Even on charities alone - and I do take some issue with that - charities serving children are far more differentiated. It's not an easy comparison. The SPCAs also dwarf any others in that arena, which I don't know is true of CDF. I get the point you're trying to make but I don't think the numbers hold up, and it's kind of a cheap shot.

OK, the link now works. Again this second source compares all charities within categories. Also my main point is I think in general we do have in our societies more passion in support of animals than passion in support of people.

And it is not that i don't think animals deserve some passion. But I really do think there are screwed up priorities on this.

Also I was looking specifically at cruelty. But OK - here is a general report on giving and philanthropy. 6% for "your serices" 8% for various animal support and services.

Typo, I'm not seeing that. The pie chart breakdown records 6% for youth development, but animal welfare isn't split out. It's included with the environment; the total category gets 3%.

I'd assume that some proportion of the money otherwise categorised (with the exception of adult recreation and maybe arts, culture and humanities) goes to help children too, but I don't know how to break that out. Probably more importantly, I don't think these figures can be interpreted independently of an assessment of, first, how much public money goes to both goals; and second, how 'big' those problems are (financially) to begin with.

My gut feeling is that America spends substantially more on disadvantaged children than on disadvantaged animals, but the amount still falls well short of what's needed. I put in substantial research to reach this conclusion, by watching season 4 of The Wire.

I refuse to be put in an either/or corner -- just because I love my dog does not mean I don't love my cousin's children. I can love one and love the other. I can also donate to charities to support whichever; loving and supporting one doesn't preclude loving and supporting the other. It's too easy to make the equation "if you give money to animals you must not give it to kids."

Not making the equation. Just see the an actual imbalance in U.S. Although now seeing I misread the pie chart which actually disproves my point.

Just see the an actual imbalance in U.S.

Where, though?

Also--consider the situation that more animals need to be rescued than children, if children are being treated well. I'm not saying that's the case, just another reason the way you're framing your argument can't really be more than anecdotal.

Also--consider the situation that more animals need to be rescued than children, if children are being treated well. I'm not saying that's the case, just another reason the way you're framing your argument can't really be more than anecdotal.

For the most part, I am much more confident that the vast majority of people, even the poorest, do their best for their kids. There are a whole lot of people who do not accept a proportional level of obligation toward pets. As witness the rather greater proportion of families who do leave animals behind when their homes are foreclosed but somehow manage to bring their children with them, as opposed to the much rarer incidence of parents who do abandon their children. While there are frighteningly large fractions of parents who deliberately choose not to vaccinate their children, there is a much larger proportion of pet owners who simply can't be arsed to shell out the money or time to have their pets vaccinated because they are just animals. People who will continue to offer shelter to their offspring should their offspring have offspring earlier than is optimal think nothing of not bothering to neuter their animals, then turn them loose into the world should the offspring of their pets become inconvenient,

But these days, the actors are going to have worse conditions (and by worse I certainly don't mean anything non consensual or usually extreme--there are lower paid stunt people for that) than animals. There isn't really an OSHA for actors, but animals are stringently protected in comparison (on set--I can't begin to say how they are trained).

Well, whether they will or not, human actors actually can speak for themselves if something is amiss. They can decline the job. They can quit.

From what I can recall of the last few animal scandals, it was how they were houses and treated off set that was the problem.

Well, whether they will or not, human actors actually can speak for themselves if something is amiss

Clearly. It is why the on set precautions for the animals is more rigid than for actors. I didn't think it was a question, more an axiom.

If you wait for the horse to explain to you that it doesn't have enough juice for the reshoot of the entire stunt, everyone's going to be sitting around for a wall. Children, animals, whoever doesn't have an adult capacity for speaking up for themselves, are protected in the monitored workplace. This doesn't mean they're not beaten at home, but that's issue for a different agency.

Dammit, CBS, you do not tell me that you've got all the episodes up and then not include the second part of the 2-part finale. That is not cricket.

Also, I knew I couldn't trust Irene when she was Margaery Tyrell.