Artist Tom Otterness is famous for his sculptures and public art works. But he’s also famous for having killed a dog on film as part of an art project. Now, after 34 years — and many apologies — Otterness has received a commission for public art projects for San Francisco’s Central Subway and General Hospital. Animal rights activists are up in arms, and many are demanding his contract for the art be canceled.

The Arts Commission votes on the contract at its Wednesday meeting.

P.J. Johnston, president of the San Francisco Arts Commission
Sally Stephens, chairperson of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare

  • Edwards Stanley

    Yes, Tom Orterness should bow out of this commission. Call it an apology. Do not profit from this controversey. Retreat for a time and think about your life. Forgiveness/learning from human mistakes is a possibility. This is an opportunity for you to truly reflect .. Let this one go. …

  • Arnita

    The contract should be terminated simply because the artist’s reputation and past deeds are part of the art. Just as memories of a pleasant trip to a winery colors one’s appreciation for their wine; much of art is the stories behind the art.  I would never be able to pass his works without reflecting on the evil within us that leads to the senseless killing of innocents; hardly the emotion or intent of art that has been portrayed as “whimsical”. 

  • Vicki

    This is about legitimate outrage over the spending of public
    funds on an artist who egregiously offended public sensibilities.  Some acts are way beyond the pale, and what
    Otterness did certainly is that.   He went to a shelter and adopted a dog with
    the explicit intention of snuffing out his life for a film as the dog was
    chained to a fence without possibility of escape.  It’s my understanding from reading articles
    about this issue that when Otterness produced his film, even other underground
    anarchist artists blasted him for it.  It’s
    not surprising, nor inappropriate, that the repercussions would follow the
    artist throughout his life.  Private buyers
    are free to buy art from this artist, but I strongly object to spending public
    funds on it, especially in the city named for the patron saint of animals. 

  • Kt

    If the SFMTA wants, I could produce twice as much art for half as much money. I’d even pay for the glitter and mod podge myself 🙂

    • Philippa

      Had Hitler or Goebles have lived after performing their atrocities,, I’d have had no problem with them making art. Good luck to them. BUT to use public money to support them would, to my mind, be unthinkable.I hope that in no way you think I am trying to align the slaughter of 6 million Jews with the slaughter of an animal – but it is the basic human depravity I am talking about. Yes, let him make art. No, do not pay him public funds to do so. 
      Philippa Kelly

  • Stierman1-in-Boise

    Michael Vick was just mentioned in the conversation and that is a very good comparison. There is very little excuse for what this artist did in 1977 … enough said.

  • Bernstr


    It is unbelievable that they would give any art contract to this guy. How can cruelly killing an animal be considered art?  An apology doesn’t cut it when he purposely took the life of another IN THE NAME OF ART?

    This guy cannot be allowed to tarnish the legacy of San Francisco.

  • Zachary

    This is ridiculous.  If this artist had killed a person sometime in his past should he not ever be able to do anything ever again?  Who are we to judge?  It is certainly not the arts commissions role.


    • Sunday

      Render just judgment. 

  • Ringer451

    Whats the difference between what this artist has done and the long line of presidents that have killed animals for sport?

  • jennifer kranzke

    When do we forgive and move on? I am a dog lover an animal lover in general. As long as we continue to give voice to this issue we will not be able to move on. 
    Comparing this issue to Michael Vick is fine, and stating that he did his time for his crime, is also fine, but now sports announcers speak about VIck and do not ALWAYS mention his animal abuse. 
    When will we let Otterness’s name be mentioned with out this horrific event attached to it? Maybe this is the time. 

  • Chrisco

    It is a pretty huge issue that the animal cruelty was over 34 years ago. He should have killed a rabbit, or a squirrel, or a pig, or a cow. And all would be well.

    I am a PETA member (obviously this does not represent their views) but I think this is silly. It pains me a little to cite him but David Brooks has a column today called ”

    Let’s All Feel Superior” that is apt to this discussion.

  • Mark

    Absolutely reprehensible! But more than thirty years ago? The artist has renounced that crime as clearly as anyone could hope. And if you have eaten meat recently you are in no good moral position to judge the youthful sins of another so harshly. 

  • Steve T.

    Hypothetical:  I’m strongly opposed to illicit drug use and don’t want public funds even possibly supporting a drug habit.  OK, find an artist. 

  • Jafrydad

    When an artist completes a work of art, that art has a life of it’s own. In fact the merits and greatness of the work counts on that -or should, irregardless of the artist. When that CAN’T happen (as in this case -and regardless of the reasons), such a commission cannot be seriously considered. Van Gogh’s works are important because of the actual works, and not because he cut off his ear (that story came out long after the works were taken seriously). Should Otterness’ work be allowed, the art work would always be attached to what the artist did, which counteracts the ambiance and mood of what the subway was suppose to present. 

  • R. Bers

    This is one these issues that brings out the armchair moralists, many of them probably sitting down to a plate full of animal flesh while they bask in the glow of their righteousness. I think we need to determine if Tom Otterness somehow enjoys the destruction of animals or whether it was simply a one-off misguided act of a young artist.

  • Tcjackson

    Who will be asked to review the art collections at the deYoung and MOMASF to be sure that are from offensive artists are removed? What will disqualify these artists? Domestic violence? Drug abuse? Unpopular political religious views? No one says art based on cruelty to animals should be paid for with taxes – but blacklisting an artist who has apologized and tried to set things right suggests that forgiveness in San Feancisco is only available to a select few. If his art is ok for the San Jose Zoo, why can’t it be in a subway station?

  • He committed the killing in the name of making art. This is why I can’t separate his misdeed from his current work as an artist. All of his life’s work is a continuum..

    I’m an artist and I’m always discouraged that my whole body of work isn’t considered when I apply for grants. Grant agencies put to much emphasis on the most recent work of an artist.

    SF Arts Commission should consider his violent film in judging whether they give him public money. I

  • Mottsa888

    I dont understand why Sally Stephens is lauded as an expert in a debate on public art. Her true complaint isnt specific to Tom Otterness; its a critique of animal cruelty in general. Why would such a patently close minded person (specifically, a person who believes that an act of cruelty committed 30 years ago cannot and willnot be forgiven simply because it was animal related) as an arbitrator or public morality morality. Public sentiment should not be held hostage by this type of arguement.

    • Chrisco

      Stephens’ sentiments are shared by a large segment of the public, if not a majority. No one is being held hostage.

  • Dave Hunkins

    No, SF should not kill the contract.

  • Adam Harms

    I only wish corporations that commit human rights abuses and kill thousands of  animals would be treated with the same outrage as this commission. Why is artistic responsibility so important when we support irresponsible actions outside the arts?

    • Daniel

      Yeah … smart. Justify the wrong-doings of one psychopath with multiple wrong-doings of other psychopaths.

  • Clare165

    Anyone who would kill a helpless animal for an art project is seriously disturbed.  He has no place participating in public art (much less benefitting from public dollars).   Apologies are meaningless as is whatever talent he may or may not possess.
    His efforts to placate criticism is more than a little late and is transparently self-serving.  This poor excuse for a human being has no place in San Francisco.

    Sally Stephens clearly understands the disturbing implications of allowing this contract to go through.

    P.J. Johnston sounds like an apologist and his comments completely miss the point.  This isn’t a censorship issue.  It’s a moral issue stupid!  Why is he president?  He seems to be advocating for this artistic idiot instead of representing the community at large. 

    from a San Francisco native and art enthusiast

  • Gary

    The guy is a pig and I am appaulled that my tax dollars will be funding an animal killer!

  • Richard Springwater

    A work of art is not a thing in itself.  The history and character of the artist becomes a part of the work.  Killing a dog is not Art – it’s self-promotion masquerading as art.  

  • Jim

    The Wagner etc. comparison is not really apt here.  One can easily take the position that there is a meaningful difference between, on the one hand, appreciating and even enjoying a work of art produced by somebody whose past acts or philosophy or whatever one disapproves of, versus, on the other, actually commissioning a new work by that artist and paying him/her directly for it out of one’s own pocket.

  • Isabella

    The problem is not just that he was cruel to an animal; the problem is that he glorified the cruelty by making it into art.  That piece is part of his oeuvre as an artist.  How can we support an artist whose WORK glorifies animal cruelty with public funds?  If he is truly remorseful, why doesn’t he glorify animal rights in a piece of art?

  • David Lemon

    What Otterness did is arguably criminal. But if he’d been convicted, any time he’d serve would’ve been passed long ago. And the statute of limitations for this crime has also long since passed. I’m not the person I was 34 years ago, and I’m sure Otterness isn’t either, so I think it’s time to move on.

    Furthermore, I’ve never met a flawless person, and I doubt there are any. Our shortcomings and failures are a necessary part of the complexities of life. Trying to find someone whose background would offend nobody is a foolish concept.

    • Daniel

       Had he been convicted, perhaps. He got away with that then and is getting away with it now.

      • Eva-Lynne

        Convictions preclude us from doing many things for the rest of our lives.  Accepting commissions for public art should be one of those things.

        • Chrisco

          You really covet the permanent punishment.

  • Air

    The killing of a dog 34 years ago or the molestation of countless 10 year olds 32 years ago at College Station…was this really an isolated incident? ..were there more dogs than have been admitted? many takes..???

  • Devin

    If we decide on a community level that an artist is offensive as a person, would we condone a community banning art because an artist is gay?

    Also, you can see “animal snuff films” on tv every day. They are called hunting shows. Shall we ban the art of anyone who has engaged in sport hunting?

    This is rediculous.

  • Michael

    The question to me is about forgiveness, one of the hardest things for individuals to do.  I volunteered with a man for a year working in a local jail.  He had spent a total of 20 years in jail for some crimes that would bother many.  Now he’s committed his life to helping those in jail to not return.  He’s just come out with a book talking about his life and his “awakening”.  Reading about his life has been really hard for me to read and to accept, but having worked with him in jail, I would fully support him being funded to do his work in jail; in fact him more than someone else.


  • I find it despicable that one of your guests was comparing killing a dog with murder or child abuse. It is insulting to real human victims.

    • Air

      Actually it is the same…only a different form of body.

      • Some of us obviously disagree since we are ok with the wholesale slaughter of animals for our enjoyment as food. If the species can’t generally pass some form of the Turing test, I don’t see why we should give it rights.

        • Sunday

          WTF,Name dropper.

  • Vicki

    On the issue of cruelty in the meat-producing industry — yes, it exists AND people are working hard to stop it.  Because cruelty exists in other areas of life, should we overlook cruelty in this instance?  Cruelty in all its many forms should be opposed.

  • Deez

    I find so much wrong with this situation. Besides cruelty as art issue which is major. Why are we giving someone from new york all of this money? Why not support local artists who don’t abuse animals?

  • Andie Mock

    Make empathy part of the art. An artful description of this controversy at the site of the art would do more to prevent animal cruelty than not putting up the art work. This would be the part of the power of restoring peace.

    • Andie Mock

      The St. Francis prayer starts out, “Oh Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.” I’m not religious but I say let’s give it a whirl.

  • Laurie

    I hope those who are outraged about the quick death, and hopefully minimal suffering of ONE DOG, do NOT EAT MEAT OR DAIRY.  Otherwise, they are hypocrites!  Most animals raised for food suffer tremendously and St Francis would not have approved.Eating meat is not a necessity.  Plant-based diets are healthier and more sustainable.

    • Daniel

      There are idiots around, so let’s all become ones. Or killings – going on everywhere daily. Let us all start doing that.
      That is a not very smart cover-up for a concrete “controversial”, at best, individual.

  • Daniel

    For me, personally, the art of that individual is tainted …
    I won’t be able to stop thinking of the betrayed and murdered dog. It has nothing
    to do with that having happened thirty some years ago. It happened.

    That is how it will be perceived by many others …

    But here is one more practical reason. This situation is
    already a subject of controversy. Those pieces displayed in public may lead to more
    protests and even acts of vandalism.


    Do we really need that? Aren’t there other talented artists?

  • lolly caust

    i’m torn about this.  on the one hand, i can’t look at a picasso without thinking about his abuse towards women – on the other hand, i don’t think the question  should be about acts of contrition or redemption,
    but whether or not he is now the same person he was thirty years ago.
    did he grow up or do we need to continue to shun him?
    do we, as a community, believe that people change?

    lastly, i’m confused about the comments about the timing of the apology – he appears to have apologized in 2008 …

  • aaron

     Don’t the shelters kill dogs daily? why don’t we de-fund the animal shelters if we are going to deny his contract? maybe he was just trying to  point out that they are killed daily?

    • Daniel

      Somehow, that is not what he did. Shelters kill animals out of necessity – overflow, etc. That is awful …
      We do not publish the works of art by those who euthanize animals at shelters. 

    • Vicki

      Yes, dogs are killed in shelters daily, AND there are people working hard (on many levels) to resolve that issue so that every adoptable animal is able to find a home.  And as Daniel said, shelters do not kill dogs for art, then play the loop of the killing over and over and over again, as Otterness did. 

  • kari

    If the Arts Commission does not want to adopt a policy in judging animal cruelty, they could judge this as a single case. Otterness killed a dog. There have been no consequences, and in fact SF is awarding him a contract. His body of work, his sculptures will not reflect community values. The contract should be rescinded.

  • Marianne Stanley


    Has the artist ever publicly apologized for this act or has he only said he is sorry within private formats i.e. letters and face to face, to people considering contracting his artwork after his history becomes known?  He might find it more convincing if he actually admits he did an unnecessary and cruel act in a very public way.

    It has been suggested that this was his way to shock people out of their complacency –  he does not seem to be very “creative” if that is the case.

    thank you

  • Hgalloway

    This was not a citizen committing a crime or mistake in his personal life and then becoming rehabilitated. This was a deliberate killing to make a statement in his career field (art) and therefore is part of his body of work. It represents him and is on his resume. One is judged uopn their resume when applying for a job. This is akin to someone who murders and then paints or draws their crime scenes and promotes it as ‘art’. Also – it was a crime that has gone unpunished by both the judicial system and society.

  • Vicki

    On Mr. Johnston’s point that it’s a subjective process deciding which acts cross the line — yes, it is, and it’s an uncomfortable discussion, but we need to have the discussion, not back away just because it’s less than clearcut.  Perhaps clearer guidelines need to be set out — as Sally said, most would agree that snuff films cross the line.

  • Mike

    This is PUBLIC money – what this guy did is so despicable this issue goes beyond normal objections, and should be subject to greater scrutiny. 

    This is not a simple case of “not everyone is going to like everything”, and I don’t believe in subjecting art to a popularity contest in most situations, but at some point, behavior becomes so egregious that it simply can not be tolerated. I think this guy killing a dog on film certainly qualifies as psychopathic behavior that simply should not be forced on the public – I don’t care who likes it. 

    I was listening to the guy on the radio driving home – don’t know his name, but  this guy is tone deaf when it comes to defending something like this against what appears to be overwhelming public distaste. He needs to be fired. And those upset by this need to put pressure on whatever members of the Arts Commission that approved and/or is continuing to defend this decision. They have simply gone too far.


  • Psyquus46

    Many of us do not condone violent acts of others; however, this blanket refusal to allow this artist to ever create pieces some of you think are acceptable, seems juvenile and short sighted.

    Hitler burned many works he considered unacceptable and he has deprived us of enjoying those pieces forever. So, we have a new guard thinking they should be able to dictate what I consider art. I find the idea unthinkable and demeaning. How dare you tell me what I am to view! What makes you think you can determine when someone has been remorseful enough! Who are you to forgive? Art is art. Art is not necessarily the artist.

    This seems another act by people who think the public is not able to think, yet alone to think critically. Frankly, I’m offended by this group and the lack of critical thought. Do not dictate what I am to view, to hear and to touch.

  • biasedone

    If it’s true that the artist has not paid any real penalty for his crime, then this is a no-brainer: the government cannot spend public funds to support his work. Americans are disgusted of government bailing out Wall Street crooks; this is another case of a double standard. P.J. Johnston alleges he is defending the value of San Francisco’s art; in fact he is undermining public support and the future of the arts commission.

  • Zuhayl

    Where is the art in simply shooting an animal who is tied to a fence?? A caller mentioned that art is looking into the artist life, then what can it be inferred about this individual’s life??

  • forumsf

    Why did the art commission have such a shocking lack of judgement that they would put SF through this debate to begin with?

  • The Chairwoman of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare is repeatedly saying that we all agree killing a dog is unacceptable and unforgivable but obviously given many of the comments and calls, that is simply not true. Many of us understand that while we may disapprove, it is a far cry from crimes that actually are universally considered unacceptable such as murder or child abuse. Her words betray an extremism that should disqualify her from being taken seriously.

  • Renee

    If he does get the contract which I certainly hope he doesn’t, he should donate
    100% of the proceeds to animals in some form.
    He should also turn himself into the Denver Officials who were looking for him many years ago.

  • Annechome

    Cancel the contract.

  • Eva-Lynne Leibman

    There are many things in life we are barred from because of things we have done in our past.  Sometimes things go on our “permanent record.”  We can never become a policeman if we have been convicted of a crime.  An arrest can result in not being accepted into law school.  We cannot become a foster or adoptive parent if we have a police record or have had certain mental illnesses.

    Art is a permanent record.  When one puts out a piece of art that includes committing a crime, that is a part of one’s permanent record.

    Any public commission of art can and should be refused to someone with such a permanent record. 

    A caller this am said that since this piece would cause consternation among a significant part of the population, the art should not be allowed.  Although art that causes some people discomfort is often important art, it need not be placed in a place that people could not avoid it.  Put it in a museum where people expect to be confronted with difficult art, not in a public transit station where people want to get from here to there.


    Eva-Lynne Leibman
    SF resident

    • Chrisco

      A permanent record means no forgiveness, no forgetting – no matter what. I don’t think the permanent record is useful for such temporary creatures as ourselves. The permanent record reminds me of Hester Prynne.

  • forumsf

    I just read that the SF Arts Commission did not know about the artist’s past when they awarded the contract.

     Certainly they have the right to reevaluate the contract in light of new information. 

    I’m also shocked at how much money they gave him, $750,000.  This must be an important issue for him since this contract probably represents his retirement.  Lets rise up as a city and make Otterness really hurt in the memory of abused animals everywhere.  Justice.

    Can’t we find a more deserving person to award $750,000 to?

  • Nancy

    Comparing hunting of animals with killing a domesticated pet in order to make a statement  is not a valid comparison.  There is controversy in the way animals are hunted amongst hunters. There are ethical objections to aerial hunting, remote hunting using a computer program,  trophy hunting on game farms of docile exotic animals. All of them outlawed in some states.
    Tom Otterness own statement was he used the film to “hurt, damage, attack, assault” his audience and this was the most aggressive way he could think of to do so. So an innocent animal he promised to care for was murdered to make some kind of a twisted point. This is NOT art. Spending public money needs to be  held to a higher standard than what private people chose to do.

    I think the Director of Animal Care & Control is willing to overlook his transgressions because her department is going to get $$$ from him. So he can “buy” his way out of his past? I am disappointed in her statement.

  • Andrea

    As a dog owner, and lover of all animals, I am so disappointed that with all the amazing artists out there, this opportunity was given to someone who has blatantly committed this horrific act against an innocent living thing in the name of “art”. Regardless of his skill as an artist, his past should play a role in how his contracts are awarded. We should be using  public money to exhibit artists that promote peace and harmony in the name of “art”. The contract should be rescinded. 

  • Alanhopkins

    San Francisco’s animal rights folks
    use the name of Saint Francis of Assisi as a way to promote their agenda in the
    City. It is clear in this case Saint Francis would have sided on the side of
    compassion and redemption for Otterness. As a young man St. Francis was from a wealthy
    family and lived a life of debauchery until he became a solder and fought in a
    war. We don’t judge St. Francis for his early life it is time to give Otterness
    some of St. Francis’s compassion.


    BTW, St. Francis loved birds, yet our
    Animal Care and Control is on the side of feral cats that kill songbirds and
    off-leash dogs that chase endangered Snowy Plovers.

  • Anita Carswell

    I looked up more info to see if he might actually be sorry, and
    uncovered more information that would indicate the opposite, like this
    interview where he sounds proud of it and his actions:



    Here’s the assault my audience one, and where he shot the dog
    while he was wagging his tail:



    said earlier that when you showed Dog Shot Film at the screening room at 42nd
    Street that you wanted to hurt the viewers.

    I mean that whole night on 42nd Street, as best as I could do it, was the most
    aggressive way I could think of to show a film, the most damaging thing that I
    could do to the audience by showing a film. I hired a photographer with a
    camera so when people were leaving the theater, they were assaulted by a flash,

    do you want to assault the audience?

    understand that. That’s not a question you would ask me if the tape wasn’t
    going. Its Soho, you know. People sleep a lot. They are not often awake.

    wanted to add something in the interview here…

    just a statement that the dog film was not allowed to be shown in the context
    of this Punk Art show.

    do you want to say that?

    I think it will change the way people look at what was accepted into the
    catalogue. I think it changes it a lot. It changes the color of all the other
    photographs. It means that all the other photographs in the catalogue are
    acceptable and that the dog film wasn’t.

    probably means you are the most extreme…

    I think so. It must be… it must define it.

    sounds pretty smug.

  • Lindashouse

    This artist Shot a dog from a shelter and used it for shock value and called it art..  I was  a Gallery director  at Intersection for the Arts for 10  years during the mid 80s and early 90,s . Once a so called artists proposed to boil a fish by putting cans of paint stacked up on a hot plate what was his statement ??
    He wanted some  fire to break out and recieve a lot of media attention ..

    This Artist who has been recieving large grants from the San Francisco
    Arts Comission  is a similar type ..

    I dont think  San Francisco  should  give him any more money  he will now recieve all the attention  he wanted in colorado . As  a matter of gact his recieving public moneys  could fuel the fires of people in Washing ton who would like to stop all public  funding  of the arts .. thats what Artist who break social taboos for attetion and press  end up doing hurting the whole artist community .

    He should have been legally punished for abusing and killing an adopted pet.
    Public Art is  for the Public San Franciscans will never accept this work now
    and part of the blame lies at the commision for not checking artist bios and previous works . makes me wonder how they get these LARGE grant with out
    having their bios checked.


  • John-rebecca

    The San Francisco Arts Commission site has no discernable reference to this controversy.  Why?  Do they not invite comment on taxpayer art?

  • Daniel

    These contracts are a waste of money all around.  $700,000 for a statue at SFGH?  I work at SFGH.  The hospital serves the poorest people in the city.  I can think of no worse insult than a statue worth more than these patients will earn in their lifetimes greeting them when they need medical care.
    Also, in a place like the Bay Area I can’t imagine that any of his artwork would go vandalized for very long.
    Way to waste money in times of plenty SF.

  • Mochi

    I could never look at his art with objectivity knowing he killed a dog for the sake of “art”.  He wanted to offend the public’s sensibilities and that he did. There are so many talented and creative artists in the city and world, why on earth would you hire an artist who explicitly killed on film for his on satisfaction and hubris thinking he could this with out long term consequences to a helpless victim.  Awarding him a contract, knowing that the dog snuff film is in his art portfolio is shortsighted and only serves to make other artists appear not credible. I would strongly rescind his contract with the art commission. By the way, I went to his website and his work is not worthy of a $750,000 or so award!

  • Mrmichaelcasey

    He’s still a big anus. He looks like a fool/phagg who would not know art,if he made it.

  • Sunday

    So did he eat it like the Chinese?

  • Sunday

    Give him the Regis Philbin.

  • Mike G.

    Isabella nails it when she writes

    “The problem is not just that he was cruel to an animal; the problem is that he glorified the cruelty by making it into art.”

    The man did this in 1977 because (in my opinion) he was a petty snot artiste, making a pretentious little snuff film that he could get away with, in order to focus a spotlight on himself. 

    Nice work, fella, if one likes that sort of thing –but one has to be ready to pay the consequences for one’s acts, even 34 years later.  That’s the lesson this guy ought to end up taking away from this.

    This story made the New York Times this morning (11/18) as a sidebar to their “Arts, Briefly” section (Page C2).  It observes that on Wednesday afternoon Otterness lost half of the work, the $750,000 contract for the Central Subway Moscone Station sculptures, because of the dog.

    Salaciously kill a hapless animal for your own self-glorification, lose three-quarters of a million dollars three and a half decades later: works for me.  Lacking any other real cosmic justice, anyway.

    “Dog Bites Man.”

    How’s that for Art?

  • Mike G.

    oops.  I meant to end that with

    Dead Dog Bites Man.

    Listen, the background noise to all of these “Michael Vick paid his debt to society, apologized, so he deserves to do xxxx”  kinds of rationale is the implication of an entitlement of an individual to a certain job or endeavor.

    Not so.  Michael Vick is not “entitled” to work in the NFL, just as Tom Otterman is not necessarily “entitled” to be hired to create public works of art.

    The argument can be made that a person, even a killer of dogs, is “entitled” to earn a living, and to both of these  men I say: there are plenty of openings at Federal Express and UPS for healthy guys with sound minds and clean driving records.  Have a nice life, both of you.

    I for one would never hire either one of you for anything, as your “apologies”, such as they were, seem more like “I’m sorry I got caught”, or “I’m sorry you don’t like me”, or “I really need to make more money, so cut me a break.”

    yeah.  Sorry.  No.  Still missing the point, as far as I can see.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor