New York Times Picks On Cats

This is the lurid photo the Times ran with the cat-hating (and cat-owner-baiting) article. I'm surprised the kitty doesn't have a swastika tattooed on its nose. After all, did we see the kitty kill the bunny? Is the bunny even dead? Maybe kitty is trying to help the bunny make it through all that grass.
You know it's a bloody slow news day (or year so far), or the dog crew must be working Tuesdays at the science desk, to see this stupid story run at the New York Times.

Now, the story isn't stupid because of what it alleges: the global domestic and feral cat population is putting the paw and fang to wildlife around the world. Yep, urban, suburban, and hillbilly kitties are turning out to be quite apt at killing bunnies, birdies and chipmunks.

No, what is really stupid about this article is that this is news. And not just news but "shocking" news.

"Scientists have identified a shocking new truth: cats are far deadlier than anyone realized."

In fact, BILLIONS of creatures are dying each year because cats kill them. 

Isn't that shocking?!

Anybody who owns a cat, and has actually paid any attention to it at all, is quite aware they own small versions of lions and tigers. If I told you some shocking news had come out: tigers like to kill a lot of wildlife, you would think it daft that this required repeating for anyone out of kindergarten.

More than this, while the deaths of billions of creatures sounds like a LOT, have you ever stopped to consider how many billions of creatures die every day so the bumper crop of human beings can continue to live and shit and fuck? Because it's billions! Even if only one creature were allocated to every single human being each day, that would be about 2.5 TRILLION dead creatures every year. 

And you're worried about cats and a few billion dead birds and chipmunks?

One of the messages of the article is that domestic cat owners should spay and neuter their pets and keep them indoors. I have no problem with that advice. But then I'm not a cat.

From the cat's perspective, maybe it would be better if instead we spay and neuter all the people, and keep them indoors (or maybe deport them to an asteroid). But then cats don't judge species. They just eat them.

The New York Times basically hates nature, that is real nature, with all the violence and blood and uncivilized behavior that offends the Northeast liberal establishment eggheads who, to stop all that, want death camps for cats.