Trivializing of Issues About Pets Deplored

I would have laughed at the account of Paul Koretz and his proposal regarding the licensing of cats in West Hollywood if the implications of the further encroachment of the thought-and-speech police had not been so unsettling. Your article noted: “Throughout the discussion, the politically correct term ‘animal companion’ was favored over the demeaning ‘pet.’ ”

This has really got to stop somewhere. My dictionary (American Heritage, Second College Edition) defined pet as “an animal kept for amusement or companionship; an object of the affections; particularly cherished or adored.” If you ask me, the term is anything but demeaning.

I adore my pets. I cherish them, I am amused by them and I am their sole source of food and warmth and protection. I like to think they are mildly amused by some of the things I do with them, that they adore me and that in their own way they see me as their pet, not just a companion who feeds them. I can’t imagine who the term “pet” demeans in this context and I reckon neither would most of the PC speakers who will eventually find their thoughts and words censored to the point of idiocy by those who would substitute euphemism for truth.

As far as Koretz’s proposal is concerned, I can’t think why any right-thinking, politically correct animal-companion care-givers would balk at having their cat licensed. Any measure which would save a cherished and adored animal family member from winding up in the pound is one that should be implemented and applauded. If these curmudgeons (your word) have so much spare time on their hands that they are able to appear at City Council meetings to address such matters, they might better be edified by a few hours volunteering at the pound so they can witness how stray companion animals are destroyed. I’ll bet a cat license wouldn’t seem so threatening after a day or two of that.

CHLOE ROSS

West Hollywood