An interesting interpretation

     One blogger had an interesting interpretation of a proposed New York law (it was vetoed.) He first states, "The intended law 'would have allowed the city to seize cats if they could not be identified by a collar and tag, a tattoo or a microchip containing the owner’s name, address and telephone number...Cats also could have been seized if they were considered to be lost, stray, homeless or abandoned.'" Now, in layman's terms, that means that, if a cat is wandering the streets and the owner cannot be identified or is not in the general vicinity (e.g. moved out of state) the cat could have been impounded. I was under the impression that every city in the country already had a law like that on the books; but maybe it's just for dogs.
     Now, he interprets this as an attempt by "liberals" to "pick the pockets of residents." Presumably this is because it contained a provision by which the owners of the animals would be able to reclaim their animals by paying for the time spent in custody (and presumably buying a collar and tag *rolls eyes*.)
     Personally, I think this fellow is letting his bias cloud his judgement. If the legislation had been proposed by Republicans and included provisions to enter people's homes randomly (to make sure any animals had tags) he would probably be in favor of it.