Saturday, March 17, 2007

Progressive Dems Stand Up For Us Little Guys? Ha! Preferred progressive netroots attitude: "Let 'em eat cake."

Good gawd. "Liberal" Democrats might as well be Republican operatives, based on the preferred political posture on fave Dem hang outs. Roughly 45% of households in the U. S. include a dog, and lots of them are having trouble finding housing, buying insurance, and more. How many times can you tell folks you don't give a shit about their problems? How long before voters connect the dots and decide life as a Democrat doesn't make sense any more? Daily Kos crowd: "Suck it up, ya buncha sissies."

Your civil rights aren't my problem.

The general dKos response to the routine discrimination many dog owners face when it comes to purchasing homeowner's insurance: "get a new damn dog".

Now why didn't JFK think of that? Why didn't Kennedy just tell James Meredith to forget about Ole Miss and get a new damn university? Maybe Rosa Parks just needed to find herself a new damn way home, too. Right? So much trouble could be avoided if people would just sit down and shut up--like dKos thinks a good Democrat should. Bill Richardson sells his soul to special interest groups. Yound and restless Dems counter with: "Yeah? . . .So?" As advertised, Bill Richardson--the Democratic Party's Great Latino Presidential Hope--tipped his hand back in December with his "Ten Point Animal Protection Package". The package calls for $ 3.6 million in taxpayer funds to get tossed into an Animal Rights pork barrel critical need to oversee the state of animal welfare, etc., in the Land of Dis Enchantment. During an address to a joint session of the New Mexico legislature on February 14, Richardson reportedly confirmed his intolerance of doggy testicles and other reproductive equipment when he announced support of New Mexico H1106 . The "Pet Owner Responsibility Act" mandated surgical sterilization for all dogs over six months of age in the state of New Mexico. Pro choice? maybe not so much a Democratic value Ironic that so many Dems are ready to go to the mat defending the rights of women to make reproductive choices, yet they have no problem denying the same people the right to make veterinary care decisions about their dogs. Slicing and dicing dog parts over the objections of the people who live with and care for the dogs? Not a problem for many Dems, based on comments like "the law is overkill in some areas but understandable. . .pet ownership is a privilege, not a right."

uhhhh. . .Wrong!

Dems surrender civil rights without a peep

What slows down bigots and political opportunists like NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. , or City of Denver Assistant Attorney Kory Nelson, aka Denver's Doctor of Death, and keeps them from simply sending the stormtroopers to haul my blameless dog out of my house and kill him is his status as my property.

My last defense against that kind of fascism is my ability to protect what is mine. Upheld by bazillions of court decisions. Protected by the Bill of Rights. Located in the U. S. Constitution.

So before anyone starts with that "you-can't-own-your-dog-he's-not-a-rock-or-a-chair-that's-slavery" bullshit, you had better think over what, exactly, you're tampering with.

On the other hand, though, there are a couple of Democrats who appear to get it. For example. . . .

Gun-toting, meat-eating, dog-loving Brian Schweitzer

The Governor of Montana earned himself a national reputation as a new-age Democrat. Takes his dog to work, too! Hell, he's even got a sense of humor.

As battle lines formed, Brian Schweitzer placed himself firmly on the side of the angels, and against the further erosion of our right to privacy, as the legislature of the state of Montana overwhelmingly adopted Montana Senate Joint Resolution Number 19, decrying the loss of civil rights and liberties suffered under the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Res. 19 exhorts agents and instrumentalities of the State of Montana not to"record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization. . .if the action violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties. . . "

Does it get any better?

Well. . .

In the brilliant blue City of New York, New York New Yorkers aren't going with the "get a new damn dog" recommendation, either. In fact, Democrat Pete Vallone is set to take a beating on what could be the blunder of his career.

After all, does anything say "eat shit and die" to a voter more concisely than a politician that blends racial profiling with a policy set to kill the family dog?

"Get another damn dog?" I'm thinking that's not going to be a winning strategy for grassroots Democrats. How long before New Yorkers take their 31 electoral votes and shop for someone who, ahem, represents them?

Kossacks hellbent on pissing off Democratic voters So, does it matter if some of the Democratic Party's most visible personalities, not to mention their netroot cheerleaders, are more than a little fuzzy on civil rights?

In between the gloating over Dub-yuh's inability to do anything right and the high-fiving over Barack Obama, do Kossacks have any time for the people who actually vote?

That "pet ownership is a privilege, not a right" crap should send Kossacks screaming and falling over each other in a frenzy to put some distance between themselves and the miscreant that came up with it.

Unless they're planning on surrendering their dogs, too.

So are you? Are you ready to surrender your dog in the name of the Democratic Party?


I'm talkin' to you.


pitbullEmily said...

as a Kossack, I couldn't agree with you more about the indifference there to this as a civil rights issue. But, you know, it's hard to criticize Dems over this issue when OUR OWN PEOPLE are throwing away the same rights with both their hands. Is there any rescue group in California that doesn't support the proposed mandatory s/n law? I haven't found any (with the sort-of exception of Chako)... and every pit bull discussion group is full of the self-righteous assertion that this is THE solution to the "problem" of "overpopulation"
("a bill gives hope")

You think the BestFriends A/R crowd is bad.. don't even TRY to discuss with the rescue ideologues why mandatory s/n might be a bad idea in the bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

Can you add to this blog; "if anyone thinks that they can fart with the right to own a dog, think again! That means they can fart with the right to own a Yorkshire Terrier!" In fact they ARE already starting to try to mess with that right!

Experimental Knitter said...

14th amendment: government shall not make any laws that deprive citizens of property without due process. The dog is my property, so are his nuts.