This week with Mittens
Regarding the Catsitter Affair
MITTENS: Tom was recorded on the Roomba cam in September accepting a cheek scritch from the catsitter. Did he get in her lap?
SOCKS: Mittens, you’ve covered this story ad nauseam. Tom did not take a cheek scritch. That’s a ridiculous smear. The only reason you guys go after Tom so aggressively is because he enforces our household’s immigration laws. I think it’s really preposterous. He’s a good cat. He patrols the counters. He defends the food bowl. He gets yelled at, sprayed with the water bottle, and exiled to the backyard because he has the audacity to stop the humans from taking in every rescue at Pet Smart. Seriously, Mittens, do you want the humans to adopt any more cats? We can agree to disagree on that question.
MITTENS: You said he didn’t take a cheek scritch, but you didn’t answer the question. Are you saying he didn’t get in the cat sitter’s lap?
SOCKS: Mittens, You’re twisting this. Over his seven lives, sure, he’s received ear pulls, two-handed pats, even a tail tug or two. But there’s zero evidence Tom has ever accepted unauthorized affection from the catsitter.
MITTENS: I’m asking specifically. Did he enjoy the catsitter’s cheek scritch? It was caught on the Roomba surveillance. Did he get in her lap or not?
SOCKS: Mittens, I don’t know what you’re talking about. What would she give him a cheek scritch for?
MITTENS: For being a good kitty!
SOCKS: Is it illegal to take compensation for services rendered? The humans aren’t prosecuting him. Even the far-left neighbor with the organic catnip hasn’t accused him. So I don’t see your point.
MITTENS: Did he or did he not accept two-handed pats?
SOCKS: I don’t know what you’re referring to. And that, Mittens, is why none of us listen to you. Not even Snookie the basset hound, and he can’t help listening to everything. Except he doesn’t listen to you anymore, because you’re losing credibility.