I had planned for this year a kinder, gentler blog. A blog with feel good moments and smiles and lots of warm fuzzies. Let's face it, that's not going to happen. I have far too much of my Granny in me to just let things keep sliding by without having my say.
So to kick off the New Year, Lets discuss, Sarah Palin. She's a moron. I can't stand her and she doesn't represent any woman I know. I am tired of her comparing herself to people like me. She gave birth to some kids, so did I. She's a woman, so am I. She lives in America, So do I. That's pretty much the extent of it. She may have done good things in Alaska. I don't know. I don't care. What I care about is her steadfast refusal to face reality. In my opinion that makes her dangerous.
There is a viral notice going around the net that basically blames the Tuscon shootings on a map that Sarah Palin's people put up during her campaign. Now I personally don't think that's the case. The guy who did the shooting desperately needed help and didn't get it. Period. I do believe however, that Sarah's constant use of words related to guns and hunting could incite persons with a tenuous hold on reality, like that young man, to do things to her competitors.
Some politicians would see these shootings as a way to learn from a tragedy. Some would realize that maybe there is a way to campaign and get their point across without using words such as "shoot" or using the cross hairs of a rifle to depict places that she has deemed needing a change.
What does Sarah Palin do? She and a few other morons decide that only Democrats see this as an issue and issue statements calling those Americans things like "disgusting" and "reprehensible". The reality Sarah, is that if one of your kids pictures were to be shown with a rifle cross hair on it, you'd be afraid for your child and you'd insist it be dealt with. It would take a sick mind to do it and you'd expect someone to be punished. Right? But we're reprehensible for thinking you and your campaign managers are irresponsible? I guess when it comes down to it, I'd rather be reprehensible than ignorant. So I guess you have me there.
Now lets discuss the proposed Pit Bull ban in Texas. I personally believe Texas is the greatest state there is. I wouldn't WANT to live anywhere else. If this ban is enacted, I just might though. Why? Because it will be final proof that there are too many idiots in charge and it's time to go.
This all came about due to "Justin's Law". I have looked for both sides of the story all over the Internet in an attempt to be as fair as possible. I admit to being biased because I am an advocate not only for pit bulls but for responsible pet ownership. I have to say I was disgusted by the fact that the owners of the Pit Bulls who attacked and killed this young boy demanded that a memorial set up for him be removed. Apparently it was on or very close to their property. I'm sure they did not mean for their dogs to be harmful to anyone. I'm also positive that it must also be painful for them to know that their dogs did something so horrendous. However, they were their dogs and this child was killed. A memorial could have served to allow some healing and possibly a lesson for responsible Pit Bull ownership. So thumbs down you 2, you should be ashamed.
I feel terrible for the Mother of this child. I cannot and would not want to imagine how something like this would feel. The thing is though, not all Pit Bulls are bad. There are people out there who only have their dogs. Forcing them to have their dogs killed for absolutely no reason at all is cruelty on a level all it's own. Their dog is not the vicious monster that hurts children. Their dog is sweet and wonderful. Their dog trusts them and they trust their dog. Their dog goes places and never attempts to hurt anyone. Their dog makes them smile every single day. Their dog loves them no matter what and they love their dog the same way. Their dog has been socialized, trained, loved and cared for just as some people care for their children. It's not right to kill that dog for the actions of others.
By all means....require licensing. Require certain reasonable measures. Allow animal control officers to make surprise inspections. I don't care what needs to be done, but don't kill an innocent animal because someday it COULD do something bad. So can cars, so can guns, so can gas, so can many other things including people! I know psychotic kids and some adults that I believe will eventually hurt someone some day, I don't want them killed because they have the potential. I just keep praying they'll get help. That's what Pit Bull owners need. Help and Understanding but not to be targeted for something they have no part in. Help them show that their dog is not the vicious animal others think it is. Understanding to see that their dog is as loving as your Lab is. Legislation to do that is fine..........banning the breed for the ignorance of others is not.
Before anyone says anything, let me say that I realize that Pit bulls can be dangerous. I realize that they have to potential to seriously harm children and adults alike. There's no question about that. The problem is that there are thousands of dog bites every year around the United States. The ONLY ones we hear about are the horrific ones that involve a "dangerous" breed. It's understandable that people would hear these reports and think that this new law might be needed but here are the facts of the matter:
1. "It is estimated that around 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. In many places “Pit Bulls” make up as much as 30-50% of the shelter population, and sadly, are less likely to be considered for adoption than any other breed. Assuming that 25% of the shelter dogs killed are “Pit Bulls”, then approximately 1.25 million “Pit Bulls” are killed in shelters every year.
Therefore, it is at least a hundred thousand times more likely that a “Pit Bull” will be killed by a HUMAN, than the other way around." Source
2. "Additional strategies to encourage responsible pet ownership and reduce dog bites include regulatory measures (e.g., licensing, neutering, and registration programs and programs to control unrestrained animals) and legislation (7). "Dangerous" dog laws focus on dogs of any breed that have exhibited harmful behavior (e.g., unprovoked attacks on persons or animals) and place primary responsibility for a dog's behavior on the owner. Because a dog's tendency to bite depends on other factors in addition to genetics (e.g., medical and behavioral health, early experience, socialization and training, and victim behavior), such laws might be more effective than breed-specific legislation" Source
3. "Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull See how many people you know can pick out a pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack." Source
4. "Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a pit bull."
5. "Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their
parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more
than 800 times more likely to be killed by their adult caretaker than by a
6. "For every pit bull who kills, there are hundreds of thousands that DON'T. "
7. "In the year 2000, pit bulls were involved in 8 fatalities. See below for facts about the same year.
From the National Safety Council: Numbers of Deaths Due to Injury, United States in 2000:
Bitten or struck by dog (all breeds), 26
Bitten or struck by other mammals, 65
Bitten or stung by nonvenomous insect and other arthropods, 9
Bitten or crushed by other reptiles, 31
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub, 341
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming-pool,
Accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, 327
Ignition or melting of nightwear, 9
Contact with hot tap-water, 55
Contact with venomous snakes and lizards, 12
Contact with venomous spiders, 5
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees, 54
Contact with other and unspecified venomous animal or plant, 9
Nonopioid analgesics, antipyretics, and antirheumatics, 176
Legal intervention involving firearm discharge, 270
Legal execution, 8
So there, if we elect people who will allow a specific breed to be banned from an entire state, to be fair and safety conscious, do we next expect them to ban bathtubs, aspirin, pajamas and insects? Good luck with that, I'll move to a smarter state.