In March 2003 I said that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was going to suffer the same fate as the Communications Decency Act (CDA) — being shot down on Constitutional grounds.  More than a year later, a significant step in that direction has been taken by the US Supreme Court.  In a 5-4 ruling today, the court said COPA probably violates free-speech guarantees in the Constitution, blocked its enforcement, and sent it back to a lower court for trial.  The idea behind a new trial, says the court, is to consider new technologies which might satisfy constitutional requirements while still providing alternatives to the measures outlined in COPA (like age verification and the use of credit cards).  You can see a more in-depth review of the ruling here.

The more I looked at yesterday's Random Thought, the more I realized how it aptly describes this year's presidential election.  Assuming that we ignore Nader's involvement (he won't win, so let's only consider those with a chance), the only two candidates left are equally undesirable.

George Bush (Dubya) has shown a complete disregard for the Constitution (Patriot Act and Patriot Act II), the Geneva Convention (Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib), the American people (another culture war on the gay marriage issue and an inability to separate church and state), and has created the most divided populace ever known in this country.

John Kerry is a follower, not a leader, and hasn't a clue how to handle the country.  He's provided no answers or suggestions on how he would do things differently — all he's done is throw out complaints with no real answers to the issues.  Spineless jellyfish is one of the most common thoughts I have when I think about Kerry.  And his willingness to circumvent the law to get what he wants (when he considered declining the Democratic nomination so he could continue to accept soft money contributions) tells me that he's too morally flexible to be a good and true leader.

In either case, the election will be decided by choosing the lesser of two evils.

So I'm left thinking to myself that yesterday's Random Thought so very aptly describes the race between these two inept politicians and provides an outlook on what we Americans can expect depending on which one gets elected.  The next four years are going to suck for us no matter what happens.

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.  One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.  The other, to total extinction.  Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

— Woody Allen

I was rummaging through my old emails the other day when I came across this little gem from 2001.  I thought it worth sharing even if it isn't recent.  If you have or ever had cats, you'll find most — if not all — of this quite familiar.

1.  Take cold chicken and stars soup straight from the can and splash it across the carpet and the foot of the bed and then walk in it in the dark with your socks on.

2.  Set up a mouse trap at the foot of the bed each night so that if you move a toe one inch while you are sleeping, you are sure to get snapped.

3.  Cover all your best suits with cat hair.  Dark suits must use white hair, and light suits must use dark hair.  Also, float some hair in your first cup of coffee in the morning.

4.  Put everything cat-toy sized into a water bowl to marinate.

5.  Practice cutting your chicken into teeny tiny bites so that when they steal, it won't be the whole breast.

6.  Tip over a basket of clean laundry, and scatter clothing all over the floor.

7.  Leave your underwear on the living room floor, because that's where the cat will drag it anyway (especially when you have company).

8.  Jump out of your chair shortly before the end of your favorite TV program and run to the TV shouting "No!  No!  Don't chew on the electric cord!"  Miss the end of the program.

9.  Put chocolate pudding on the carpet in the corner of the living room in the morning and don't try to clean it up until you return from work that evening.

10.  Gouge the surface of the dining room table several times with an X-Acto knife.  It's going to get scratched anyway.

11.  Practice searching every closet and open cabinet door before you shut it.

12.  Knock all small items off your kitchen counter.

13.  Chew the eraser off every pencil in the house.

14.  Take a fork and shred the roll of toilet paper while it's still hanging up.  Pull a few sheets off and scatter them around the bathroom.

15.  Take a staple remover and punch two holes in every scrap of paper around the house.

16.  Get a litter tray without a lid and mix in some tootsie rolls with cat litter and then tip it over right before the company comes.  Make sure your guests get to find this before you do.

17.  Buy a mixed bag of cat toys and stuff them under the refrigerator.  Practice getting up at 2AM and fishing them out with a ruler or broom stick.

18.  Take a warm cuddly blanket out of the dryer and immediately wrap it around yourself.  This is the feeling you will get when your new cat falls asleep on your lap.

Poor AOL (note sarcasm).  They can't do anything right.  It would seem one of their employees stole the information for 92 million accounts in order to sell it to spammers.  And he did just that.  The man and his spam conspirators have been arrested, but you can bet that the information is already out there and is going to be used heavily.

If you need another reason to hate AOL, see the article here.

Remember — friends don't let friends use AOL.

I wrote in April about how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had been caught in several lies about its use of real-world passenger data to test the new passenger screening system, CAPPS II.  In that article I described how the TSA had denied such activities took place while airlines were coming forward to admit they had indeed shared real traveler data with the agency.  Now we discover from the TSA itself that the disclosures have been far more extensive than has been reported to date.

Originally thought to have been only three major airlines, sworn testimony from acting TSA chief David Stone indicates that five airlines provided passenger data to the TSA in 2002 and 2003.  Delta, Continental, America West, JetBlue, Frontier Airlines all secretly provided passenger data to the TSA and/or its contractors working on CAPPS II.  When we add Northwest Airlines into the mix for their disclosure in 2001, a total of six of the 10 largest airlines have provided confidential passenger data to the TSA, data which included travel itineraries, credit card types and/or numbers, home address and phone numbers, and other information we normally wouldn't want floating around freely and without our knowledge.

Offended?  We're not done yet.

The testimony also shows that two of the largest travel reservation companies, Sabre and Galileo International, both provided passenger data to the TSA as well, and this disclosure included home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data.

Amazingly all of these disclosures of private information were performed in secret with no notification to the American citizens whose information was being handed over to the government.

All of this information comes after the TSA has repeatedly denied to Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO, Congress' investigative arm) and the media that any disclosures took place.  We can now see that the TSA has a problem telling the truth — a very serious problem.

It is a violation of the Privacy Act for any federal entity to create a system of records for tracking American citizens without prior public disclosure.  It is also a violation of law for any company to disclose personal information if they have promised not to do so in writing (such as a privacy policy).  Both of these activities have occurred in this case.

In response to the continuing news about disclosures of this type, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General, who has the right to terminate negligent employees, is conducting an investigation into the matter.

Well, that's not good enough for me.

You see, the TSA has repeatedly denied it received any such real-world data.  Stone's predecessor, retired Adm. James Loy, was specifically asked by Congress whether "any contractors working on CAPPS II used any real-world data for testing purposes."

Loy's response?

"No.  TSA has not used any (passenger) data to test any of the functions of CAPPS II."

But it didn't end there.

Two TSA spokesmen also made false statements to the media about the extent of the transfers.

After the JetBlue transfer was brought to public attention in September 2003, TSA spokesman Brian Turmail told Wired News that the TSA had never used passenger records for testing CAPPS II, nor had it provided records to its contractors.

In September 2003, Wired News asked TSA spokesman Nico Melendez whether the TSA's four contractors had used real passenger records to test and develop their systems.  Melendez denied it, saying, "We have only used dummy data to this point."

"Our agency was only five months old at the time" when these four companies were developing their systems, Melendez said. "We did not need the data at that time."

In the spirit of fairness, the government isn't the only problem here.  The airlines and travel agencies are equally at fault.

The whole news story broke in the September of 2003 when it was discovered that JetBlue had turned over its entire passenger database to the TSA.

This was a direct violation of JetBlue's own privacy policy, so the airline promptly apologized for the violation and described it as a one-time error in judgment.

Unfortunately we believed them.

According to Stone's sworn testimony, JetBlue was lying when it said the mistake was a one-time event.  Apparently the upstart airline transferred passenger data not once, not twice, but three separate times.

Does that sound like a one-time mistake?

At what point do we as American's put our collective foot down and make clear that a government conspiracy of this magnitude — fully documented and even testified to by the government's own personnel and by the third-parties involved — is not acceptable?

It's time for this nonsense to stop.

The ongoing investigation by Congress isn't enough.  The ongoing investigation by the DHS Inspector General isn't enough.

CAPPS II must be ended immediately and all related contracts terminated.  That would be a start.

The Department of Justice (via the FBI) should begin an immediate investigation into whether the Privacy Act has been violated by the TSA and its contractors as well as by the airlines and travel agencies.

Each of the airlines who had a privacy policy in place at the time which indicated they would not share passenger data needs to be taken to court for breach of contract and invasion of privacy.

A boycott of all of the companies involved (the airlines, the travel agencies, and the contractors working on CAPPS II) could also make it clear that such behavior is not acceptable nor will it be tolerated.

It's imperative that "heads roll" at the airlines, the travel agencies, and within the TSA.  It's equally imperative that all of the people and organizations involved find themselves on the receiving end of one or more lawsuits.

I do not accept this kind of behavior and deception on the part of our government nor the companies involved (those who gave data and those who received it).

Regardless of what the selfish religious zealots may say, this is in fact a question of civil rights.  And no steps forward in civil rights have ever been taken by a referendum.  That is to say civil rights have never advanced in response to popular demand.  If public consensus were needed to advance civil rights, all previous steps in this direction would have preserved the white- and male-only aspect of our culture from 100 years ago.

Understand that advances in civil rights have occurred only through inspired, visionary leadership from an enlightened governing body.  Many times this enlightenment is forced upon our governing body by a judiciary which must interpret both the spirit and letter of the law — the two of which do not always manifest clearly via a simple reading of the text.

Whether it's taxes, hospital visitation, inheritance, or being forced to testify against your spouse (married couples don't have to), civil unions and domestic partnerships are part of being second-class citizens.  Civil rights are those rights which are shared by all members of a society.  They are not to be selectively applied when convenient and withheld when justified by means contrary to the Constitution (in this case, religious means).

As the nation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on May 17, the decision which once and for all placed Constitutional force behind equality between blacks and whites, gays and lesbians launched a new chapter in their own struggle for equality.  But the black clergy that lit the fire for change half a century ago is now out to dampen that flame, at least where same-sex marriage is concerned.

"If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," Reverend Gregory Daniels, a black minister from Chicago, announced from the pulpit in February.

In a speech at Harvard Law School in February, Reverend Jesse Jackson spoke out against same-sex marriage and rejected comparisons between the civil rights and gay rights movements.  "Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he said, and "they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."

You're right, Jesse, but blacks didn't have the "Defense of Marriage Act" specifically made law in order to deny them marriage rights.  We do.  What's the difference?

African Americans were denied the right to marry white people, and now they dare to deny matrimonial rights to gay people.  This is hypocrisy at its most evident and most savage.  Also note that it's "civil rights" for them and "gay rights" for us.

The argument has been that the gay marriage question is in no way comparable to the civil rights movement.  Martin Luther King, Jr. would disagree, I'm afraid.

In his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, King said, "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.  This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe it is a betrayal of King's legacy and life's work for the black community to now come forward and deny the civil rights of yet another minority.  Perhaps this once minority community has already forgotten the struggles and the unfulfilled promise America had made to them.  Perhaps they believe that the promise doesn't apply to gays based on religious reasons.  In any case, they are denying the legacy of King and standing on the platform he built for them in order to bestow yet another discriminatory outrage on yet another minority.

How dare you!

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"

King did not mean these words only for the black cause.  He did not mean them only for that single struggle.  He, in his greatness of mind and spirit and foresight, meant them for all people everywhere in every time.  He understood that civil rights are guaranteed to everyone.  He would weep to see your denial of them to yet another minority that you can now stand upon to declare your own selfishness.  That you would deny others the rights he so fervently fought to bestow upon you is betraying him and everything he stood for.

Civil rights, such as that of marriage and the benefits that come with it, should not be denied the homosexual community by anyone.  One would expect the African American community to understand that better than others, but perhaps the struggle is long forgotten and it's now easier to become what they hated most — the discriminator, the denier of the rights of others, the master over the slave.

Denying the right of marriage to gay couples is a violation of civil rights.  Part of our civil rights "package" is equal protection under the law.  Does marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gay couples sound equal?

When you fill out your taxes, is there a box for civil union?  Does being in a civil union provide for the same tax breaks as being married?  What about hospital visitation?  What about health care decisions?  What about testifying against your partner in court?

When filling out a bank loan application, I remember the choices being "unmarried man," "unmarried woman," or "husband and wife."  I do not recall a space for "domestic partners" or "married or equivalent."

And how can we as Americans preach equality and civil rights to other countries when we cannot — do not — practice them at home?  Are we not the crux of hypocrisy to demand equal rights in other countries while denying them here?  It's no wonder terrorists hate us so much — we are precisely what they say we are.  We demand of others what we are not willing to provide ourselves.  We expect action from others that we won't take ourselves.  We say one thing and do the complete opposite.

The truth is that civil unions are not equal.  They are not equivalent.  They are, in fact, segregationist.  One group may have one thing while another group gets something entirely different.  Is this equal protection?  More basic than that, is it right?

Civil unions may get us on the bus, but we are still in the back.  Way back.

This is a fight for civil rights.  You don't have to agree with that for it to be true and correct.  The African American community should understand that better than any other group of people.

Let me close with one more quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. and his "I Have a Dream" speech.

"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"

You may have heard about Patriot Act II, dubbed "Son of Patriot Act" by its critics, which was shelved after the public outcry that it caused once it became public.  This was about one year ago, but Patriot Act II isn't dead.  In fact, its supporters are sneaking provisions from the shelved legislation into other laws in order to surreptitiously get them signed into law before anyone notices.  So, piece by piece, Patriot Act II is becoming law, further eroding our civil liberties and rapidly making America a police state.

You can see some of the details of this plot in this article from Wired News.

By now you've all heard about the new Virginia law, enacted on April 21, 2004, which nullifies any and all legal contracts and agreements between homosexual couples.  No, it's not just a law which prohibits homosexual marriage but, by its very language, directly attacks any contract between members of the same-sex.  This includes durable powers of attorney, directives to physicians, property contracts, business agreements and anything else you can think of.  Why would a state enact a law specifically designed to strip rights away from citizens?  Because Virginia is for haters.

HB 751 is a simple law.  There is no fluff or fanfare.  There is only this text.

CHAPTER 983
An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 20-45.3, relating to the Affirmation of Marriage Act for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[H 751]
Approved April 21, 2004

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 20-45.3 as follows:

§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited.  Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Originally submitted by Delegate Robert Marshall, a Republican Representative to the Virginia House of Delegates for the 13th District, the law passed the state legislature by veto-proof margins after Democratic Governor Mark R. Warner tried to amend the bill to make it less restrictive.

It's difficult for me to imagine such punitive and discriminatory legislation being passed in the 21st century, yet here we are.  Marshall provided the best explanation of the law's derisiveness when he said of gays, "If they don't like the expression of the will of the people of Virginia, they don't have to come here.  This was done by freely elected representatives."

What a pathetic little man he is.  And I seriously doubt that the people of Virginia had any idea that their legislature would be passing such a law when they elected them to office.  I also believe it won't help their election chances in the future.

In Marshall's case, he wraps himself in bigotry and hatred and wears them like medals, thinking himself above reproach on this issue.  Even when contacted by a happily married heterosexual man who took offense to the law and wished to express his consternation, Marshall responded with smug contempt.  He attempted to hide his hate and bigotry behind the welfare of children.  In direct contradiction of the truth and facts, he claims that homosexuals are disease-producing vermin who contaminate everything around them.  He also supported a law which would have made public sex involving only the mouth or the anus a felony — and he claims it wasn't aimed at homosexuals (why isn't heterosexual sex included in that felony description?).  And there's more in his response that will disgust you (if you're a human being, something Marshall can't claim).  You can see the original letter and Marshall's response here.  It's important to note that, once again, this conservative piece of shit uses the Bible to justify his hate, his bigotry, his discrimination.  Am I the only one who sees a religious pattern in all of the anti-gay rhetoric being heard around this country?

Governor Warner's spokesman Kevin Hall sees things more clearly.  When asked about the new law, he said, "Governor Warner has devoted considerable time and effort to promoting Virginia tourism, and this certainly will not help."

No, it won't help at all.

The wording of the law is most problematic as it now stands to nullify any legal contract entered into between consenting adults which in any way purports to "bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage" to members of the same sex.  Despite those who would argue differently, the law negates any durable power of attorney, will, directive to physicians, or other legal agreement which includes any of the rights of marriage.

What the Virginia legislature didn't realize — or perhaps they did — is that the law negates legal contracts between fathers and sons, brothers, business partners and other legally enforceable relationships which have nothing to do with homosexuals.  If these contracts bestow any privilege or right which can be in any way construed to relate to marriage, the law negates the agreement.

Once you take that into consideration and realize that the law also discriminates against homosexuals, it's easy to realize why Virginia must be governed by the Ku Klux Klan (with Marshall sitting in the governing seat).  The Washington Post put it best when they said that the law "flagrantly violates norms of basic fairness and decency."

To pass a law simply to punish a minority class of people is the very foundation of why America split away from England more than 200 years ago.  Yet here we are practicing precisely what we hated so much then.

The backward-thinking bigotry that oozes from every letter of this law calls into question the very humanity of those who passed it.  If the concern is over protecting heterosexual marriage, why not pass a law to ban divorce?  More than 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce — all without a single homosexual influence.

The truth is that it's easier to punish a minority than it is to demand action from the majority, and this at least looks as though you are doing something.  In this case, it's the wrong thing.

This law will not reduce the incidence of divorce among heterosexual couples.  It will not diminish the rate of increase in non-traditional families (single parent, for instance).  It will not protect anything except the church's control over the conservative right-wing cultists who supported and passed this law.

But I am thrilled to realize that the law violates several tenets of the Constitution and will rapidly be thrown out by the Federal judiciary.  You see, the Constitution specifically states that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress… pass any… law impairing the obligation of contracts."  Virginia has just done that very thing, unambiguously voiding existing contracts between homosexuals, business partners, family members and any other relationship in which the two contracted parties are of the same sex.

Perhaps to ensure there was no confusion about Virginia thumbing its nose at the Constitution, the law also clearly violates the equal protection clause.  The Constitution ensures that all citizens are to be protected equally under the law (stating that no law can discriminate against any group of people).  The Virginia statute surely violates this Constitutional protection by forbidding gays and lesbians (and any other individuals of the same sex) from entering into legal contracts, agreements and other private arrangements which opposite-sex couples are permitted to undertake.

Taking effect July 1, Virginia's hate law (as I will aptly call it) is a new declaration of war — a culture war — which will not go unanswered.

In response to Virginia's new hate law, a boycott of the state and businesses which are headquartered there has been put into motion.  Virginia is for Haters is intended to bring political and economic pressure to Virginia in an attempt to undo the damage this law has already created.

Since the Virginia legislature has already made clear that gays and lesbians aren't welcome in their state, I fully support the boycott.

People living there may think this is counterproductive as it targets their economy and will hurt them, but it's unmistakably their fault that this situation exists to begin with.  Either they supported the new law, in which case they deserve the boycott and whatever economic damage it can bring to the state, or they were so out of touch with their own government that they didn't know what they were up to, in which case the boycott is a wake-up call to pay attention and get involved.  In either case, however, I have no sympathy for anyone who feels victimized by the boycott.

Victimized?  Who's been victimized in all of this?  I don't think it's the people of Virginia or the businesses which are run from that state.

I support the boycott.  I support any action which will bring economic and political harm to Virginia.  I support any action which will bring this law before the Federal judiciary.  I support the recall of the majority of the Virginia legislature (especially Marshall).  I support any attempt to use the law against the legislature's members (any same-sex business agreements out there that can be challenged after July 1?).  I support the full cessation of travel to Virginia and any other activity that will help isolate this backward little state which is so full of hate and contempt for others.  Perhaps the legislature would like to reintroduce slavery or to take away women's suffrage while they're at it.

To quote from some of the comments posted across the Internet about this law, I close with this.

Marshall's rantings and Attorney General Kilgore's opinion notwithstanding, this *is* about the enforceability of private contracts legally entered into in other states.  Kilgore's opinion used the phrase "exclusive to," but this word does not appear in the actual legislation.  The clear statement of the legislation is that any Virginia court can declare unenforceable (in Virginia) any agreement between two partners, on any subject, if the court decides it involves *any* "privilege or obligation" that comes with marriage (i.e., that is granted to married partners by law or custom), not just "privileges or obligations" that are *exclusive* to marriage.  Marshall is not only a bigot but a hypocrite when he claims otherwise.

So I wake up this morning and find a new user has registered on the site.  Cool, right?  Not precisely.

I immediately realized the username was too familiar and uncommon (Charlton2) to be anyone other than my favorite site spammer.  You'll remember Charlton has visited here before (first around March 27, 2004, and again around April 22, 2004).  Despite my having deleted the spam submission from the Web Links on both occasions and changing permissions for submitting web links so anonymous users like Charlton could no longer spam me, this idiot is still working hard to piss me off.

Obviously smart enough to realize anonymous users couldn't submit links anymore, Charlton was still stupid enough to sign up for an account using his real name in order to circumvent that limitation.

I am not a free advertising forum as I have made clear in the past.  I will not advertise your stupid child car seat or flat screen TV or lawn and landscaping business/site and absolutely refuse to link to any site that is run by someone as stupid and clueless as Charlton Conine (although I will admit the man has a diverse career with the baby car seats, flat screen TVs and lawn and landscaping businesses; what will he try next?).

Charlton - You are not welcome here at all.  I will not allow you to use my site as a free advertising forum.  I will not tolerate your brainless attempts to use me to further your own feeble-minded plan for domination of the child car seat market (and doesn't it sound silly?).  I will never approve your link and will never allow you to use my site for your nefarious and obviously not thought out plan to further your ranking on Google (No, I'm not a fool and completely understand what you're trying to accomplish).  You're an idiot and an asshole and are about the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life.  You've apparently never learned the definition of the word "no."  I see your posts all over the web where you've done the same thing — activated an account on a site for the sole purpose of submitting your stupid links.  You're certainly the dimmest bulb in the chandelier, aren't you?  You are, to say the least, oblivious.  I bet you're in your early- to mid-forties, have never had sex and still live with your mother (thanks, Derek!).

For all the spam bots and crawlers out there, I'm posting Charlton's email addresses again so you can index them and spam him the way he spams me.

Email Address 1: webmaster@child-car-seats.com
Email Address 2: webmaster@mybigc.com
Email Address 3: webmaster@flat-screen-tv.org

Oh, and one more thing, Charlton.  You won't be getting your account password email from my site.  I've already deleted your account to make sure you understand my adamant and unwavering dislike for your activities.

Now, piss off and don't come back.

You may remember The Apology, a joke about a cat who gets the dog kicked out of the house.  Well, in the words of Faux News (or is that FOX News?), to ensure a fair and balanced experience here at xenogere / strange behavior /, here’s the dog's revenge.

1.  Clean toilet thoroughly.

2.  Lift both lids and add shampoo.

3.  Find and soothe cat as you carry him to bathroom.

4.  In one swift move, place cat in toilet and close both lids, standing on top so cat cannot escape.

5.  Cat will self-agitate, producing ample suds (ignore ruckus from inside toilet — cat is enjoying this).

6.  Flush toilet 3 or 4 times.  This provides an effective power rinse.  Do not be concerned — cat is too large to go anywhere.

7.  Have someone open the outside door then stand as far back from toilet as possible and quickly lift the lids.

8.  Clean cat will rocket out of the toilet and straight outdoors where he will air dry.  Cat will return when hungry.

Sincerely,
The Dog