Hoover's Hound Hall Meeting

Superdog

2006-07-20T11:47:00.000-07:00

Henry Ward Beecher wrote that "the dog was created especially for children." After reading this article, I think he was right in more ways than one. Alfie makes me proud to be a canine.

Abortion Kills

2006-03-17T15:28:00.000-08:00

The AP reported today that two more women have died from using the abortion pill RU-486. That brings the total to seven women dead since the pill started being sold in 2000. Seems tragic, for sure, but I have to wonder why you humans care? Why is this news? I mean, isn't anyone going to report how many BABIES have died from that pill? You know, one would think it would make you humans just a little sad that unborn puppies have a far better chance of actually being born than do unborn human babies.

Senator Bonehead

2006-03-17T11:24:00.000-08:00

This picture was just begging to be posted. I'm sure it's all over the Internet by now, but I thought it should definitely be on my blog. The joke here is obvious, but there is also a bit of irony. Though I like to think it, I'm sure the Senator didn't mean for the sign to appear to be self-describing (that would make her honest, and I'm sure she's far from that). Still, it seems to me that it would take some level of incompetence to make such a boneheaded move. Intended or not, the sign fits HER well! I wonder if she and/or her staff have any other bright ideas. Wow...and I thought I felt sorry for my dawgs in Michigan BEFORE I saw this picture.

Ed Jew Kate

2006-02-24T10:40:00.000-08:00

"The foundation of every state is the education of its youth." - Diogenes

"You can't expect a boy to be depraved until he has been to a good school." - Saki

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released a report to Congress and the Secretary of Education entitled "A Nation at Risk." This report was successful in bringing to the attention of the nation the failings of the American public school system and the consequent dangers to the nation’s democracy and economic prosperity. It gave a voice to the still growing public crisis (more than 20 years later) about American children and their schools. “(T)he educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.” It was further reported, “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.” Former Secretary of Education William Bennett points out in his book, The De-Valuing of America, that “countless reports since 1983...have further documented a performance that can only charitably be described as mediocre." He wrote those words in 1992. It's now 2006, and American education is not better off. Still, let's remain in the "better days" of Bennett's words to emphasize the point....

From Bennett's book: "According to the 1991 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) study, 72 percent of forth grade students in America can do third-grade math; only 14 percent of eighth-grade students can do seventh-grade math; and only 5 percent of high school seniors “showed an understanding of geometry and algebra that suggested preparedness for the study of relatively advanced mathematics.”

It seems that for years American education has been on a steady decline. Reading standards have fallen significantly among our Nation’s children of all backgrounds, and recent surveys suggest that more than ninety million Americans cannot read adequately. Finn and Diane Ravitch, authors of "What Do Our Seventeen Year Olds Know?", have shown that 43 percent of American high school seniors could not place World War I between 1900 and 1950. Also, more than two-thirds of them did not know, even within a half-century, when the Civil War took place. And more than 75 percent were not able to say within twenty years when Abraham Lincoln was President.

More generally, over 25 percent of Americans fail to graduate from high school. In Japan, that figure is only 3 percent. In Russia, even with the problems that engulf that country, 95 percent of its work force have the equivalent of a high school education. Obviously, President H.W. Bush’s dream of making American students first in the world in math and science by the year 2000 went unrealized. And President Clinton’s 1997 prediction that “(o)ur schools will have the highest standards in the world” turned out to be just another one of his empty phrases while president.

What needs to be done is being talked about, but it's not being done. The change that needs to occur is not occurring. In many America cities, the humans in charge make excuses and requests for money...but they don't do the hard work and certainly don't get results. If America is to reach the goals that her people have been talking about for you years, major improvements must occur. If Americans are to place American education first in the world, there needs to be a dramatic change. The existing public school system is failing--and it needs to be reformed. Reformed how? You tell me....

Eye Heart You

2006-02-09T18:18:00.000-08:00

Valentine's Day is fast approaching, so I know you humans have hearts in your eyes and on your minds. Perhaps you should just close your eyes and lose your minds this February 14. Things look better when viewed with the heart....

"Here is my secret. It's quite simple: One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes."-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery: The Little Prince (1943) -- Chapter 21

A Sad Tail with a Happy Ending

2006-02-03T13:23:00.000-08:00

I read a very sad article the other day about puppies being used to smuggle drugs. Apparently some drug pushers in Columbia were working with a veterinarian to cut open defenseless puppies and use them to transport heroin to the United States to be sold on the east coast. Three of the puppies have died from infection. Of the seven puppies that survived, some have been adopted by the police in Columbia and are being trained as drug-sniffing dogs. Now that's a happy and very cool ending.

The 17-Year-Old Virgin

2006-01-27T12:47:00.000-08:00

Below is an interesting little article about a high school teacher showing "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" in class because one of the students brought it in saying it was "very funny." Two interesting things here: (1) the student was so unaffected by the content in the movie that he didn't even think it might be inappropriate to hand to a teacher to be shown in class, and (2) the teacher, for some reason, trusted that the student would not bring in something that was inappropriate for class (even though the title of the movie is clearly a red flag).

Something is wrong if high school students think so little of sex that they would think nothing of having a teacher play such a movie in class...and that's to say nothing of the teacher's lack of discretion. The upside in this particular case is that a complaint was filed by a parent...the teacher was suspended...and the teacher later resigned. That's all quite good, but what about the root problem? What about the students and the state of American culture?

The popularity of this movie among young people is yet another clear indication that America is simply oversexed. More than ever, young people don't want to be virgins for very long...no matter what it takes. And the real issue (as addressed by Carol Liebau in her upcoming book, Prude) is that even girls would rather be called anything and everything to avoid being called a virgin. Just look at the shirts they wear these days. "Porn Star." "Slut." I mean, when you think about it, it's really quite unbelievable how far you humans have dropped in terms of sex. And you think dogs are out of control in that department. Unreal.

Perhaps the title of the movie should have been "The 17-Year-Old Virgin." Seems that's as rare as a 40-year-old virgin these days.

Class Watches '40-Year-Old Virgin' Movie

By Associated Press

Thu Jan 26, 10:08 UPDATED 15 HOURS 59 MINUTES AGO

LEXINGTON, Ky. - Showing the R-rated movie "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" during high school Spanish class this week resulted in suspension for the teacher, who later resigned.

Fernando Del Pino was suspended with pay Tuesday for showing the movie to students at Lexington's Tates Creek High School a day earlier, said Lisa Deffendall, spokeswoman for Fayette County Public Schools. He resigned Thursday.

Del Pino, who was hired in August, said he decided to show the film after a student brought it to class and said it "was very funny," the Lexington Herald-Leader reported Friday.

The movie is about a 40-year-old single man whose friends try to help him gain experience in sex.

R-rated movies are not to be shown to anyone younger than 17 without a parent or guardian. The movie was rated R for pervasive, explicit and crude sexual content and drug use.

Parents of Tates Creek students must give written permission for their children to watch an R-rated movie at school, according to the school's video policy. Students whose parents object must be given alternative assignments.

The policy also states that the videos/movies "must be part of the lesson plan with genuine instruction objectives."

Deffendall said the investigation was initiated because "it appears that the Tates Creek policy was not followed." The suspension letter was issued Tuesday, the same day a complaint was reported to the district, she said.

An Imperfect World

2006-01-16T07:33:00.000-08:00

My owner left a response to a response I left to a blog entry from theme-less, a blog by my owner's sister-in-law, Mandy Dillard. Mandy asked the question, "did Adam and Eve have immune systems?" I'm posting my owner's response (again, to my response) here for those of you who don't read Mandy's blog....

My owner wrote:

I saw my dog's comment below, and I thought a little about what he wrote. I love that little guy (though he's driving me nuts right now because he has been barking downstairs for about 30 minutes straight...and his bark is ear-piercing...it's a wonder that I ever get any work done). Anyway, the best answer given by that Martin LaBar guy regarding whether or not we had immune systems before the fall is the obvious one...we don't know. :) It does seem possible that we were either built with immune systems that would be needed after the fall (which would assume the fall, as we usually think of it, was supposed to happen or caused by God, and I'm not willing to take that step) or that we were changed after the fall. The latter seems like the more likely in my view, but perhaps the better question is whether or not there was indeed a "perfect world" at the time of Adam & Eve.

Again, I thought a little more about what my dog said about all of this. I suppose we might need to differentiate between the fall of Satan/earth and the fall of man. Like others have pointed out, it seems reasonable to believe that earth fell and was judged when Satan fell. Perhaps earth was Satan's to rule, and Satan fell so was hurled to the earth that he ruled. That means, of course, that earth could have fallen (meaning it wasn't perfect) before man was created. It's possible that dinosaurs roamed the earth some time after Satan's fall (perhaps perverted forms of creation...or perhaps even a creation inhabited by the demons hurled to earth with Satan...or perhaps creatures that were destroyed when Satan and the "stars" or demons were hurled to the earth) and that Gen 1:2 describes not only the beginning of God's reclaiming of earth, but also the time after the destruction of the dinosaurs. We usually assume that the dinosaurs roamed the earth some time after the creation of Adam, but that's not necessarily the case. It's possible, I suppose, that these huge reptiles (though there are people who don't think dinosaurs were reptiles) ruled the earth with Satan (who took the form of a reptile, by the way, in the Garden) and that there was a judgment causing them to become extinct and the Earth to be formless and void. Perhaps there was something like man on the earth at the time (shoot, there are creatures like man on the earth now), but they were not humans, and they were under Satan's rule. What does it mean to be "like" something? Perhaps being made in His image or "in our image and likeness" (Gen 1:26) means human beings were the first creation since the angels to be made with eternal souls. The "likeness" part is usually overlooked. Some people even think this simply means we look like God and the angels. But...wouldn't being eternal in nature make us like God and the angels?

One thing is clear: the Earth was empty and without form in Gen 1:2, and the terms empty and without form are used elsewhere in the Bible (like Jeremiah 4:23) to describe the world after God's judgment. God judges the earth (the whole earth and specific places on the earth) at different times even after Adam, so who's to say the earth wasn't judged (once or twice or multiple times) before Adam? Perhaps earth (it didn't have to be called earth, by the way, or even have the shape and physical makeup that we now know) was given to Satan before Satan's fall, and perhaps there were all sorts of creatures (again, possibly even man-like creatures, though not humans) for him to rule, and then Satan fell and was cut off from God (which would have been judgment), and then the Earth was chaotic, and then dinosaurs roamed, and so on and so forth. Then there could have been a judgment that wiped out everything, leaving the earth void and without form in Gen 1:2. From reading Gen 1:2, we know there was already water on the Earth, so God either created land and water together as one form (though completely without form, which would have been impossible, so perhaps it is referring to an earth without the shape we now know)...or land and water were created separately at some previous time for some previous world with some previous purpose...all pre-human. Gen 1:2 could just describe what was left of that previous creation after a judgment. And we know, too, from Gen 1:2 that there was darkness over the waters, much as is believed to be the case (I think, though I haven't done the research) shortly after the destruction of the dinosaurs, etc. I don't know...it's just all so fascinating to me.

Let me ask some questions now that I don't know the answers to. I only ask them to cause people to think. I don't necessarily even have solid opinions for some of them.

Is it possible that there was light once before, perhaps before Satan fell, and God is giving light again (or even giving something new in terms of light) after Gen 1:2? Is it possible that the earth, being "without form" took shape again in a sort of re-creation, explaining, perhaps, the shifting of tectonic plates, etc.? Is it possible that Gen 1:1 merely speaks to the forming of the "order" (or set of physical laws or something) we now know (meaning there could have been a previous order)? Is it possible that man was created, with eternal souls (in the likeness of God and the angels), to redeem the earth (or to be God's instrument in redeeming the earth...I mean, He used man even in the sending of His Son)? Is it possible that God lost His creation (or part of it) through the angels and that man was created in their likeness (meaning they have eternal souls) to redeem what was lost because of the angels...and that Jesus came as a man to fulfill that...and that we will all rule with God and the angels after the full redemption? Do I even know what I just asked? :) Is it possible that Satan once ruled over creation on earth but that humans were created as competition (for lack of a better term) to take it back...and that humans were to rule over the new creation (Gen 1:26)? Why were humans to subdue a perfect world? Why would a perfect world need to be subdued? Perhaps it would never be perfect with Satan in it? Is it possible that the Garden was perfect, but that it was in an imperfect world...meaning it was possible for undesirable elements (like Satan and maybe even bacteria) to enter? How would Satan (far from perfect) have been able to enter a perfect place if being perfect means it's impenetrable by undesirable elements? Perhaps this is why an immune system was necessary? Is it possible that the earth was judged once before, leaving it formless and empty, and that it was sort of re-created with a plan of redemption? Is it possible that I'm asking the same question over and over in different forms? :) Is it possible that there are other "perfect" planets or places (theory eluded to by C. S. Lewis) that are under the rule of other angels? Is it possible that we don't know about them because the earth was cut off after the fall of Satan? There are so many more questions popping up in my head, but I'll stop asking them here.

Thanks, Hoover, for getting me going. ;) Now stop barking, you little jerk!

Mission Not Accomplished

2006-01-13T10:59:00.000-08:00

Samuel Butler said: "The greatest pleasure of a dog is that you may make a fool of yourself with him and not only will he not scold you, but he will make a fool of himself too." This is true, but only to a point. My owner certainly goes far beyond making a fool of himself when he's wrestling with me, but I do enjoy those times with him...and I would never think of scolding him for having fun with me. But I must confess that when humans in general (and Christians in particular) make fools of themselves (not that I would advocate referring to your Christian brothers as fools, lest you be in danger according to Matthew 5:22), scolding is the foremost thing on my mind.

I was walking down the street today, and I walked in front a church. This church had a sign out front that read as follows: "Where will you be sitting in eternity - smoking or non-smoking?"

Churches in America have become like American businesses, obsessed with bringing in "customers." This has translated into a secondary obsession with marketing and with developing plans to become attractive to the world, etc. As I heard one pastor put it recently, American churches are focused on the quantity of people within their walls rather than the quality of people within their walls. This misplaced focus leads churches to shape themselves after McDonald's or Best Buy or some other company simply selling something to people. In the process, churches spend time thinking up clever slogans and such. Well, I hope it's clear from the sign I mentioned above that the result can sometimes be churches simply making fools of themselves (as the phrase goes). And now the scolding....

I'm sure there were nothing but good intentions behind that sign. I know the church leadership was just trying to be clever, hoping people would see the sign and maybe think, "now that's exactly the kind of clever, funny, and cutting-edge church I want to be involved with." Perhaps they were hoping some people would think, "oh that's funny...I never thought of it that way...maybe I should become a Christian today and join that church!" Here's the problem: Hell is no laughing matter, and Christians of all people should not only know this, but reflect this to the world.

Essentially, two types of people will read the sign in front of that church. The first type will be Christians, and the second type (of course) will be non-Christians. It seems to me that Christians should be appalled by a church making light of such a serious thing as spending eternity without God. And non-Christians, it seems, could react one of two ways: (1) they could roll their eyes and think the church is just stupid, or (2) they could be completely turned off by the light-hearted attempt at relaying a thought that can really never be light-hearted: smoldering for eternity. Either way, I think signs like the one I mentioned above do nothing for the mission of the church. Of course, that may reveal the real problem, as eluded to earlier in this blog entry.... Perhaps you human Christians just no longer know what your mission is.

Barking Heads

2006-01-05T10:05:00.000-08:00

News is news, and opinions are opinions. Why is it that so many people on TV don't know the difference?

As some of you may know, Bill O'Reilly was a guest on Letterman recently. Dave got out of character (meaning he got all serious on us) and seemed to be on a mission to discredit O'Reilly and challenge his right to say a lot of what he says. I always think it's funny when someone feels they have the right to give an opinion about someone else's right to give an opinion. Anyway, let me be a bit more specific....

At one point in the interview, Dave arrogantly declared that of all the things Bill says, about "60% of it is crap." Then he went on to say that Bill doesn't have an objective viewpoint, etc.

First, declaring that 60% of what someone says is "crap" is hardly an objective viewpoint. With nothing to back it up, it's merely a biased and blind statement. It is not based on fact...it is not open-minded...and it is certainly not neutral.

Second, since when does objectivity have to play a role in what Dave and Bill do on TV? As I said, Dave was not being objective in his conversation with Bill, but he didn't have to be. Bill doesn't have to be objective either. What Dave (and so many others) fails to realize is that O'Reilly is an OPINION journalist. He's not really a reporter. He doesn't report the news; he simply gives his opinion on the news that is reported. No one goes to Bill to get the news. They go to Bill to get his opinion...whether they agree with it or not.

Dave questioned the whole "fair and balanced" thing because of O'Reilly, but the actual reporting on Fox News is fair and balanced. When the news is being reported, objectivity is clearly there. It's all of the opinion stuff that slants one way or another. Of course, I would still argue that opinion is always fair, and as long as there are opposing viewpoints on a show (there are many on O'Reilly's show), then balance exists as well.

Oh, but what about the "no spin zone?" Well, we all know it's really just clever marketing. Still, I think what O'Reilly means is that he won't let someone come on and go unchallenged when they spin the news in a way that differs from the way he sees it. "Ah-ha!," Dave would say. I would have to respond with, "ah-ha what?" Seriously, what's wrong with that? It's Bill's show, isn't it? Why are people so surprised that Bill says what he thinks on his own show? I mean, Dave Letterman of all people should get this. He has his own show, and he says what he thinks, doesn't he?

Bill did a good job defending himself (as he always does), but here's how the conversation should have gone:

Dave: "Hey Bill, 60% of what you say is crap. You don't have an objective viewpoint, and you don't have the right to say most of what you say."

Bill: "First, Dave, thanks for showing me and your viewing audience what it means to be objective. Telling me that 60% of what I say is crap is about as objective as you can get, so again, thanks. Second, the constitution actually gives me the right to say the things I say, and I haven't stepped over the line yet...though I'm tempted to yell 'fire' as I sit here in the Ed Sullivan Theater. Third, I don't have to be objective because I'm an OPINION journalist. I'm not a reporter. I'm a talk show host...like you. The only real difference between us is that my show is supposed to be confrontational, and your show is supposed to be funny. Well, right now, you're trying to be confrontational, and I'm just making you look funny."

Factor that, Dave!

New Year's Proclamation

2006-01-01T11:58:00.000-08:00

This is the time of year I always hear you humans talking about New Year's resolutions. You know.... "I'm going to do this." Or.... "I'm going to stop doing that." Fill in what you will for "this" and "that." From what I can tell, it doesn't usually matter much.

Seems the more popular resolutions are always spending more time with family (a good goal), losing weight (not all that original and obviously not one that many of you stick to anyway), or making more money (something you humans already spend far too much time and energy trying to do). Still, there are usually some not so predictable resolutions that make me laugh a bit...if I'm not just rolling my eyes. For example, I heard one lady today say her New Year's resolution is world peace. Hmmm.... Sounds like a New Year's wish to me. It's hardly a resolution. Perhaps that lady's actual resolution should be to successfully explain how one can resolve to "world peace." Or, let's assume she meant that her New Year's resolution is to BRING ABOUT world peace. She still should make it a goal to lay out her plans for doing that. Of course, no matter how you look at it, my point remains: it's ridiculous as a resolution.

While my owner and his wife were at church this morning, I had some time to think about you humans and this whole business of New Year's resolutions. I first thought about all of your modern day goals...and then I thought about some of the realized goals throughout history...and then I thought maybe you humans should all resolve to be more like some of the humans that came before you. You know, people with great ideas and significant contributions to mankind. People who had more important things to worry about than looking good or driving a better car than their neighbors. People who made history because the future meant so much to them...even if it wasn't to be their future. I'm talking about people like the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln is quite an appropriate example to look to today since his most famous speech (and he gave some of the best in history) came on January 1, 1863. Of course, I am referring to the Emancipation Proclamation. Let's take a look at some of his liberating words from New Year's day of 143 years ago:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Keep these words in mind as you decide on your resolutions for 2006. Shoot for something greater than spending more time on a stationary bike or keeping the bathrooms clean. Those are both fine things to do, but really think about the purpose of a resolution. Start by reading some of the great historical writings...and then resolve to leave your mark for someone else's history. Perhaps you can turn 2006 into an 1863. Perhaps you can trade one letter and turn your resolution into a revolution. I know one thing for sure.... The world would be far better off in the new year with a few Lincoln's out there shaking things up.

"Our cause...must be entrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result." This year, embrace your freedom, rediscover your heart, and care about something bigger than yourself. It's a new year, so live anew.

The Big-Blog Theory

2005-12-28T09:37:00.000-08:00

Technology is good...and bad. Human "E"-volution is clearly unstoppable at this point, and the results of ever-changing electronic brains are not all positive. The rate at which humans consume information and the ease with which they can get all kinds of information are both staggering. Human "progress" seems to be slowly killing the human "pilgrim." Read Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress" in comparison with whatever is #1 on the current NYTimes best-seller list, and you'll know what I'm talking about. People just don't think about a lot of the meaningful things they used to think about...human kids (and adults) have access to things they simply shouldn't have access to (freedom of speech aside)...and worst of all, every human with a keyboard these days is an "expert" with a virtual (and unearned) megaphone. It's as if humans have created for themselves a sort of digital Hollywood where they're all big stars by simply being online...and like in the real Hollywood, being big stars means they all have opinions worthy of being heard for reasons no human (or dog, for that matter) can figure out.

I was reading a Townhall column this morning that was written by Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist my owner will hopefully be representing when the time comes for her to write a book (they have been talking for about a year now). The column is a very interesting one about blogs and what she calls the "Blogosphere." Please take time to read it if you can. I don't agree with everything in the column (for example, I don't think you have to be a lawyer or a doctor to be "brilliant" or to have something worthwhile to share...shoot, I don't even think you have to be human...and I think blogs can be used for journaling as well as for journalism...AND I don't hold the media as high as Kathleen does in the column), but she does make some good points about the exploding blogothon phenomenon. You can click here for the column.

It seems a blog entry about blogging is appropriate, but I don't really have time to "do my own reporting" today, so I'll just rely on Kathleen to "do the heavy lifting" for me. Kathleen, if you're reading this, I'm sorry for getting caught up in the swarm of flies. ;)

Grout Expectations

2005-12-26T08:52:00.000-08:00

I love dog parks. All sorts of dogs get together and run around. I've noticed that it usually doesn't matter what kind of dog another dog is hanging out with. The poodles aren't in a corner with the other poodles...the bulldogs aren't just chilling with other bulldogs...the bassets aren't just drooping with other bassets...etc. The general human trend, however, seems to be a little different. Perhaps when it comes to "thinking" and "reasoning" and all of that, less is sometimes more....

There is obviously too much to write about regarding the subjects of culture and race, so let me address a specific racial problem that stems from a cultural one. I'm talking about re‑segregation.

In my observations of humans, I have noticed what may be called a "natural" re-segregation. It is important to point out that I am not referring to people of one race disassociating themselves with people of other races based on disapproval of the other races. Fortunately, that is no longer the major trend (though it obviously still exists in pockets). Instead, I see a modern-day proclivity for people from one race to associate themselves primarily with other people from the same race based on comfort or convenience or pride or some other faulty factor. It's no longer a negative focus on others that separates but a positive focus on one's self (and again, convenience) that divides. In other words, a white person may primarily hang out with other white people at work or school, but not necessarily because they have something against the other races or are focused on their differences. The white people would simply hang out with the other white people due to the fact that the other white people are the same. So, there seems to be a focus on one's own racial or ethnic identity (and an inherent comfort level with people of the same race), and not an emphasis on racial or ethnic separation, that is the issue. Still, the results are the same.... White people hang out with white people; black people hang out with black people; Asian people hang out with Asian people; and so on and so forth. It seems that there is no clear way to fix this, especially since this separation is largely ignored (because it is not based on hate for another race, but love for one's own race). I will nevertheless attempt to give my black and white (double pun intended) perspective on this issue.

I am unquestionably opposed to the liberal ideology that emanates from almost everywhere these days. I despise this ideology for corrupting America's children and causing them to believe that everything is relative, that there are no absolutes, and that, essentially, there is no true right or wrong...no such thing as black and white. It is this same liberal ideology regarding culture that is harming race relations and helping to cause re‑segregation in America. The tool for this terrible deed is disguised as something that is supposed to unify (and actually does unify in its true form): multiculturalism.

It is ironic that the same arguments that are supposed to improve racial and ethnic relations by celebrating diversity can actually be perverted and used by certain political groups to harm race relations. It is clear to me that the rise of multiculturalism as a political movement (I mean a specific type of multiculturalism I like to call "Exclusivist Multiculturalism," as opposed to "Appreciation Multiculturalism," which is a very good thing), has a lot to do with the so-called "natural" re‑segregation that seems to be appearing across the nation. Let me explain why this is so.

Ostensibly, American nationalism is plagued with a proliferation of uncertainty. There seems to be a question as to whether or not American nationalism is changing. This may or may not be the case; I am not sure. However, I am sure that in the present era, a resurgence of ethnic consciousness has engendered a doctrine of social solidarity...as well as a doctrine wearing the mask of social solidarity. As I mentioned above, this second doctrine is Exclusivist Multiculturalism (which explicitly challenges the old American ideal of e pluribus unum).

Exclusivist Multiculturalism is founded on the conviction that the picture of America as a land of equal opportunity is not only exaggerated and abstract, but completely fraudulent. Rejecting the assimilationist ethos of the melting pot as oppressive, the advocates of Exclusivist Multiculturalism substitute a mosaic image instead as an ideal. And this mosaic is euphemistically referred to as a beautiful picture that is made up of many different colored tiles. Many words come from the left describing the tiles--or humans--as existing separately but working together to make up a beautiful picture--or mankind. Still, we need to be careful here.

What is important to note about the mosaic image is that, in reality, a mosaic typically consists of different colored tiles, not necessarily working together, but indeed divided from each other by impenetrable grout. Thus, Exclusivist Multiculturalism necessarily adheres more to the idea of separation (and not blending) when it comes to relations among different ethnic groups. Does it surprise you that emphasis on or promotion of separation would provide for just that? It is no wonder that we have people from one race primarily associating themselves with people from the same race--not for the fear of associating with people from other races, but for the fear of compromising themselves and losing their heritage (something that Exclusivist Multiculturalism strongly warns against).

It is my belief that America as a nation is heading in the wrong direction with Exclusivist Multiculturalism as a political idea. Many political groups on the left have perverted the true and good idea of multiculturalism into a political philosophy that basically excludes other cultures and/or races in an attempt to preserve the dominant culture/race of the specific group espousing that particular Exclusivist Multiculuralism view. By simply calling it "multiculturalism," the idea is sold and sounds good on paper (like Marxism), but the results of what is really Exclusivist Multiculturalism are terrible and can be witnessed all over the place.

Obviously, Exclusivist Multiculturalism is troubling to me as an American canine. America should be looking toward Appreciation Multiculturalism, which instead of dividing, actually unites through a true celebration and embrace of many cultures/races. The result regarding race relations would be a sort of color-blindness, not the racial division in America that comes from unreasonable dwelling on one's own cultural past (dwelling to point of exclusion, in other words). But what of this melting pot called America?

The melting pot image may not be perfect, but I would think a melting pot is more attractive than a mosaic. I realize that the mosaic, from a distance, appears to be a masterpiece. It looks like one beautiful picture when you stand away to take it all in, and the grout may be what is holding the picture together. Ah, but unfortunately, you humans do not live in this world from a distance. You do not have the luxury of realizing how beautiful the world is by looking at it from some far off place. Instead, like us dogs, you are all actually in the world...and it seems the sight from a human perspective is quite disturbing. Likewise, each individual tile in a mosaic has an awful view. If the tiles could look from a distance at the picture they help to create, the sight would be magnificent. But they can not. Each tile only sees separation. Each tile only sees division. Each tile only sees the grout. And in this world, in this country, in each little community, where the tiles are human beings, the grout is being produced by Exclusivist Multiculturalism.

You humans can learn a lot from us color-blind dogs. If you're ready to swallow your pride and want to talk to me about all of this, you'll be able to find me at the local dog park running around with a Shar-Pei.

Welcome to the Party, Mr. Nixon!

2005-12-23T09:28:00.000-08:00

Please allow me to take a moment to introduce my new brother...Nixon! I took a trip the other day with my owner and his wife and Maggie's owner (who I understand is my owner's wife's mother...confusing, I know). Anyway, I was a little worried when we pulled up to the Humane Society. Do I need to explain why? Isn't it obvious? I looked around nervously and tried to bark that I would stop chewing up all their furniture. I couldn't believe they were bringing me to doggy jail just because I destroyed a couch and a few chairs. Of course, as it turned out, I greatly underestimated their love for me. They weren't surrendering me to the Humane Society; they were bringing me there to introduce me to a dog who would be my new brother! :) His name is Nixon.

When I first met Nixon at the Humane Society, I thought I was looking into a mirror. Then I realized that his head is a little bigger than mine and everything on his face droops a little more. Still, we were like peas and carrots from the very beginning. Needless to say, the Humane Society worker declared us a match, and my owner and his wife decided to bring Nixon home with us. I was so excited! Let me share a few pictures....

To the left is a picture my owner's wife's mother took of Nixon when we got to the Humane Society. I couldn't believe that such a fine looking dog was in doggy jail! Just didn't seem right. Not at all. Anyway, the first thing I told him was that I would do my best to get him out of there. He looked right at me with big sad droopy hound eyes and said: "I'm not a crook."

The picture to the right is a picture of us when we were first introduced to each other outside. Pay no attention to the fact that we are sniffing each other in the butt area, okay? It's a dog thing...you wouldn't understand. Anyway, Nixon is the dog closest in the picture. I'm the one in the back with the smaller head (though I assure you my brain is bigger). Don't we look exactly alike?

Here's a picture of Nixon sitting on a couch with my owner. I wasn't too happy about this at first, but I guess I have to get used to sharing my owner if I'm going to have a playmate. He's a good ol' lazy dog, and my owner calls him the anti-Hoover. I assume that is bad for Nixon and not for me...but I could have it backwards. Anyway, welcome to the party, Mr. Nixon!

The picture to the right is a drawing of the human Nixon my new brother is named after. That man was flawed for sure, but also highly misunderstood. As my owner's friend, John McConnell, once put it: Nixon was a man who made mistakes as president and spent the rest of his life trying to make it up to the American people. Of course, we all make mistakes, right? We don't all try to cover up a politically motivated break-in, but we do all make mistakes. And it's important to point out that Nixon, for all the things he's infamous for, did a lot of good things, too. Of course, rather than getting into all of that (like the fact that one of his most famous speeches...given before he was president...included a heart-felt segment about the family dog, Checkers), allow me to just share something non-political about Richard Nixon. History tries to paint him as a monster, but he was surely a human being. He was complex to say the least, but don't overestimate the political animal side of the man. And, you know...I actually think he and my owner had some things in common even beyond politics...like the dogged pursuit of women who didn't take to them at first. A lot of you know what I'm talking about. Check out this passage from "Richard Nixon: A Psychobiography" by Vamik Volkan, Norman Itzkowitz, and Andrew Dod:

"Seemingly content with the quality of her life at the time, Pat did not appear to appreciate Nixon's attention. He persisted in requesting dates (that she refused) and in making frequent, unannounced appearances at her home. She arranged a blind date for him with her roommate, to gently communicate her lack of interest in him, but he did not take the hint. In desperation, she took to locking her door from the inside and not responding to his knocking, although it was probably obvious to him that she was at home. His response was to write notes such as the following, which he would leave under her door:

"Miss Pat: I took [a] walk tonight and it was swell because you were there all the time...the wind blowing thru the tops of the palms making that strangely restless rustling, a train whistle sounded just as I got to the bridge. The Dipper...was pouring down on you all the good things I've wished looking up at it in the past.... Yes, I know I'm crazy, and that this is old stuff and that I don't take hints, but you see, Miss Pat, I like you!"

Of course, Richard Nixon ended up marrying Pat, and that pretty much says it all! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bark in Nixon's ear because he's sleeping again.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Billfold

2005-12-22T15:06:00.000-08:00

My owner and his lovely wife came home the other night after seeing The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. They went to see the movie on one of their few free nights recently...and only because they weren't spending it (no pun intended) shopping for Christmas gifts. They couldn't stop talking about the movie. I put my big ear to the vent and could hear them talking upstairs (where I'm not allowed to go because I love to chew some things and make messes of everything else). This movie is apparently THE movie to see this Christmas. From what I gathered, it does a great job of sticking to the book and presenting the Gospel story. Quite appropriate (and good) that the movie feels like winter and is able to be sold during the Christmas season. Oh yes...but that, of course, brings me to a point....

One of the good things about the movie is that it's bringing a wider audience to the work of my owner's favorite Christian writer, C. S. Lewis. One of the bad things about the movie is how much it costs to go see it and how, to some humans, it is just part of the whole having-a-happy-holiday-party costume that they put on at the end of each year. When I was doing some research about the movie, I discovered that you have to spend some serious cash to see it. I had no idea. All the movies I see are on DVD (though I bark through a lot of them) when my owner brings them home...and I just thought they were free. Seems it might cost an average family $50 or so to take a 2-hour trip through Narnia...and that doesn't include snacks, etc. There is a wonderful message to be heard for sure, but there is also money to be made. And this is leaving me with an interesting Christmas-time thought....

To some people, Christmas is primarily about Jesus coming to the world. To some others, Christmas is mostly about shopping (usually on credit and with interest) and seeing movies and having fun during time off from work or school. To others still, Christmas is really about making money. In fact, this very money-making issue came up a few years ago (not during Christmas, though) regarding the Chronicles of Narnia books and how the current publisher would market them to maximize profits in a post-Harry Potter world. Click here to read an interesting old column about this.

Well, for no other reason than I think we should, let's take a look at what C. S. Lewis himself wrote regarding those three aspects of modern-day Christmas mentioned above: The Virgin Birth, commercialism, and money. I'm presenting this only because it is on my mind and not as any kind of real statement, so don't read too much into this. Instead, just read the words and think about them....

The Virgin Birth:

"I can understand the man who denies miracles altogether: but what is one to make of people who will believe other miracles and 'draw the line' at the Virgin Birth? Is it that for all their lip service to the laws of Nature there is only one natural process in which they really believe? Or is it that they think they see in this miracle a slur upon sexual intercourse (though they might just as well see in the feeding of five thousand an insult to bakers) and that sexual intercourse is the one thing still venerated in this unvenerating age? In reality the Miracle is no less, and no more, surprising than any others."

Christmas and Xmas:

"Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn't go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merrymaking and hospitality. If it were my business to have a 'view' on this, I should say that I much approve of merrymaking. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice of such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone's business. I mean of course the commercial racket."

Money:

"There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest--what we call investment--is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or 'usury' as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only thinking of the private moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not. This is where we want the Christian economist. But I should not have been honest if I have not told you that three great civilizations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based or whole life."

To read all of this (and more) in context, pick up a copy of "The Joyful Christian" by C. S. Lewis.

Can't See the Forest for the Gumps

2005-12-21T10:09:00.000-08:00

I was riding in the car today, and I saw a bumper sticker on another car. I think it was a hybrid. Anyway, the sticker displayed a big "W" with the following words beneath it: "The Moron." I couldn't help but wonder.... If President Bush really is a moron, how did he so brilliantly convince an entire country to put a moron in the Oval Office? Oh, and then how did he get them to do it again? I mean, what a smart stupid guy. Perhaps the sticker was supposed to refer to "W" as "The Oxymoron." It would still be wrong, but it would at least make more sense. I just wish the people who blindly hate Bush could see the man truly as a whole and stop watching the disparaging presidential montage that the liberal media keeps strategically producing. And I don't think I'm just barking loud and saying nothing. They really do their best to make him look bad. I mean, I could be wrong about this, but I think the CNN version of last week's presidential address began with President Bush saying life was like a box of chocolates. I guess with the liberal media, you always know what you're gonna get.

Barking up the Wrong Christmas Tree

2005-12-19T11:30:00.000-08:00

Christmas is a time for joy, peace, love...oh, and debating whether or not the religious aspects of Christmas should be anywhere near schools, government buildings, and even some businesses. To me, it doesn't seem like a battle that Christian humans should be fighting with the zeal that is missing in their battle for lost souls. Just a doggy observation.

Why isn't there more of an effort by Christians to share the Gospel with the lost than there is to force people to say "Christmas?" I understand that Christians can't allow a situation to come about where they aren't able to openly declare the true meaning of Christmas, but I'm not sure that pressuring Wal-Mart (as an example) to post signs that say "Merry Christmas" really accomplishes anything for the true cause of Christ...even if successful.

On the flip side, I'm not sure why non-believing humans would be so threatened by something they don't believe in...or why they would waste so much time fighting to take Christ out of something that is clearly about Christ whether one believes or not. If Wal-Mart (again as an example) wants to put the word "Christmas" on a sign, can't non-believers just shop somewhere else if they really are offended? Or, if the prices at Wal-Mart are just too good, can't they just ignore it (I mean, they don't have a problem with not believing it)? Also, shouldn't they be more offended by the fact that they shop for gifts and celebrate a holiday that wouldn't be here had Christ not been born? Do they really think that calling it "X-mas" or "Holidays" or whatever does anything in terms of rewriting history?

Anyway, the news channels and papers have recently been filled with lots of segments on this debate, and though I think it's a bit overdone, it has been interesting to follow. I read an article recently about a Republican state senator from New Mexico who is leading a charge in his state to put Christ back into Christmas, and he was largely motivated by the abundance of recent television news features on the topic. Click here to read the article.

People on both sides have strong feelings about this, but I guess I just don't really see why it's such a huge deal. Are Christians more focused on fighting against non-believers in political arenas than they are in fighting for non-believers in spiritual ones? I'm just asking questions here...trying to get people to think. I don't really have the answers. Maybe it's because I'm just a dog and don't fully understand the way humans operate. Still, Christians know the true meaning of Christmas (right?), and non-believers enjoy presents and lights (and all that other materialistic crap, right?). Do Christians really have to shove it in the face of non-believers for it to be real? And do non-believers really have to throw all their might into stopping anything and everything that has even a hint of Christianity? Will that solidify their non-belief? Is it possible that most people are just barking up the wrong Christmas tree?

My owner left a comment on another blog recently, and he shared the following from "Paradise Regained" by John Milton:

I who erewhile the happy Garden sung,
By one man's disobedience lost, now sing
Recover'd Paradise to all mankind,
By one man's firm obedience fully tri'd....

Christians need to focus this Christmas on how the coming of one man saved a world that was lost through the falling of one man. If the word "Christmas" isn't on a posted sign at Wal-Mart or on this year's White House "Holiday" card, I'm pretty sure that the glory of Jesus remains. He was born...and He lived a perfect life...and He died for the sins of mankind. Not even the ACLU can change that, so perhaps the battle is elsewhere.

Merry Christmas!! :)

Those Dogged Voters

2005-12-15T11:05:00.000-08:00

There is good news coming out of Iraq today. Check it out by clicking here. Continue to keep praying for the people of Iraq as they continue down the road towards stable freedom.

AP Photo by Chris Carlson

A Few Good Dogs

2005-12-15T08:58:00.000-08:00

I love to bark. Whenever I take a trip to Maggie's house, we always end up spending hours barking at each other and fighting over this or that. We play a lot, too, but I guess it all looks like fighting to humans. The humans in the house always want order (they hold us down and pull us away from each other, etc.), but we dogs want justice (you know, to just be the wonderfully obnoxious and destructive dogs that we are). Maggie is my sister, by the way.

When I look back on trips to Maggie's house, I often think of humans and international relations. I'm quite reflective like that. ;) Regarding foreign policy, there has seemingly always been a clash between the realpolitik outlook and moralism. Some would say these two positions are opposites and not at all complementary. Yet, there is a great paradox in that one can not exist without the other. My personal views on foreign policy are paradoxical as well. To me, realpolitik and moralism exist concomitantly, for I find myself torn between the two. Oh, to be a dog with such an open mind. :) It's a burden....

Obviously, this topic is important and confusing to me. Clearly, my take on foreign policy issues is influenced by both positions. I guess that's why the human movie "A Few Good Men" remains one of my favorites (right up there with the best movie of all time - "Where the Red Fern Grows"). Yes, dogs watch movies, too (and I hope it's obvious why I think the best movie of all time is "Where the Red Fern Grows").

In "A Few Good Men," the essential debate is found in the clash between Caffey--a young, Harvard educated Navy lawyer--and Jessup--a Colonel in the United States Marine Corps. The clash emerges from an unfortunate incident that occurred at a Marine base in Cuba. The incident involves the death of a Private in the U.S. Marine Corps as a result of a "code red" (an illegal disciplinary action taken within the U.S. Marine Corps in order to keep marines "in line"). Again, the death produces the clash between Caffey--who ultimately comes to believe that the marine's death was not justified and that justice should be served--and Jessup--who believes that the marine's death "probably saved lives" and that justice had therefore been served. The clash is never more glaring than in the closing scene of the movie when Caffey performs a direct examination of Jessup in order to get him to admit that he ordered the "code red." Jessup truly does not believe he did anything wrong, so it only takes a little button-pushing by Caffey to get Jessup to explode and admit proudly that he ordered the "code red." In the process, he says, "my existence, while grotesque to you, probably saves lives." Essentially, Jessup believes that his existence, though immoral to some, is necessary to provide order and safety. Caffey believes Jessup's existence is simply immoral and, therefore, unjustified regardless of any positive results.

This movie with its clash of characters is one of my favorites largely because it reminds me of one of my favorite particular figures from American political history: Henry Kissinger. Clearly, Kissinger's power-oriented style and lack of moral consideration reflect Colonel Jessup. One specific speech given by Kissinger in Minneapolis defines his position--and his connection to "A Few Good Men"--rather well.

The speech, entitled "The Moral Foundations of Foreign Policy," was presented as his answer to critics who were using the Helsinki summit to criticize his power-oriented approach to international affairs. The speech did not try to hide or blur his realpolitik outlook in any way. Throughout the speech, he emphasized the significance of "furthering America's interests in a world where power remains the ultimate arbiter."

Defending detente with the Soviets, Kissinger proposed that the existence of nuclear weapons had made it absolutely necessary to "seek a more productive and stable relationship despite the basic antagonism of our values." Kissinger has changed a bit over the years, but he was, at the time of the speech, not too big on preserving values or morals or ideals. Order and security and lives were his top foreign policy priorities. In the speech, as appropriate in any American speech, Kissinger did provide some praise for American ideals. Still, he seemed to follow any such praise with comments that began with "but." For instance, he said: "This nation must be true to its own beliefs, or it will lose its bearings in the world. But at the same time it must survive in a world of sovereign nations and competing wills." I sometimes think human language is not such a good thing (though humans seem to be rather proud of it as one of the things that "sets them apart"...whatever). Humans often say more than the actual words that come out of their mouths or that end up on paper. At least a bark is just a bark. My point is that if given a chance, Kissinger, much like Colonel Jessup, probably would have said what he meant: "This nation must be against 'code reds' for they are immoral. But, we must realize that they may be invaluable and necessary in order to save lives." Of course, as immoral and contradictory as it would sound, he would probably have a point. Hence the paradox I spoke of earlier.

The ultimate question that arises out of a consideration of "A Few Good Men" and Henry Kissinger's realpolitik outlook is simply this: what do humans do? As you can tell from my previous posts (and some of the comments my owner left on other blogs), this is a question that applies to just about everything. It is certainly an appropriate question when dealing with U.S. foreign policy. So what do humans do? I am not exactly sure. So what do humans do? I am just a confused little dog in a big ol' messed up world. I believe that Daniel Caffey, in the movie, is right. Yeah, but I believe that Colonel Jessup makes sense and is right, too (in his own twisted way). Order is good, and so is justice (but didn't Socrates say something about justice and how humans don't really know what it is?). Obviously, the two can exist together. Just as obviously, they sometimes can not. So what do humans do? With the continual chaos on the international scene, it remains an important question to ask.

It was Kissinger who said that if he had to choose between justice and disorder, and injustice and order, he would choose the latter every time. It sounds good, but the question still remains. Nothing has changed. Perhaps nothing ever will. So what should humans do? I don't know.... Try barking a little.

The Quest for Cosmetic Justice

2005-12-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

I was on a walk the other day, and I noticed how different I am from other dogs. Never really noticed it before. That sort of thing doesn't matter much to dogs. Of course, what really got my attention was not something as insignificant as the difference between my hair and the hair belonging to the big fluffy red dog down the street. What I noticed and took to heart (see my previous post) is the difference between my yard and her yard. What do I mean? Well, some dogs have big fences with well-kept lawns...and some don't. Some dogs have big empty houses to run around in...and some don't. Some dogs get to go for rides in luxury cars...and some don't. What I'm getting at is that there are far bigger differences between dogs than just the way we look. Why is that? I blame the humans.

It seems that humans are all trying to keep up with the infamous Jones family (I've never met them, but I hear humans talking all the time about keeping up with them). If you're a human and reading this blog, chances are you're usually trying to top someone in some way. Humans laugh at us dogs whenever we chase anything that moves (yes, we sometimes chase leaves blowing in the wind...big deal), but at least we don't chase after things like the status of others (and don't even try to bring up dog shows because those are carried out by humans and are really competitions between humans...thank you very much). I just can't help but wonder why humans are the way they are. Is it a natural competitiveness in humans? Or could it be some higher sense of equality that leads to this behavior? Do humans have to "keep up" with the Jones family because they always have to compete...or do they do it because they're constantly on a quest for perfect equality? Hmmm.... Well, one thing is certain: there must be a political lesson to be learned in all of this.

Let's focus in on the term "equality" for a moment. What is that? If you're really interested in thinking about that question (which is far deeper than three words would indicate), I highly recommend picking up a copy of Thomas Sowell's book "The Quest for Cosmic Justice." That book was sitting on a shelf in the house I call home, and it used to be one of my favorites to chew on...but I started reading some of it a while back on accident, and I haven't taken a bite since. Anyway, Sowell argues that humans often operate under "confused conceptions" of equality and justice, and that those conceptions usually lead to inequality and injustice. He also essentially argues that too much confusion about equality and justice erodes the very foundation of American society: freedom. Of course, don't jump to a conclusion about Sowell. He is careful not to say freedom should be allowed to flourish uncontrolled, which would lead to inequality and injustice in the form of gross discrimination, etc. Sowell would not be in favor of a pure dog-eat-dog world (to use a human cliche that really isn't one of my favorites).

Sowell on equality: "Equality, like justice, is one of the most fateful--and undefined--words of our times. Whole societies can be, and have been, jeopardized by the passionate pursuit of this elusive notion. There is nothing wrong with equality in itself. In fact, there is much that is attractive about the idea. At the very least, glaring inequalities are unattractive, even for those who accept them as either inevitable, like death, or as the lesser of alternative evils. But to equate the attractiveness of the concept with a mandate for public policy aimed at equality is to assume that politicizing inequality is free of costs and dangers, when in fact such politicization can have very high costs and very grave dangers. The abstract desirability of equality, like the abstract desirability of immortality, is beside the point when choosing what practical course of action to follow. What matters is what we are prepared to do, to risk, or to sacrifice, in pursuit of what can turn out to be a mirage."

There is an extreme left (specific human example: Marx) that believes equality is the ultimate goal and that freedom can not be allowed to get in the way of equality. There is also an extreme right (specific human example: Aristotle) that believes freedom is the ultimate goal and that the notion of equality matters little in pursuit of that goal. Somewhere in the middle (specific human example: my owner...though the fact that he likes to call himself my "owner" brings up all sorts of questions about equality in my little canine mind) is where humans should be.

Of course, in dealing with the issue of equality, we also have to consider human nature (which is something I am understanding more and more each day...since I live with two humans and watch them closer than they know) and the different TYPES of equality/inequality. Natural inequality (height, talent, appearance, etc.) leads to moral inequality (wealth, social status, power, etc.). Some psychologists and philosophers have argued that in a state of moral inequality, people are simply perverted forms of their natural selves. They say that in the stage of moral inequality, people are "pretentious, envious, and controlled by their own lowly desires and also by other people's opinion." From my astute observations of humans, I know all too well that they can be as they are described in the previous sentence. I've noticed that even close friends and family members act this way toward each other. One human can not allow another to beat them at a game...or know more about a certain topic...or have more successful endeavors...and the list goes on. This usually leads to unhappiness, and that means they are not how they were intended to be. In other words, they are broken. They were made one way...and are now broken. The question is: how do they fix themselves (and I'm only asking in the non-spiritual sense)? Well, there are two roads to consider....

The first road involves the invention of some sort of Natural Equality Machine. It would turn every human that entered the machine into the same exact human. If you make all humans equal in nature, they will never enter the stage of moral inequality. Seems like an easy fix. If humans could all look alike, there would be no injustice in terms of preferential treatment, etc. If humans were all members of the same race, they could avoid repeating some of the darkest spots in their history (ironically, of course, some of those darkest spots were about making one race). If humans all had the same brain, they could all get any job they wanted. Or if they all had the same body, they could all be professional athletes. Okay, I think you can tell that this first road isn't really an option, and it wouldn't lead to a good place even if it could be an option. Humans were not intended to be unhappy, but they were also not intended to be exactly the same. So, we come to the second road....

The second road involves shaping people on the inside to help them react properly to their gloriously intended diversity. Of course, I'll let the humans figure out exactly how they build this road. That, after all, is the point. I do know one thing, though.... When I take my next walk, it's this second road that I want to walk down. It would be fantastic. I wouldn't have to walk past any government buildings or beauty shops. I would love that. You see, policies and cosmetics can only do so much. And if I have to walk down a road made by humans, I want to walk down one filled with humans who will settle for nothing short of REAL equality. Now, if you're a human, stop reading my dog-blog and get on with it....

Bleeding Heart Conservatives

2005-12-10T14:42:00.000-08:00

Some say conservatives don't know what it means to be compassionate. There is a misconception to the left that if you think to the right, you can't possibly have a heart. Liberals seem to think that being conservative means you're literally made of tin! Well, then being liberal must mean you're literally made of straw. And now I'm reminded of a song I sing whenever Al Franken comes on my owner's TV.... "If he only had a brain!" Anyway, I consider myself a conservative canine, and I know I have a heart. I'm actually reminded each month when I take my heartworm pill. Of course, I'm also reminded almost every day by the stories I hear or read about the good works of conservatives all over the place. I just recently heard a personal story from my good friend, Rex (a bomb-sniffing German shepherd). Rex was injured in Iraq along with Air Force Tech Sgt., Jamie Dana. Jamie is recovering on her farm in Pennsylvania, and she is trying to adopt Rex so they can be together. The only thing between them now is red tape. Ah, but it looks more and more like I should be saying the only thing between them WAS red tape. The effort to reunite Rex and Jamie has been accelerated by Jamie's Republican congressman, John Peterson. Thanks to him and others, it appears that Rex will soon be going home to Jamie. Dorothy and Toto never had it this good. Just imagine the things Congressman Peterson could do if he wasn't a conservative and actually had a heart! ;) You can read about Rex and Jamie for yourself by clicking here.