid of their dogs if they don’t have the economic resources to fight the Management Company’s Boards and high-powered lawyers that they hire.

We dogs should unite in unison to express our outrage at these types of restrictions.  I for one want to put an end to this discriminatory conduct against us.  If you agree with me, you should write your Association and tell them these types of limitations are unreasonable and get the dogs unnecessarily angry.  I am hoping this commentary will become a regular feature of The Meisner Law Group, P.C.’s website.  If you want to contact me directly, contact my beagle assistant at kmichael@meisner-associates.com

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

Do Dogs Belong in the Classroom or on Park Slides?

I became aware of a recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch of August 29, 2009, which raised the question of whether canines belong in the classroom and/or on park slides.  The article focused on a person who observed a dog running up the slides, following a girl through tunnel passages and going up the steps of the play tower. The issue was raised by one of the observers that some children are allergic to dogs and dogs should not be allowed to play in the area with children.  There is apparently a Court battle in Columbia, Illinois, where the parents of a five (5) year old autistic boy have argued that their dog is much more than just a pet, with which I agree.  They say that their son needs the dog to help his outbursts and that the School District is required by law to allow the service dog in his free school classroom.  The local judge ordered the dog in school and the School District is appealing.  The article goes on to say that a child with ADD or ADHD would be distracted in class with a dog in the room.  Moreover, they cite an allergist and asthma specialist in St. Louis Children’ Hospital saying that “hypoallergenic” dogs is a myth as all dogs have saliva, and all mammals have dander. 

Now this is a difficult question, even for me, since it is possible that both sides have an argument.  In my view, schools can separate children who have allergies from those who need a service dog; that would be the ideal situation.  I don’t see why service dogs for autistic children cannot be utilized, but I am also concerned about the child that also has allergies as I have bad allergies myself.  I don’t have an answer, but I do think there should be more public awareness to these situations, and as a dog, I just want to help people.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

Tax Deduction for Pet Care Expenses

People are finally appreciating that dogs have an important role in society, and that those who take care of us should be rewarded accordingly.  I am pleased to note that HR 3501 has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative McCotter of Michigan called the “Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act (HAPPY).  It is about time that people earned a tax deduction for taking care of us and I wholeheartedly support this bill.  I hope that those of you who read this column will write your Congressperson and/or pet representative and tell them that this is a great idea.  I have attached a copy of the proposed Bill to my website page for your review.  I know that my dog friends will support this as will so many others who have been reluctant to take care of dogs given their financial demands.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

“Democratic Infighting Dogs Health Plan”  Wall Street Journal July 25-26, 2009

In a recent Wall Street Journal headline of July 25-26, 2009, the caption said “Democratic Infighting Dogs Health Plan.”

Now I don’t profess to be a student of English, but I can put two sentences together and I also know what the word demeaning means.  I don’t understand why a newspaper would have to use the word “dogs” in such a headline to connote something bad.

As a dog, I am appreciative of what we do for humans.  I don’t’ think it is appropriate for the Wall Street Journal or any other publication to disparage our good reputation.  Why couldn’t they have said “Democratic Infighting Hurts Health Plan” or “Democratic Infighting Impairs Health Plan”?  Moreover it wouldn’t make sense for them to say Democratic Infighting Cats Health Plan.  So why use the word “dogs.”  I think humans should be more sensitive to our reputation and should not use our name in vain including “dog gonnit” among other pejorative phrases.  If you have any further idioms or phrases which impugn our good name as dogs, please let me know through my Beagle Assistant.

Good licks to all,

Bailley “The Legal Beagle”

Dear “Bailley The Legal Beagle:”

Q:     Please let me know your thoughts on a prohibition on Pit Bulls in some municipalities.

A:      From my perspective as a dog, I don’t particularly like Pit Bulls or, for that matter, large dogs as a whole.  It is probably because as a puppy, I was thrown over by a large dog and every time I see one on the trail in W. Bloomfield, I get my dander up.  I realize that many large dogs, including Ruffles, grand dog son of Robert Meisner, who is a Goldendoodle, are very nice.  On the other hand, Pit Bulls cause problems for a lot of people and I can see where dangerous dogs like Pit Bulls should be banned from communities, including mine.  Simply stated, I would not want to live next door to a Pit Bull, and wouldn’t want a Pit Bull in my neighborhood.  Perhaps if on a farm or some open space, where there are not many humans, Pit Bulls would be okay.

Dear “Bailley The Legal Beagle:”

Q:     Are you concerned about the number of dog parks that are being closed and/or not available?

"Democratic Infighting Dogs Health Plan” Wall Street Journal July 25-26, 2009

 In a recent Wall Street Journal headline of July 25-26, 2009, the caption said “Democratic Infighting Dogs Health Plan.” Now I don’t profess to be a student of English, but I can put two sentences together and I also know what the word demeaning means.  I don’t understand why a newspaper would have to use the word “dogs” in such a headline to connote something bad. As a dog, I am appreciative of what we do for humans.  I don’t’ think it is appropriate for the Wall Street Journal or any other publication to disparage our good reputation.  Why couldn’t they have said “Democratic Infighting Hurts Health Plan” or “Democratic Infighting Impairs Health Plan”?  Moreover it wouldn’t make sense for them to say Democratic Infighting Cats Health Plan.  So why use the word “dogs.”  I think humans should be more sensitive to our reputation and should not use our name in vain including “dog gonnit” among other pejorative phrases.  If you have any further idioms or phrases which impugn our good name as dogs, please let me know through my Beagle Assistant.

Good licks to all

Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

BIKERS BE CAUTIOUS”

To those of you who are readers of my commentary, I frequently traverse The West Bloomfield Trail with Bob and/or Anita with whom I reside. Recently, however, I was walking down the trail with Bob and a biker speeding along did not give us any notice that he wanted to pass. Normally, my hearing is excellent, and I know when a biker is coming from behind, but for whatever reason, I did not notice the biker coming and was almost hit by the biker. Now I know that bikers have a right to ride their bikes on the trail, but I think they have a responsibility to yield to humans and dogs.   In fact, there are a lot of dogs on the trail that have similar complaints about certain bike riders who are discourteous and don't provide any form of notice when they come upon you on the trail. It has gotten so that I am afraid to go on the trail, which is unfortunate because of the tree smells I pick up there as well as the squirrels and chipmunks, which I normally have fun chasing but, of course, to no avail.  Hopefully, the bike riders will learn to be more courteous, and people and dogs on the trail will alert them to the proper rules of the road, so to speak.

Good licks to all

Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

WHEN IT RAINS IT POURS: WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO GO OUT

One of the things on my mind, which has bothered me for a long time, is why I am forced to go outside when it is pouring rain and humans either stay in or have umbrellas.  At the risk of sounding like an American Dog Princess, I resent having to go out in the slop of wet weather when I am perfectly capable of staying in the home and behaving myself until it dries up.  Other dogs have places to go under shelter and/or a dog house, but I am limited to going outside in the neighborhood.  Humans should be more considerate of us particularly, in the inclement weather.  I hope that the readers of this commentary appreciate our concern about being adequately protected from foul weather.  The fact that we are dogs should not matter, and we should be treated just like humans in that regard.  You will think I am being unreasonable, and I know that I speak for many dogs with whom I have discussed this matter on the trail.  Winter, of course, is even worse!

Good licks to all

Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

Commentary: “Dog Days: A Misnomer”

Some of my acquaintances on the trail have brought to my attention the insensitivity of some humans, including weather forecasters, and even Fantasy Sports writers in USA Today (see below) who, in these days of August, refer to them as “dog days.”  What does that really mean?  The truth of the matter is that in the middle of winter the dogs have to go out into this cold weather and nobody calls it dog days.  What does the temperature have to do with dogs?  We don’t like hot weather anymore than anybody else.  Why refer to it as a “dog day,” because we don’t enjoy it and resent the implication that we are lazy and/or unproductive.  Why don’t humans just call it the hottest time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere without making us feel inferior?        

These are some of the examples of why a commentary from the dog’s perspective is necessary to get the humans to straighten out certain things that have bothered us for years.  “Dog days” should go out of style just like other pejorative phrases which are now socially unacceptable.  It is hot for all of us in August and we should merely refer to it as such.

Good licks to all

Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

I AM NOT A BITCH

One of the things that has been brought to my attention as a female is the pejorative use of the term “bitch" to describe a female dog. Why use such nasty language, and how did we come to allow the use of such a word to describe a female dog. We should know better, and so should humans. My male dog friends never bark out “bitch” when they talk to me.  We dogs should not allow that kind of vulgar language to perpetuate by and among humans. I am getting sick and tired of lady dogs being referred to as bitches.  While I am an exemplary dog, people don't always understand the difference. My suggestion to humans is that they come up with a better term such as a lady canine as opposed to “bitch.”  I hope you agree.

Good licks to all

Bailley "The Legal Beagle"

About Bailley

Bailley, the Legal Beagle, is seven (7) years old (but she gets very upset if we talk about her age), and is an assistant in the law firm of The Meisner Law Group, P.C.  She has been featured in the Detroit Legal News (June 8, 2009), the Oakland County Legal News (June 8, 2009), and Macomb County Legal News (June 16, 2009), and believes the fact that “the world is going to the dogs” is not only a good thing, but that she should be able to express her views and opinions on various issues from a dog’s perspective.

Some of Bailley's Favorite Links:

All About Animals