A Stabbed Puppy and the State of Consumer Protection - Preventative /Reactionary - You'd be Surprised?

Howdy Gorilla Buddies,
As the holidays approach, everyone is filled with good cheer and a bit of panic. Too bad the good cheer hardly ever transcends to the news.
I hate to be that blogger that pushes bad news but this one left an unease I haven't been able to shake. Exactly what sort of protection are we being provided?

Last week, San Diego Media reported that a 9-month-old German Shepherd was found dead on a street in Point Loma (nice area in a nice city) with 50 stab wounds. The community is

offering $4500 reward for information and authorities are not taking this case lightly. (Read full story here) http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-canine-stabbing,0,2668510.story

As a proud puppy parent of a rambunctious 1year old cattle dog, this story was hard to digest. Naturally, my first reaction was incensed rage and fear. We need to rally, catch this

bastard and string him/her by the neck before this happens again. There are horrible people out there that hurt animals all the time but this one stood out because of the number of

stab wounds. Who would want to hurt a puppy? who would stab anything (live and non-living) 50 times? Has this sort of act transferred to an actual person? Would it be a long shot to

think it could very easily be a person next time?

The severity of the case and the implication it had for human life got me hoping they find who did this but then the question arises - how will they be tried? What would they be charged

with? They couldn't be tried for a crime they may commit in the future, for example, hurting a human, could they?

If you had a time machine and ran into Hitler when he was a 10-year old boy, would you intervene to alter the course of history?
I'm no expert on the U.S. Legal system or on history but would love to hear from those who are.


Preventative v. Reactionary

In the U.S., advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and they are mostly reactionary. That is, a campaign message is reviewed after the public has been

exposed to it and usually as a result of a competing brand filing a complaint against the advertiser.
The FTC requires that advertising:
* must be truthful and non-deceptive;
* must have evidence to back up their claims; and
* cannot be unfair.


The FTC site goes into detail about how they determine ads that do not meet these criteria (I won't bore you guys with the details). Visit

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/guides.shtm for more info.

A few years ago, KFC launched a campaign claiming their chicken could be part of a healthy diet.
This campaign aired until a competitor filed a complaint stating their claim was false.
The case was investigated and was found valid. KFC's claim that their chicken could be part of a healthy diet was deemed false and the ads were pulled.

Which is great but a little too late.
The population is exposed to thousands of marketing messages each day. How many of them carry misleading messages and false claims which could possibly be harmful to consumers?

Preventative v. Reactionary.

Take every message with a grain of salt.

Until next time. Stay alert.

KBG~