Practical Solutions to Serious Issues.

Recently, I've heard a great deal about global warming and its effects on the polar icecaps. I had no idea that such a rift existed in the scientific community; but apparently, and please don't correct me if I'm wrong, because I've not really taken an enormous interest in the subject, and I'll likely just ignore you, there are two basic philosophies on the topic: The Lookouts and their enthusiastic opposition, the Ostriches.

According to my research, which is admittedly scant, the Lookouts are a group of scientists and scientific groupies who have taken it upon themselves to save the human race from their own stupidity by pointing out all sorts of man-made ecohorrors and their eventually disastrous effects on not only the polar icecaps, but the entire earth as well. These are the people who insist that in ten years the earth will be a swirling mass of super storms, greenhouse gasses, and masses of dead or dying organic matter, i.e. forests, the fauna formerly inhabiting the forests, and the people who formerly relied on the oxygen produced by the trees in the forests. As for the Ostriches, they're the ones who bury their heads deeply in the sands of time, all the while insisting that everything is as it's always been, and if left alone things will simply correct themselves. I may be cutting things a little too precisely, but it's okay. I've already admitted my ignorance, so I can say pretty well whatever I want.

In spite of my lack of information, I do know that there's one thing upon which both sides agree: The polar icecaps are melting. Whether it's just a natural cycle in the earth's weather pattern or if it's a devastating, potentially ecosystem-razing, catastrophic shift in climate brought on by the generally selfish and destructive nature of man, (which sounds infinitely more plausible to me,) who's to say? One side says one thing while the other predictably says another, and those who know little in the way of science are forced to either pick sides with no real facts upon which to base their opinion or smile feebly and admit their ignorance.

Me, I've decided to forego both of the standard options and form my own theory. What the heck? My theory is considerably easier to understand, and it points to an immediate solution to the problem: Eat dolphins and whales.

That's right, if we eat marine mammals, we can slow the melting of the polar icecaps by drastically reducing the concentration of dolphin and whale pee in the ocean. For countless centuries, the high temperature of dolphin and whale urine, as well as the salinity of mammalian eliminations, have raised both the temperature and salinity of ocean water, thus causing the icecaps to melt. And is it any wonder? Have you ever peed in snow? Any cat who's prowled outside during winter knows that ice melts when you pee on it. Furthermore, how long do you figure an ice cube would last in a glass of highly concentrated salt water? Not very, I can assure you!

So that's it; I've solved the problem. Yet another reason cats should rule the world: Practical solutions to serious issues. And I'm certain my solution to global warming would be every ounce as effective as what humans are doing about the matter at present.

Yours Purringly,
W.C. Humphries II (Mr. Fleez for short.)

Mr. Fleez' Agony Session #22: Origins.

Dear Fleabag,

I have a report on cultures and customs where I have to talk about differnt stuff like holidays and traditions. My "study buddy' says that Easter is from the nature loving druids. Is that true?

Yours Boredly,
Danny Boy.


Dear Danny Boy,

You may be surprised to learn that questions pertaining to the origins of religious traditions are fairly commonplace. In fact, I have answered this particular question on multiple occasions, as well as similar questions regarding Christmas and Lent. Setting aside your initial insult and obvious lack of grammar awareness, however, I've decided to answer you for the benefit of others who may harbor similar curiosities.

While some historians will gladly agree with your study buddy about the so-called Christian holiday, Easter, its true foundation dates back much farther than the druids. In fact, the word Easter comes from the name Hester, which is Aramaic for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, the goddess of love, fertility, and military prowess. Because her followers looked to her for crop fertility, her main festivals took place in spring and autumn. With such a basis, is it any wonder that the rabbit and egg, two obvious symbols of fertility, figure prominently in this celebration?

Since many of Ishtar's traditions and festivals have, in one form or another, continued throughout history, it can be said that she has remained popular with every successive world power since the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and Purrsians. This shouldn't come as a surprise, though; the nature of her festivals and rituals of worship were, to put it mildly, sensual. Both the Greeks and Romans had their own fertility goddesses. Aphrodite (Greek) had her starts in an old-Asian goddess with direct connections to Ishtar and the Syro-Palestinian goddess Ashtart. Venus (Roman) originally began as a goddess of vegetation and crop fertility, but under Greek influence, she assumed many of the qualities of Aphrodite.

We ought not forget the one aspect of Ishtar that is often overlooked, and that was her position as guardian of Babylon's power in war. This was the position of the Roman goddess Vesta. Initially Vesta was a goddess of domestic affairs, much like the goddess Hestia of the Greeks. Hestia and Vesta were both virgins, refusing to be wooed by anyone, and like Ishtar, their happiness was directly associated with the well-being of their respective nations (with the Greeks the metropolis and with the Romans the state.) The names of both Hestia and Vesta have direct connections to Ishtar (Hester).

As you can see, the origin of Easter is by and far not Christian. It was adopted as Christian by the Roman Emperor Constantine III who wished to unite his crumbling empire religiously. Since so-called Christianity was his adopted creed, he found a way to incorporate festivals and traditions of the pagan populous in order to lessen public resistance. After all, he was himself a sun-worshiping pagan, so he likely didn't see any harm in so doing.

So, Danny Boy, in a nutshell, Easter's origins don't begin with a few peaceful, tree-hugging druids. They actually go all the way back to Ishtar, an ancient goddess of sex and violence.


Yours Purringly,
W.C. Humphries II (Mr. Fleez for short.)



READERS REMEMBER! You may ask Mr. Fleez for his jaded opinion* on your personal situations. Please send enquiries to: housecatwisdom@gmail.com.

*DISCLAIMER: By contacting Housecat Wisdom you're asking a housecat for his personal opinion. If you require serious advice, please, write Ann Landers, Dear Abby, or consult a professional psychiatrist.

The Problem With Public Awareness.

Almost everyone, whether human or feline, has seen a public awareness campaign of some sort. Regardless of cause, there's usually some device, either humorous, morbid, stupid, or disgusting, aimed at educating the public about certain social issues. My purrsonal favorite is the Sterilize Your D*g campaign that ran not too long ago. Some others are the Bloody Idiot campaign against drinking and driving, and the Used by Idiots anti-drugs campaign. Whatever the slogan, whatever the cause, there's one sad, underlying truth in all this clever cant: Those for whom it is written will never get the point. It's the invincible factor; the percentage of people who are above reality. It will never happen to them.

Recently there's been a bit of a buzz (no pun intended) about the new anti-methamphetamine campaign in Montana, USA. I'd heard both good and bad, so in order to form my own opinion, I decided to watch the ads. I can say that as gritty as they may be, they don't seem convincing. I know that methamphetamine is an abominable drug, and that the adverts are touting truths. Nevertheless, I'm not fully convinced that television campaigns are capable of curtailing societal ills that begin at the peer level. If someone, especially a child, is associating with people who engage in such behavior, it isn't likely that a fabrication of potential consequences, regardless of how realistic, will stop them from participating.

So why doesn't it work? If adverts can shape public opinion on matters as minor as house paint or as major as politics, why don't they work in the social realm? The problem is pride. Advertising is usually most effective when it appeals to an aspect of nature, not when it condemns it. Major shoe-peddlers push their products by appealing to the vanity or ambition of their audience. Beverage-pushers, spirited or otherwise, typically appeal to the social image, status and vitality associated with youth and sexuality. These advertisements work because they reinforce what their targets want to believe about themselves. No one wants to believe that they are vulnerable; so turn it around, and it usually works in reverse.

A case in point is the unsuccessful anti-marijuana campaign that has been underway in the USA for decades. The majority of the advertisements have become something of a joke to those who've seen them. Many of them are sensationalized while others, though accurate, have lost their teeth due to the incredibility of their running mates. This has become an issue in America, as many believe the campaign is a counterproductive money pit. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the campaign has actually fostered a "Robin Hood" image of marijuana: The misrepresented rogue who is persecuted for the sake of the big, bad government.

Personally, I disagree with the use of illicit drugs. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that media advertisements are an effectual means of drugs prevention. If human governments really want to curb the drugs problem, they will first have to address the reasons why their citizens are so desperately seeking a release from reality.

Yours Purringly,
W.C. Humphries II (Mr. Fleez for short.)



READERS REMEMBER! You may ask Mr. Fleez for his jaded opinion* on your purrsonal situations. Please send enquiries to: housecatwisdom@gmail.com.

*DISCLAIMER: By contacting Housecat Wisdom you're asking a housecat for his personal opinion. If you require serious advice, please, write Ann Landers, Dear Abby, or consult a professional psychiatrist.

Mr. Fleez Agony Session #21: Irritated Assault?

Dear Mr. Fleez,

Why is it that our male cat, Moochie, who likes attention and belly rubs from anyone, will eventually swipe at my hubby, claws out and drawing blood, but he has never done this to me.

Sometimes I get the soft paw reaching out for more, but never the claws. I'm thinking hubby is overdoing it, while I know when to quit. Or maybe he's just gentler with the ladies?

We just had a chin rubbing session, and he couldn't get enough. I kept at it until he walked away... no swiping to let me know he's done.Any idea why the difference?

-Kittymthr


Dear Kitty,

I can understand your hubby's frustration. After all, what reasonably sane purrson wouldn't want to stroke the, soft, mink-like jacket of the incurably cute? Regardless of our heartfelt desire to please all of our many admirers, however, we felines are bound by limits. These limits operate much like human patience in that they differ on an individual basis. Each individual interacts differently, establishing his own pattern of trust, and trust is vital to human/feline relations.

You've undoubtedly known some animals who don't trust men. They'll waltz up to the first woman they see, eager for some lovins; but enter a man, and they turn into psycho-skittish! Sometimes it's because they've been abused by men, yet others there is no discernible reason. Remember, though, that which is imperceptible to humans isn't always as woolly to their fur-bearing flat-mates.

Animals, felines included, have a keener sense of smell than humans. Whereas a human smells a cake baking, most animals smell its individual ingredients. Because men are the more aggressive of most species, their scent plays a huge part in an animal's distrust. Also, an animal's lack of precise vocalization forces him to rely more heavily on body language and movement. Since human females tend to be more in tune with the body language of fellow humans, it's likely that they, too, are more in tune with that of animals. This may be another reason that they gain trust more readily. Mind you, we are speaking in generalities, but if a human, regardless of his or her sex, fails to properly interpret an animal's body language (or if he finds it humorous) he is more likely to receive a swipe or bite than one who heeds the warnings.

To be fair, not all men lack social skills, nor do they all smell like predators. However, there are other physiological factors that must be considered. Human males have larger, stronger fingers than most of their female compliments. A man may not realise how heavily he strokes, and his fuzzy friend may interpret his affection as aggression, resulting in a lack of trust. (Oddly, this is also true with children, who often don't realize the extent of their own strength.) Alternately, some men may overcompensate for the sake of a delicate kitty belly, thus creating a ticklish touch. (This also applies to many women.) And, really, who likes to be tickled when they can't actually laugh?

Another real problem occurs during play time. Men tend to play more roughly than women. This can be seen in the way they play with d*gs as well as cats. When an animal associates active or aggressive play with a certain individual, settling down for a belly rub may seem a bit like setting one's self up for an ambush. Taking a swipe, or possibly a nip, may be a preemptive defense tactic used to show that they weren't really fooled by all that nicey-nicey crap. A sort of, I'm still watching you, maneuver.

Aside from body language, petting skills, and playing strategies, there is one external factor that plays a significant role in the developing of trust in the human/feline relationship. This factor is food. Your husband may be doing everything right, but if he isn't dishing out the goodies, he'll never earn the respect he desires. Short petting sessions, undertaken with undivided attention and followed up with positive goodie reinforcement, will help the right honorable Mr. Moochie build trust and tolerance for your darling husband. With time and patience they may forge a most equitable friendship.



Yours Purringly,
W.C. Humphries II (Mr. Fleez for short.)



READERS REMEMBER! You may now ask Mr. Fleez for his jaded opinion* on your personal situations. Please send enquiries to: housecatwisdom@gmail.com.

*DISCLAIMER: By contacting Housecat Wisdom you're asking a housecat for his personal opinion. If you require serious advice, please, write Ann Landers, Dear Abby, or consult a professional psychiatrist.