There have been two rather gruesome stories in The Washington Post recently that have reminded me of a funny story my friend the Prof3ssor (nod, 3tta) likes to tell. He was watching some dumb TV show (maybe The Man Show?) where people were shown a picture of 100 cute little puppies and a dirty old homeless man. The people were then asked which was the greater tragedy, the death of the homeless guy or the death of all the kittens. Nearly everyone answered 'puppies.'
I could make the same skit with the stories from The Post.
Here is the background information:
A woman in Northern Virginia was recently charged with hoarding animals. How many constitutes a hoard? Only 488, spread between two houses. 222 of the cats were already dead, and all but 8 had to be euthanized for being feral. So by my reckoning, that leaves the death toll at 480 dead kitty cats.
Just yesterday I was shocked (Oh come on, these are jokes people! What, too soon?) to read that four Boy Scout troop leaders were electrocuted when, apparently, one of the support poles in the tent they were setting up struck an overhead power line. Death toll: 4 Man Scouts.
So today I am wondering aloud-
What's worse, Kitties or Scouts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i'll go with the kittens here. not that the scout masters dying isn't tragic (it is), but at least, those guys died doing something they loved. if they travelled this far for a jamboree (love that word), they were really into the whole boy scout thing. but those kittens sure didn't ask to be that woman's houses.
I vote for Scouts. Imagine the humiliation they are feeling in the afterlife: they died because they weren't prepared, didn't survey the land, and couldn't pitch a freaking tent properly. Scout hell, dude.
Plus, cats make me sneeze.
for the record i'm voting kitties. hard to get behind the boy scouts.
however, kathryn makes an outstanding point about the embarrassment.
but so far kitties 2, scouts 1
Post a Comment