Monday, October 30, 2006
the Battle for Control of Your Dog's Balls
Plenty of dog owners are oblivious to the whole thing. Others, (ahem) particularly the gentlemen, prefer to squeeze their eyes shut and hope it will all go away. But skirmish lines formed long ago and it looks like the City of Tacoma, Washington, may be the next battlefield in the Testicle Wars.
I'm talking about the battle for control of your dog's balls. The move to force law-abiding dog owners with well-managed pets and workmates to surgically sterilize them.
The concept that the government can invade your home and decide which, if any, of your dogs get to keep their gonads, and which ones don't.
Can a bunch of strangers sitting on your city council determine that your blameless dog must undergo an invasive veterinary procedure which sends a part of your personal property to the garbage can?
Could this be just a minor snip-snip for ol' Rover? (And by the way, before you sign on to that particular theory, know that despite the bedtime story that mandatory spay-neuter advocates spin, the longterm effects of gonadectomies on dogs are not necessarily beneficial. Not by a long shot.)
Or is this an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of an estimated 45% of the U. S. electorate?
We the People
Turns out that the U. S. Constitution is gonzo about protecting property rights. The Fifth Amendment (which would be part of the Bill of Rights, guys) reads, in part:
No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Then there's the 14th Amendment, which reads, in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .
Like I said, completely gonzo when it comes to property. Talk about a core value. Right?
Ditching our constitutional rights
Meet Democratic Tacoma City Councilmember Julie Anderson.
She's the sponsor of the proposal to require all dogs (and cats) in Tacoma to be sterilized.
How did Julie use her recent media event opportunity? She tossed out a civil liberty, based on the U. S. Bill of Rights, like a used piece of Kleenex.
[My proposal] basically states that having an unaltered animal is no longer a right or something you can just do.
That was her quote.
Blink. Owning a dog, without submitting it to surgical sterilization, is something I "just can't do" any more? Its "no longer a right"?
Hell you say.
Indicating that she's "sensitive to the property rights issues", Councilwoman Anderson nevertheless came down squarely on the side of PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States. Both are animal rights organizations that want to end domestic animal ownership. Wayne Pacelle, currently the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, phrased it:
"One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
There's something about Julie
Here's Julie's pedigree, lifted from the City of Tacoma website:
Political Strategist for Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington
Executive Director of the YWCA of Pierce County
District Manager for the Dome District Neighborhood Business
District Executive Director of Faith Homes
Campaign Manager for Tacoma United For Fairness
Board of Directors of City Club Tacoma
American Leadership Forum fellow
Tacoma United for Fairness? Do those fine people know how gung-ho Julie is about sending civil liberties to the trash heap and mandating $300 or so's worth of surgery for everyone's dog?
Who's going to pay for all of that surgery, anyway? What's the plan, Julie?
How are retirees and people with a limited income supposed to come up with the do-re-mi? Will cash-strapped dog owners, fearful of being caught with unauthorized testicles on the premises, try a "do-it-yourself" solution?
Its been known to happen, Julie.
And what if the surgery has an, uh, unhappy outcome? Assuming that ol' Rover even survives the anesthesia, will the City of Tacoma bear the expenses?
Oh, and during your networking sessions with the other fellows of the American Leadership Forum, did you let slip that many studies indicate that mandatory spay-neuter doesn't achieve the stated goal of reducing shelter populations? No?
Julie Anderson is up for re-election in 2007. She can be reached at email@example.com and I, for one, will be writing to point out the error of her ways.
Love me, love me, love me. . .I'm a liberal
What is so freaking Democratic, liberal and progressive about kissing off our civil rights? I am just not getting this. I don't think Phil Ochs would have, either.
Joe Trippi, one of the Democratic Party's most visible strategic planners, benchmarked the progressive sell out of dog owners and alignment with the animal rights movement when he became Best Friends Animal Sanctuary's hired gun. So much for scruples, huh?
Coming soon to a municipality near you
Previous columns covered mandatory spay-neuter requirements in Albuquerque, New Mexico (with Democratic Mayor Chavez announcing his intention to promote the requirement statewide) and Los Angeles County, California.
The Golden State is a particularly tough place for dogs that retain all the parts they were born with--prime animal rights extremist organization PeTA lists quite a few California locations, including Belmont, Clearlake and San Mateo. Berkeley, Sacramento and Riverside County had mandatory sterilization proposals on the table this year. San Francisco--that beautiful city by the bay and bastion of liberal thinking--links mandatory sterilization with negative profiling for some miserable dogs and dog owners.
Yup. There are plenty of places in the Golden State where the presence of doggy gonads is going to cause major problems. But don't rest easy because you don't live in California.
Here's a little sampling of the shape of things to come across the country: Bloomington, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Buncombe County, North Carolina, have forced sterilization requirements. Austin, and San Antonio, Texas recently saw a mandatory spay-neuter proposal. Indianapolis, Indiana, too. So did the entire State of Virginia.
In New York City dogs that wind up at city shelters must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners. No matter how or why they got there.
Aurora and Denver, Colorado are so-called "no birth" cities.
The above is NOT a complete list of places that will try to force you to neuter your dog. There are more. You can run, but you can't hide. The Testicle Wars are coming to you, wherever you live.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Which side are you on? A recent survey from My Dog Votes indicates that dog owners are more than ready to switch parties in local and state elections in order to save their dogs. Well, count me in! No way will I support a party that will force me to sterilize my dog, or that is willing to toss my property rights into the garbage. No freaking way.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Yup. And its Democratic Party heavy lifter Joe Trippi's role in the Best Friends Kindness Revolution that's got my panties in a knot. There's nothing kind about denying people their civil rights. What's Joe Trippi doing fronting vigilantes? Its nice that Katie Couric takes his calls, but geez, why pull strings for people who have no interest in the rule of law? Not that Joe, or Tammy Grimes for that matter, is particularly knowledgeable about dangerous dogs or animal legislation, but he's is scheduled to share the stage with Tammy at BF's end-October conference.
Picture it: Joe Trippi will be up there thumping the podium along with a woman whose actions are supported by the Animal Liberation Front. The Animal Liberation Front is characterized by the FBI as a domestic terrorism organization. In his day Joe Trippi worked for Howard Dean--managed his presidential campaign--Walter Mondale, and Dick Gephart. Joe is currently associated with the campaigns of several highly placed liberal Democrats. I wonder what they would make of this legislative proposal that Best Friends Animal Law Coalition is floating to back up what Tammy Grimes did in Pennsylvania: "Any person who has a reasonable belief an animal is injured, in pain, sick or otherwise in need of assistance to protect its health or life shall have the authority to enter upon the property of another for the limited purpose of taking the animal to a veterinarian or otherwise providing emergency care to the animal, provided that, reasonable efforts have been made to report the animal’s condition to the local humane officer and the animal’s owner or custodian. A person offering assistance to an animal under this section shall be immune from civil or criminal liability." Say what? Anyone at all can take my dog off my property? I don't know about you guys, but my civil rights, including due process, are precious to me. They were hard fought, and hard won. I want to see a court order before my property is taken away. I have an issue with "any person with a reasonable belief" running off with my dog. And you can bet I want my day in court. Tammy forgot that no matter now ugly the accusation, we are all guaranteed civil rights in this country. Hellloooo? Joe? Progressive-minded Democrats? Is this the crew you really want to hook up with? Because from where I sit, they're about as unDemocratic as you can get. Since when have civil rights been unfashionable with the Democratic Party? Are Dems so very intent on capturing a demographic that they're willing to remain silent on domestic terrorism? Denial of due process? Weakening property rights? Are vigilantes hunky dory with Democrats? I sure hope not. I live in a Blue State, and I was born to vote Democratic. I come from a long line of liberal thinkers. In fact, I'm a freakin' stereotype. But these are NOT my values.