Kitty Kustody Kalamity!

Today has been a day for taking action. I wrote to the Tribune at large re: the unlinked advice columns, and also to Amy for some very (VERY) poor advice she gave to a fellow whose happy home and family of a girlfriend and 2 cats had just been shattered

First, his letter and her response. Then, my letter back to Amy. I've written to her before--only when her advice gets me really steamed, which isn't that often--and she has yet to print a response. So here's the issue:

Dear Amy: My live-in girlfriend of two years dumped me a couple of weeks ago, saying that she had never loved me.

Since the breakup I haven't been doing well. We had two cats, one that I had adopted and one that we adopted together. I finally found an apartment. I had been under the impression that I would be taking both cats.

The two cats are very close, and I've always been the primary caretaker for them. I have been the one who cleaned the litter box and took them to the vet.

When I went to the apartment to pack, my ex told me that she wouldn't let me take both cats.
She told me that if I took our cat she would feel bitter toward me and that we would never be able to have a relationship of any sort.

I was furious and upset. I cried and screamed, and my anger really scared me.

To be honest, I am still in love with her, and I don't want to do anything that I know will cause me to lose her forever.

But I'm also horrified at giving up my cat, and horrified to think of my other cat crying all day and all night and refusing to eat, the way he did the only other time I separated them and took him to a new place.

Now I'm incredibly sad and lonely.

It seems like a lot to lose. Should I give up? And how can I deal with my anger, frustration and sense of loss when I do?

—Lonely

And Amy's totally lame response:

Dear Lonely: Your ex sounds like a prize jerk who is holding your cats hostage while she emotionally blackmails you.

I hope that you recover from your hurt soon and that you are able to see how mean this is. It might help you to move on.

In terms of the cat you acquired together, you could take your ex to court and make a claim for custody—even though doing this would prolong this drama, which I don't think is a good idea for you.

I agree that splitting up this feline pair is also probably not a good idea, but you should visit the cats to let them see you and curl around your ankles.

Your best bet at this point is to head to your local shelter to find a new pet (or two) to add to your family. Visit a shelter a few times to spend time with and play with all the cats. You might also consider volunteering at a shelter—homeless kitties need food and affection at all hours; volunteers make sure these animals are well cared for, and this could help you through your loneliest times.

OK, just reading that made me mad all over again. "Your ex is a jerk who is manipulating you by holding your cats. So you better let her keep both of them and go volunteer at the animal shelter." What???? Plus, ahem...if SHE was the live-in girlfriend, why is HE the one who moved out? Anyway--I'll let the letter speak for itself. Normally Amy is a huge advocate for pets and the people who love them. I feel like she really dropped the ball here.

Dear Amy,

I have to say I totally disagree with your advice to Lonely, who was heartbroken over the fact that his girlfriend, who unexpectedly dumped him, refused to give up the cat they had adopted together. (And based on the comments posted on chicagotribune.com, I don't think I'm alone)

You imply that Lonely's only options are 1) "prolonging the drama" by taking the girlfriend to court to sue for custody of the cat and 2) letting her keep both cats, but visiting them regularly. (How does option 2 NOT prolong the drama of interacting with this woman?)

This really surprised me--the girlfriend never said "If you take the cat, I'll take you to court." She said, according to her ex, that if he took the cat she would be "bitter" and unable to have a relationship with him. How convenient, since HE is already bitter, and she has in fact ENDED their relationship!

I couldn't believe you didn't say he should just take both cats and run, out of concern for the kitties, and for his own sanity. Cutting off the relationship with his ex would probably be the best thing he could do for himself and, as you state quite correctly, recognizing the manipulative trick she tried to put over on him should help him get over her.

Why, in this situation, should the thoughtless girlfriend who doesn't take care of the cats get everything SHE wants, while the guy who's had his world shaken loses it all?

Loyal Reader in Ann Arbor

And for you enraged cat lovers out there, here's a little something to put some joy back into your Sunday. Check out Ninja Cat!

Every Dog has Its Day...or Lifetime Commitment

Here's a treat (a milkbone, to be specific):

DEAR ABBY: I love dogs, but they're ruining my marriage. "Ivan" and I have been together 12 years, married for five. Six years ago, he had to put his aged, sickly pointer, "Sergeant," to sleep.

Two years ago, I began suggesting that we get another dog. I felt Ivan had mourned Sergeant long enough, and it was time for another. We found a lovely King Charles spaniel that we named Lili. We spent a lot of fun time with her that spring and summer, then thought a playmate might be good company for her during the day while we were at work. We found Branford, another spaniel.

At night we'd put both dogs in the kitchen, tell them goodnight, put up a gate and go to bed. But Branford would cry. I told Ivan he'd stop eventually, but Ivan couldn't just leave him, so he began bringing the two dogs into our bedroom and allowing them to sleep at the foot of our bed. I have pleaded with Ivan to return them downstairs, but he won't consider it.

Guess where they're sleeping today? IN the bed. Guess where I'm sleeping? On the couch downstairs.

We haven't been out on a date since the dogs arrived. We don't go out with friends because we must be back by 10 p.m. -- the dogs' bedtime, and Ivan's, too, of course. He is oblivious to me from the time he goes to bed with the dogs. We haven't had sex in a year.

Everything is about the dogs. He even prepares their meals from scratch each day -- boiled chicken with rice, peas and carrots. He says: "I told you I get attached to dogs. You said you wanted them; this is what you have to deal with." I am at my breaking point. Help! -- ONLY HIS WIFE IN WILMINGTON

Yikes. I know people like this, but they aren't married....
It makes me feel bad for the dogs. Don't they just want to be left alone? I mean, loved and played with, but not, like, tucked into their silken sheets at 10 p.m. each night?

My question is...how does this state come about? Is it likely that people who are like this with their dogs were alone (with their dogs) for many years? Are they lonely? Are they using the dogs as child-replacement? Did a dog save their life once? Have they witnessed more than the usual amount of animal mistreatment and abuse, and want to make up for it (all on their own two dogs)?

My parents' dog sleeps on their bed...but only because they're both OK with it--sure, there's the unpleasant moment when you wake up at 5 a.m. and the dog's foot is in your stomach and butt is in your face. But neither of them has moved to the couch yet...if they did, you can bet that the dog would be booted in an instant. Rather, he'd be booted before it came to that.

If this guy doesn't step up and re-train these dogs (which he doesn't seem apt to do), they'll get the wrong idea about whose head of the house (probably have already) and turn against Wife if she tries to re-kindle the marriage. I'm not real optimistic for these folks.

The Dog Days of Summer: the Readers are Restless

Sigh. Throughout the spring and summer (and probably before) Amy has been running occasional letters from folks distressed by the fact that someone in their family has named a dog or cat after another family member, and it "hurts" them to hear the precious, precious name of their loved one applied to a lowly beast. ("Jack, stop eating your vomit! Bad Jack! Bad Jack!")

Before we begin, I should reveal that I am not entirely objective in this issue. I once named a goldfish "Mary," at which point I learned that that was also my grandmother's first name (not Grammie?)

As a result, I've been pleased and grateful to learn that it's rarely the "victims" themselves who are upset by this--people who actually share a name with a family pet seem to recognize that this is usually 1) a tribute made by a loving (or ignorant) child with good intentions 2) um....a coincidence.

Instead, it's the parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents of the victims (in other words, those who probably don't have to hear about Jack-the-dog's personal habits on a daily basis) who perceive this catastrophe as a deliberate slight to their loved ones. Today's contributor, though, really takes it to the next level. In fact, I think I'd like to award him the newly established Crank Of (the) Week (COW) Award.

This honor will be awarded based upon a rigorous evaluation consisting of my personal judgment. Taking into account my own tendency to "vent" (whine) about completely inane issues, it should be considered a highly prestigious award in this field.

But--back to our winner! Here's his letter:

Dear Amy: I have been following the letters in your column about dogs that are named after people. There are two dogs in my neighborhood, one with my granddaughter's name and one with my nephew's name.

Dogs are not the same as people. I can't bear to hear these dogs being called by names of my family members.

—Upset

Amy takes these folks with a grain of salt and a handful of brevity: "Dear Upset: You're right. Dogs are not the same as people, and that is precisely why you should not take this personally."

But certainly "Upset" is within his/her rights? I would have advised Upset to become active in neighborhood, even city (!) government, taking legislative action against this heinous situation.

Perhaps by petition, s/he could institute a mandatory poll of anyone who at any time might come into hearing range of any local family-dog interactions to ensure no duplicate names. (Naturally, the logistics for determining "hearing range" would have to account for folks on their porches with ear trumpets, listening carefully for the offensive name)

Failing this, "Upset" might prefer to simply pass a law prohibiting crossover between animal and human names. We could take this thing back to Beethoven. There could be a sliding fee system, where both parents AND pet owners could be charged based on their use of ambiguous names, such as "Kitty."

Right. In short, I agree with Amy completely on this one--except with her decision to print this letter.

"Upset" does not have a question. S/he is not seeking guidance. S/he wants to weigh in on the ongoing conversation--a valid thing to do, if you have a new idea or suggestion to contribute. But instead Upset just takes the issue to a new level of crazy. Why keep printing these, unless to mock your loyal readers?

So congratulations to you, "Upset," on your two-fold victory. Be forewarned that, as a winner of the COW award, you cannot win again for at least 6 months--although with an alias, I'd never know the difference. So keep on keeping on!