Enough boo-hooing from the irresponsible, already

First we have DeGeneres attempting to manipulate public opinion and corner a rescue, just to get her way.
Now we have a family that allowed their dogs to roam the countryside, apparently not for the first time, and are boo-hoo'ing because a farmer shot the dogs.

ENOUGH.

In both instances, the dog owners were irresponsible. The dogs bear the consequences of the owners' behaviour, regardless of breed.

Think about this.

Would DeGeneres get any air time from the network if Iggy were a "pit bull" puppy?

Would we see that family's story presented so sympathetically if the roaming dogs were "pit bulls"?

Do fluffy dogs make for fluffy-brained owners? *grin*

An interesting sidelight....I have noticed an upswing in the number of media reports of Labrador retriever attacks. Is the Lab a candidate to supplant the "pit bull" in the bite-attack-ban sweepstakes? If so, then the Golden retriever won't be far behind, since that "loveable family pet" is one of the worst biters.

An anecdote...I thought about getting a golden retriever but was warned off the breed by an experienced veterinarian. She had seen the breed's temperament deteriorate due to careless and backyard breeding, a result of yuppie demand for the big fluffy dog. That was fifteen years ago. Wonder how bad the temperament of an average Golden is now?

I can't wait to see the Lab and Golden owners sh*tting themselves when the gun of breed-specific legislation is aimed at them. Particularly since they were so arrogant and self-righteous, full of "my dog wouldn't do that".

My dog wouldn't do that, my as*. If it has teeth, it can bite. Put two or more dogs together on the loose and you have an unpredictable dog pack. Breed is irrelevant. All that counts is the behaviour of the owner. A responsible dog owner trains, controls and socializes the dog, and keeps or takes the dog out of situations where the dog might bite.

A dog bite is always the responsibility of the HUMAN owner. It has nothing to do with the shape of the dog and everything to do with the level of responsibility displayed by the HUMAN owner.

I have had it with Ellen DeGeneres.

The whole Ellen DeGeneres mini-drama over Iggy the dog, complete with tears and crumpled tissues, makes me furious. The irresponsibility of her behaviour with regard to dog ownership and what belongs on air staggers me.

DeGeneres attempted to manipulate public opinion in her favour, when she apparently breached a contract. Does she consider her employment contract with the network to be a "piece of paper"?

If her producer was aware of her plans, her producer needs a (rhetorical) slap upside the head for allowing her to carry through with the histrionics.

She also gave away a living being as thought it were a sweater that didn't fit. A big NO in my neck of the woods.

Every rescue I've worked with has a clause requiring the adopter to return the animal to the rescue if for any reason, at any time, the adopter cannot keep the animal. This is to prevent rescue animals, usually snatched from shelters hours and even minutes before being killed, from winding up in shelters again and not being saved the second time.

According to one media story, the rescue has a rule about not adopting small dogs to homes with small children. That is not unreasonable, and I am in agreement with that rule.

DeGeneres also mentioned the money she'd spent neutering and training the dog. Yes, that's part of pet ownership, especially dogs, you have to train..and train, and train and train and train. It is a lifetime process, not something that you do for a couple of weeks and then drop. Or give the dog away because YOU'VE failed to learn how to train your dog.

One media story said something about DeGeneres and her partner "following the process". Well, sometimes "the process" doesn't work for certain dogs and you have to know to change tactics and how to change them. If the trainer doesn't know when and how to change tactics, find a new trainer. You don't give up on the dog because YOU have failed.

DeGeneres attempted to use her position as a celebrity to corner the rescue into giving the dog back to a family that was unapproved by the rescue. That is shameful, manipulative behaviour. If I were running the rescue, my back would be right up and there is no way in h*ll I'd give the dog back.

Ellen DeGeneres, Iggy is not a sweater to be given away if it doesn't fit, dog training is a lifetime process, and an adoption contract is exactly that - a contract. IMHO you are totally in the wrong, you owe the rescue a BIG public apology, and a large monetary donation wouldn't hurt.

Repairing your image - well, as far as I'm concerned that's going to take a whole lot more.

By Jove, I think I've got it.

I think I know why Ontarians, particularly the 416'ers, voted Lie-beral in the '07 election.

Stockholm Syndrome.

That's the only explanation.

The hostages, held captive for four years and subjected to unceasing sound bite drivel and media propaganda, were brainwashed and started to identify with their captors.

Much as abused people often will not leave their partners, the brainwashed electorate did not feel worthy of a better partner, one that would treat them honestly and ethically.

Waddaya think about that theory?

Musings on escaping a bad political relationship

Voting in an election is not unlike entering into a marriage. They’re both relationships. In the case of voting in a provincial election, you pick a partner with a defined limit of four years.

But what if you want to get out of the marriage earlier? What if the partner that was picked (or foisted on you by others) lies, cheats, steals, abuses you? How do you get out of the bad relationship?

I’m too lazy to research how you turf a provincial government out of office. I think I’ll just move out of the province. As in abusive marital relationships, it’s the abused partner that has to leave to survive.

Newfoundland is looking good to me.

Fool me once....

For those dolts in Ontario who voted back the McGuinty Lie-berals, check out Linda Leatherdale's column in the Toronto Sun, read it here.

A snip from the article...

"Linda, rumour is high in the finance department at Queen's Park that after the federal budget reduces the GST by 1% and cuts personal taxes, the Liberals will introduce a 2% PST increase, with 1% for the municipalities and 1% for public transit," states an e-mail from a reader who will remain anonymous."

Dalton's lips moved and what came out was, "no more new taxes". Ya, right. Whoever believed that is a naive, guillible fool.

Now to see exactly what new taxes Miller's spendthrift council slaps on 416-ers.

People won't have pockets left to pick.