... mostly, because many of the points I wanted to address are actually quite global.
Some of you may have read my last post, which was supposed to be a bit more flippant than it may have come across. By this, I mean it was:
1. An indictment on the so-called "liberal media" for censoring some pretty choice quotes; and
2. Pointing out a fallacy in logic - something which is unsettling (though not surprising) in a presidential candidate.
I had an interesting response to this post, which I think read a little too far into my flippant nature. I can't say as I blame him, as he probably didn't go back and read archives as some of you had; he hasn't known me for years and known my manner of writing/speaking as others of you. However, what he had to say was thought provoking nonetheless, and therefore warrants it's own post.
The first point I would like to address: I am not anti-gun. I don't LIKE guns. I don't particularly like violence, period, and I am very strongly anti-death penalty (but, yes, I am pro-choice - I'm getting to that, hold on), however I am not "anti-gun." In the same way that I don't like abortions (there it is!), but I am - as you all know - decidedly NOT anti-abortion.
I do think that there is an extent that the government should REGULATE guns, just as they do alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, driving, tobacco, etc. This is because all of the above, when not used properly, can be extremely dangerous, and not only to the user himself. I also find it disturbing that in some places it's easier for a teenager to get his hands on a gun than it is for him to get his hands on beer. Or, to put it in perspective, it's easier for a felon to get a hold of a firearm than it is for him to win back his right to vote.
Of course, that would be an illegal firearm. Of course gun ownership should be legal, actually, for the SAME reasons abortion should be: because in both cases, regardless of whether it's illegal, people are going to do it anyway. If it's legal and regulated, than people can do it safely.
The question then becomes, how much regulation is too much regulation? And, it seems in today's political climate, NO ONE can agree on this. People cannot even necessarily agree to decentralizing it to the States - there are pros and cons to both sides, though it's true that you can't please everyone, and it is a lot easier to please a smaller group of people.
However, I will say this: the person writing lost a LOT of credibility when he referred to abortion as "murdering babies" and fetuses as "humans." This isn't accurate, it's political semantics, meant to get people angry on both sides of the issue. You call it "murdering babies," I call it a "forced pregnancy." You call it a "human," I could just as easily call it a "parasite." While neither one of us is technically wrong, it is those kinds of inflammatory statements that polarize the issue and exacerbate an already tenuous-at-best issue. It's also statements like that which make me think that no matter how much your "pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-family values" candidate says he won't force said beliefs on everyone, when he gets into office that tune will change. However, it's probably unfair to judge a candidate by his supporters. I do find it interesting, however, that Ron Paul and my commenter share a lot of political viewpoints separate from a decentralized administration - that probably has a lot more to do with your choice than you realize.
On a final note, perhaps this is also misleading, but I also never said I would vote for Giuliani - what I meant was, he was the only GOP candidate that didn't make me want to completely disregard the Republican ticket entirely. In other words, he's the only one that wouldn't make me say, "Anybody but HIM." But that doesn't mean I WOULD vote for him.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The government has no right to regulate ... anything?
I'm so, so sick of voting for the Lesser of Who Cares (props to those who catch the reference on that).
One of my coworkers said the other day that there was "no way" she was voting for Hillary. Well, okay. I can't say I'm surprised, as she's a Republican, who is pro-Iraq and anti-National Health Care. I choose not to get into a discussion with her about it, because it will likely only cause hard feelings.
Part of me wanted to get into the higher-minded discussion about the "Anyone but" method of voting, however I'd be somewhat hypocritical if I did. Myself, unless it is Guiliani, will refuse to vote for ANY of the GOP candidates. If it is Guiliani, I'm not saying I would vote for him, but at least I'd feel like I have some valid considerations. Guiliani is the only one, from what I can see, that isn't pro-life, pro-gun, anti-women, pro-war, pro-"family values" (whatever the hell that means - it seems more like "pro-bigotry" to me), and etc.
Case in Point. Anything Guiliani says there is going to do little for him, considering that the NRA believes in nothing less than unfettered access.
However, I'm disappointed in the edited version. Another coworker has a friend at the AP, and she sent him the UNedited version, with choice quotes from Fred Thompson about the NRA being an unofficial "militia" (there is no such thing - the "militia" is the National Guard). Oh! Oh! And, he also said that the government had "no right" to "regulate the who what when where and how" of a legal product.
O RLY?
Motor vehicles, tobacco (particularly cigarette smoke), alcohol, and prescription drugs come to mind. However, I understand that one could argue such things are regulated because their use could kill and/or maim someone ...
... oh, wait.
One of my coworkers said the other day that there was "no way" she was voting for Hillary. Well, okay. I can't say I'm surprised, as she's a Republican, who is pro-Iraq and anti-National Health Care. I choose not to get into a discussion with her about it, because it will likely only cause hard feelings.
Part of me wanted to get into the higher-minded discussion about the "Anyone but" method of voting, however I'd be somewhat hypocritical if I did. Myself, unless it is Guiliani, will refuse to vote for ANY of the GOP candidates. If it is Guiliani, I'm not saying I would vote for him, but at least I'd feel like I have some valid considerations. Guiliani is the only one, from what I can see, that isn't pro-life, pro-gun, anti-women, pro-war, pro-"family values" (whatever the hell that means - it seems more like "pro-bigotry" to me), and etc.
Case in Point. Anything Guiliani says there is going to do little for him, considering that the NRA believes in nothing less than unfettered access.
However, I'm disappointed in the edited version. Another coworker has a friend at the AP, and she sent him the UNedited version, with choice quotes from Fred Thompson about the NRA being an unofficial "militia" (there is no such thing - the "militia" is the National Guard). Oh! Oh! And, he also said that the government had "no right" to "regulate the who what when where and how" of a legal product.
O RLY?
Motor vehicles, tobacco (particularly cigarette smoke), alcohol, and prescription drugs come to mind. However, I understand that one could argue such things are regulated because their use could kill and/or maim someone ...
... oh, wait.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Puppy Wars
The drama began here, at Feministing, when Jessica posted a YouTube video of her new puppy, and she got railed with comments from those who are "pro-rescue." The debate continues with Jill at Feministe who defends Jessica. There is also an opposition piece by Elaine, who equates dog ownership to slavery. Unless, that is, you adopt from a rescue. Then it's "guardianship."
*Ahem*
I commented on Jill's blog, which kept getting eaten when posting through Mozilla, and finally fixed itself in Internet Explorer, but here's the gist of what I said:
I would like to point out to all of the shelter-advocates (which I am as well) one of the BIGGEST REASONS people (at least in my local vicinity) choose against adopting from a shelter/rescue:
They are a giant pain in the ass to deal with.
Where I live, most (not all, but a vast majority) of the shelter/rescue groups are what I like to refer to as Stepford Nazis. They have the same reaction to dog ownership as they do to having children: if you don’t have a giant backyard and aren’t home 99 percent of the time, then you’re a completely unsuitable “parent” and we won’t consider adopting to you for five seconds.
In other words, if you work a regular job and live in a nice apartment in the city (in my case, across from a fantastic Frederick Law Olmstead park that is incredibly dog-friendly!), then forget it. You simply aren’t suitable for a dog.
In addition to this, my boyfriend (who, up until recently, was only considering rescues), who while lives in the same building as me but is a college professor, therefore has a more flexible schedule (though he’s still heard the “no backyard” wank), after specifically explaining that while he was not adverse to getting a dog that was not a puppy, he did not, under any circumstances, want a dog older than five years. His reason being that his parents two German Shepherds, which he adored, died within less than a year of one another not two years ago. And, really, it doesn’t matter WHAT his reasoning was - the rescues he was working with simply ignored his request. In the meantime, there were plenty of dogs available that fit his request, none of which the rescuers (for inexplicable reasons) were willing to place with him ... meanwhile, six months later, many of these dogs are STILL up for adoption, no doubt having had (rejected) inquiries from people such as my boyfriend, who would also be good dog-parents.
Another friend had the same issues, and ended up getting a shih-tzu puppy from a breeder.
I just want to know how it is these rescue organizations expect people to afford these houses with big backyards, in addition to veterinary bills and kibble, and NOT work full time ...
I do, in fact, think it's a product of location. Urban life is "not suitable" for children, and apparently it is also "not suitable" for dogs. Neither are, apparently, households with working parents. This, however, is a very "Albany" frame of mind. One of my coworkers is pregnant. She and her husband live in Schenectady, and plan on staying in Schenectady and sending their children to Schenectady schools. I am waiting for her to tell me all about the urban lifestyle wank she's ultimately going to have to deal with. I know, however, that she will respond with the perfect amount of grace, class, and offended tone, as she explains that both she and her husband attended Schenectady schools, and her husband teaches in the school district.
But, regardless of that, I do think Elaine misses the point when she says "shelter dogs are just as good as dogs from breeders." I agree - in fact, I don't think anyone disagrees. However, when you have other factors to consider:
1. Stepford Nazi Syndrome, that leaks into rescue organizations, as described above
2. Size of the dog - that is, you need/want a small dog and there are none available at any shelters. Also, when getting a shelter puppy, you have NO IDEA what size it will be. You can guess, but considering the shelter told my mother that her dog would only be 40 lbs (he's more than twice that size), I don't put a lot of stock into that.
3. Temperament of the dog - unless you're getting a shelter puppy, you're taking a big gamble on this. Do you have kids? Other pets? Will this dog get along with them?
However, she does address this further in thinking that dogownership, or, rather, guardianship is not a right, or even a privilege, but an obligation that has criteria.
To each her own, I suppose.
*Ahem*
I commented on Jill's blog, which kept getting eaten when posting through Mozilla, and finally fixed itself in Internet Explorer, but here's the gist of what I said:
I would like to point out to all of the shelter-advocates (which I am as well) one of the BIGGEST REASONS people (at least in my local vicinity) choose against adopting from a shelter/rescue:
They are a giant pain in the ass to deal with.
Where I live, most (not all, but a vast majority) of the shelter/rescue groups are what I like to refer to as Stepford Nazis. They have the same reaction to dog ownership as they do to having children: if you don’t have a giant backyard and aren’t home 99 percent of the time, then you’re a completely unsuitable “parent” and we won’t consider adopting to you for five seconds.
In other words, if you work a regular job and live in a nice apartment in the city (in my case, across from a fantastic Frederick Law Olmstead park that is incredibly dog-friendly!), then forget it. You simply aren’t suitable for a dog.
In addition to this, my boyfriend (who, up until recently, was only considering rescues), who while lives in the same building as me but is a college professor, therefore has a more flexible schedule (though he’s still heard the “no backyard” wank), after specifically explaining that while he was not adverse to getting a dog that was not a puppy, he did not, under any circumstances, want a dog older than five years. His reason being that his parents two German Shepherds, which he adored, died within less than a year of one another not two years ago. And, really, it doesn’t matter WHAT his reasoning was - the rescues he was working with simply ignored his request. In the meantime, there were plenty of dogs available that fit his request, none of which the rescuers (for inexplicable reasons) were willing to place with him ... meanwhile, six months later, many of these dogs are STILL up for adoption, no doubt having had (rejected) inquiries from people such as my boyfriend, who would also be good dog-parents.
Another friend had the same issues, and ended up getting a shih-tzu puppy from a breeder.
I just want to know how it is these rescue organizations expect people to afford these houses with big backyards, in addition to veterinary bills and kibble, and NOT work full time ...
I do, in fact, think it's a product of location. Urban life is "not suitable" for children, and apparently it is also "not suitable" for dogs. Neither are, apparently, households with working parents. This, however, is a very "Albany" frame of mind. One of my coworkers is pregnant. She and her husband live in Schenectady, and plan on staying in Schenectady and sending their children to Schenectady schools. I am waiting for her to tell me all about the urban lifestyle wank she's ultimately going to have to deal with. I know, however, that she will respond with the perfect amount of grace, class, and offended tone, as she explains that both she and her husband attended Schenectady schools, and her husband teaches in the school district.
But, regardless of that, I do think Elaine misses the point when she says "shelter dogs are just as good as dogs from breeders." I agree - in fact, I don't think anyone disagrees. However, when you have other factors to consider:
1. Stepford Nazi Syndrome, that leaks into rescue organizations, as described above
2. Size of the dog - that is, you need/want a small dog and there are none available at any shelters. Also, when getting a shelter puppy, you have NO IDEA what size it will be. You can guess, but considering the shelter told my mother that her dog would only be 40 lbs (he's more than twice that size), I don't put a lot of stock into that.
3. Temperament of the dog - unless you're getting a shelter puppy, you're taking a big gamble on this. Do you have kids? Other pets? Will this dog get along with them?
However, she does address this further in thinking that dog
To each her own, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
