Rent-a-Pet Coming To Boston?

Pet rentals in Boston? Boston City Council seems think the idea isn’t so hot.

Loaner Labs and borrowed beagles will be banned in Boston if the City Council chews to pieces the latest time-saving trend: dog rentals.

A proposed prohibition on cash-and-carry canine membership clubs like FlexPetz – an international agency that purports to be sniffing out locations in Boston – will be taken up at City Hall today at 1 p.m. by the council’s Committee on Government Operations.

“To rent a dog just seems wrong. It seems very self-indulgent,” said Councilor Michael Ross, the committee’s chairman. “I’m not for legislating morality, but it just seems like cruel and unusual treatment of a poor, defenseless animal.”

It does seem a little bizarre, and I can certainly envision animal rights activists having a fit over this.

FlexPetz – currently in New York, Los Angeles and London – pairs dog lovers whose lifestyle restrictions have them on a short leash with rescued and “rehomed” pooches for “Daily Doggy Time.”

To join, FlexPetz charges a $100 monthly membership fee. Members agree to purchase a minimum four $45 rentals per month. Their in-home training costs $150, on top of a $99 annual fee.

Jennifer Wooliscroft, spokeswoman for the Animal Rescue League of Boston, said, “We are against (renting dogs). It treats a living being as a commodity.”

Pet owners in town agree.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s weird,” said Rana Juster, 26, of Cambridge, playing fetch with her cockapoo Burger.

“It’s kind of crazy,” said Terry Kelly, 40, of Boston, strolling with Tek, a golden retriever-poodle mix. “I can see some guy picking up a pup to go out and pick up girls.”

Natalie Carpenter, 30, of Watertown said her big, beautiful chocolate lab Bella needs the kind of routine only a permanent, loving home can provide.

“She’s my life,” Carpenter said. “I bring her everywhere with me.”

Trish Kapur, 30, of Boston, enjoying a day of bonding with her cairn terrier Kona Bear, said, “I’d be interested in seeing how they take care of the dogs when they’re not being rented. Just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean people are doing the right thing.”

I can certainly see their point, and my gut reaction is that the idea is wrong. However, if the animals are properly cared for while not being “rented” and the “renters” take good care of them, how is that different than the millions of parents in this country and around the world that shell out top dollar so that a stranger can raise their children, or so they dump their human commodities in day care.

Let’s face it, in this day and age, paying someone else to take care of your child is routine. If these pet rental agencies are regulated in some fashion, who’s getting hurt here? Sure, there may be guys who want to rent a dog with the hopes of picking up women, but as long as the animal is cared for, where is the harm? As one of the Boston pet owners in the article said,  some dogs may require a “routine” that only a permanent home can provide. If this is true for animals, how come we think nothing of dropping off our (human) children during their most impressionable years to spend hours at a day care facility with someone who doesn’t them? Or how about shared custody situations with divorced parents and their children? That’s not really a permanent home. We know that has an effect on children, but we think nothing of it. And the big worry here is that a few dogs may get a little confused?

If these rent-a-pet companies treat their animals in a loving and caring manner between rentals, and the people who rent the animals are “screened” in some fashion, why not let these companies set up shop in Boston to see if there is a market for this kind of service, and see how it goes?

In this case, as long as the company cares for the animals and they screen their clients, I say let the market decide, not Boston City Council.

Gloucester High Gets Knocked Up

When you are in high school, you try to keep up with the latest trends and fads in order to stay “hip” and “cool.” Typically this involves clothing, or recreational drug use, and of course sex. However, some 17 girls at Gloucester High School kicked it up a notch, and thought it would be super cool to make a pregnancy pact.

There’s a stunning twist to the sudden rise in teen pregnancies at Gloucester High School. 17 students there are expecting and, according to a published report, most of them became that way on purpose.

Time Magazine is reporting that nearly half of the girls confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. None of the girls is older than 16.

Principal Joseph Sullivan has not returned calls from WBZ to confirm the report.

Is there nothing else to do in Gloucester? Seriously? Are these girls just unhappy with their lives that they feel the need to bring a child into the mix and ruin another life, or are they just plain stupid?

Sullivan told the magazine that the pact wasn’t the only shocking incident.

“We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” he told Time.

I guess one girl doesn’t like guys who live with their parents. Good luck getting child support money from a guy whose greatest achievements are not dying in the gutter and sleeping with a girl 8 years his junior. Will she sue the homeless guy for his cardboard box and his collection of empty soda cans?

The jump in pregnancies has, of course, sparked the debate about distributing contraceptives in the school.

Last month, two top officials at the high school’s health center resigned in a fight over contraceptives distribution.

Medical Director Dr. Brian Orr and chief nurse practitioner Kim Daly support confidentially giving contraceptives to students. They were outraged about resistance from Addison Gilbert Hospital, which administers the state public health grant that funds the school clinic.

Perhaps Gloucester should consider a Prop. 2 1/2 override to provide free birth control–well, maybe not. Perhaps they need to revamp their sex education program.

Normally, the school has about four pregnancies per school year.

According to Time, school officials started looking into the spike in pregnancies after an unusual number of girls came to the school clinic for pregnancy tests. Some came by several times.

“Some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan told the magazine.

So there you have it…these girls are just plain stupid. Good luck raising your bastard children. Can’t wait for my tax dollars to pay for your stupid mistake.

Lexington’s Gay Agenda

Lexington has found itself at the center of gay marriage/gay rights debate. Last week, the liberal agenda of the Lexington school system made headlines when a second-grade teacher read the fairy tale “King & King,” to the class without parental notification.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children’s book, ”King & King,” as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association’s list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

”My son is only 7 years old,” said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ”By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they’re trying to indoctrinate our children. They’re intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it’s not a value that our family supports.”

She complained more than a year after Lexington parent David Parker was arrested for trespassing, because he refused to leave the Estabrook school grounds until administrators allowed him to opt his son out of discussions about families with same-sex parents. The latest incident has renewed the efforts of Waltham-based Parents’ Rights Coalition to rid the state’s schools of books and lessons that relate to homosexuality, and led the school system to reemphasize its stance on teaching about gay marriage and related issues as part of larger lessons on diversity and tolerance.

Yesterday at Lexington High School, students joined with other students across the state in a so-called “Day of Silence” in support of gay rights. While this silent protest occurred, another protest was silenced–effectively protecting the First Amendment rights of the “Day of Silence” participators, but revoking the First Amendment rights of anyone against the “Day of Silence.”

Students across the state quietly joined in yesterday’s “Day of Silence” in support of gay rights, but a ruckus still occurred outside Lexington High School.

Parent Rob Bennett was escorted away from the school as he loudly objected to being forbidden to protest.

“At Lexington, they have been promoting one side of the agenda,” said Bennett. “If anyone voices any dissent, they will be attacked, they will throw out the word bigot.”

“I was shocked. I realized (Jones) had lied to me, or maybe he changed his mind and didn’t tell me,” Bennett said. “I was dumbfounded, I told (Jones) ‘I don’t like what’s going on, you’re promoting a gay agenda and not promoting a dissenting point of view.’ ”

Jones said the Day of Silence, sponsored by the Boston-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is not a school-sanctioned event, but students have a right to express themselves.

“People are entitled to free speech,” Jones said.

Yes, even people against gay marriage, or the promotion of the gay agenda have free speech too. Liberals will whine about Romney’s proposed abstinence program being funded by the federally-funded Christian organization Healthy Futures, yet they ahve no problem when the Boston-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network or Planned Parenthood sponsor some type education program, or organize a protest. Effectively, our schools systems are teaching children that any viewpoint against the liberal agenda is obscene, bigoted, or racist.

Trav’s Paid Family Leave Plan a Travesty

Our Senate President Robert Travaglini unveiled his plan to provide workers up to 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborns or adopted children.

The family leave portion of the plan, touted as one of the most generous such policies in the nation, would be paid for using a fund that employees, not employers, contribute to.

It would allow employees to get their full salary, up to $750 a week, during the leave and also cover time off to care for sick family members.

Travaglini also proposed increased tax deductions for people with dependents under the age of 12, people over 65 and the disabled.

He wants to increase the $3,600 deduction for each dependent to $5,000 annually and to increase the yearly deductions for child care expenses from $4,800 for one child to $10,000, and from $9,600 to $15,000 for two.

Travaglini estimated the cost would be $67 million to $70 million.

So instead of businesses paying people to not work, employees will be hit with a new “child care tax.” Is this Travaglini’s way of appearing to pro-business at the expense of being against the taxpayers? When did it become my responsibility to pay for someone else’s kid? As a taxpayer, I do that plenty already. This proposal is a joke, and will hurt the largest employers in the Commonwealth, small businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business agrees.

“For a small business one person is a very substantial part of the work force,” [Bill Vernon, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business] said. “The idea that one person can be paid fully for 12 weeks leave and then be guaranteed the job back, that’s a very substantial impact on a company with three of four employees.”

He also worried the fee on employees could shift to employer.

“The Massachusetts economy has a lot of issues with growing jobs. This would just be one more,” Vernon said.

According to Travaglini’s plan, employees would pay a $1.50 to $2.50 per week premium that would go into a fund that would pay for the time off. So let’s a small business of 6 employees puts in the maximum of $2.50 per week into this new “child care slush fund.” That’s $130 per employee per year, which is $780 going to the slush fund for a typical year. Let’s say one of those employees has a child. 12 weeks off, paid the maximum of $750 per week, is $9,000. Not to mention the lost productivity of 12 weeks less an employee, you’re talking about a serious blow to a small business that would inevitably be required to pay the difference, $8,220 in the first year. In this same example, those 6 employees will have pay into this “child care slush fund” for nearly 12 years so that one employee can take 12 paid weeks off. And who’s going to pay for the employee’s share of health care insurance costs? Will this paycheck be taxable? God help us if the plan would create this as a state tax that goes into one large state “child care” fund…the last thing we need is another social security type boondoggle.

When people make the decision to have children, it’s their decision, and their burden–not mine. Employers and employees already bear enough burden when someone goes on maternity or paternity leave; asking them to help pay their salary during the time their co-workers are changing diapers and feeding their new children is too much to ask.

This plan sucks.

Mom Blames State For Her Shaken Baby

Jessica Rodenheiser, a 22-year-old mother of two, shakes her 6-month-old son because he wouldn’t stop crying as her 18-month-old daughter was “acting up”–but she blames the state.

A frazzled Taunton mom who claims she begged the state to take her kids got her wish Friday, but not before she allegedly shook her 6-month-old son so violently he vomited and had to be hospitalized with a skull fracture, authorities said.

“It sounds like she was trying to get help and it wasn’t there for her, and the result was bad,” said Taunton Police Lt. Michael Silvia.

Jessica Rodenhiser, 22, told police she shook her infant son, Daniel, because he wouldn’t stop crying Friday morning as her 18-month-old daughter, Janet, was acting up, too. The boy was in serious but stable condition last night.

Rodenhiser admitted to shaking Daniel one other time and Janet twice, including once in the last week, the police report said.

State Department of Social Services spokesman Denise Monteiro confirmed Rodenhiser had sought state help in December, but said the young mother had never given any indication to any of her counselors that she might harm her children.

“We had met with her Tuesday, and we were putting some plans in place. We put her on a high-priority list for daycare,” Monteiro said. “She really wanted some respite during the day.”

Rodenhiser told police she had been “begging DSS to take the children because she couldn’t handle them,” the police report said.

“If she did, I’d be disappointed she didn’t get help sooner,” Silvia said.

It sounds to me like Jessica Rodenhiser was looking for a state funded baby-sitter. With an 18-month-old and a 6-month-old, she sounds like someone who got knocked up once, and stupidly got knocked up again, and doesn’t want the responsibility of having the kids.

Before blaming the state, why didn’t this woman seek out family and friends for help? Where is her support system? Where’s the dad(s)? No, she just blames the state, and avoids all personal responsibility. How typical.

Rodenhiser, who was still hospitalized for crisis counseling yesterday, hasn’t been charged with any crimes pending an investigation by Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh Jr.’s office. Her daughter was placed with a foster family after a physical exam determined she wasn’t injured, Monteiro said.

Neighbor Victoria Averill said Rodenhiser showed outward signs of being an attentive mother, but confided in her last week that she felt overwhelmed and desperate for help.

“She said she was going to give up her kids. I said if that’s the way she feels, that’s probably the best thing,” Averill recalled. “They were making her wait. She was frustrated by it.”

And why haven’t there been charges filed? This woman admits to injuring her infact son, who is a hospital with a skull fracture, and there are no charges filed yet? Will there be charges filed, or will this be another Andrea Yates style defense with Katie Couric sympathizing with her plight?