|
October 22, 2007
Getting a grip without retractable claws
Much as I should have left the hell alone my last post about Ellen DeGeneres's dog rescue issues, I didn't. Instead, I reiterated my point in an update by making a Hillary Clinton/Ellen DeGeneres comparison: Via Glenn Reynolds, I read that when she got Socks, the White House cat, Hillary Clinton "lectured readers" that pets are an "adoption instead of an acquisition." Later, she dumped the cat on her secretary, who now has it.This didn't seem like all that big a deal at the time. But now the cat fight has spread, and my original point about the virtues of buying versus adopting (or "rescuing") animals seems lost. Yeah, OK, I was originally talking about dogs, not cats (and definitely not cats owned by Hillary Clinton). I am a dog person and I'm probably now treading on thin ice. (There's that old saying that you should stick to what you know.) I generally try to avoid cats because I'm allergic to them and I don't own them. Plus cat owners get really weird and emotional about them, and if you say anything that can be seen as in any way wrong, cat people will often go ballistic. I'm sure if I said that it was better to buy a cat than rent one via the "rescue" service, I'd get flak from one cat faction, and if I said it was better to rescue or adopt than buy, flak would fly from another. Cat people can be catty, and cat fights result, so I just try to stay the hell out of it. And this isn't just any cat. It was Hillary's cat! I did think that Ann Althouse raised a good point in her earlier post, though, in which she rather cattily ventured that Hillary should go on TV and talk to Ellen. When I read it, I thought I'd said enough about the virtues of privately owned dogs (which wasn't Ann Althouse's point), and I just didn't want to start a new post getting into a detailed moral comparison of Ellen's dog and Hillary's cat. I do think that in general if you own something, you'll tend to take better care of it than if you rent it, and in my callused opinion, adopting an animal (especially when you don't have title) is more like a rental, while purchasing it is more like real parenting or home ownership. I realize people will disagree with me, and these things are emotional, so I thought I'd let the Ellen post die its natural death. So perhaps adding the Hillary cat update was asking for trouble. That's because I have this weird inability to ignore unfinished things, and now the Ellen/Hillary thing has escalated into a catfight, with Andrew Sullivan weighing in by misunderstanding Ann Althouse. What the former objected to was this: So, Hillary, just go on the Ellen show -- if Ellen ever manages to stop the tears and broadcast again -- and cry about how terribly much you loved Socks and have Ellen help you explain why love is what makes you get rid of the pet. Then you can get back to telling us how you're going to bring the womanosity to the presidency.While I think the humor and sarcasm are obvious, I'm going to give Andrew Sullivan the benefit of the doubt and take it seriously, and literally. The fact is that even if we take this as genuine advice, Ann Althouse showed remarkable restraint. For not only did Hillary dump Socks, but in 1996, she had Socks declawed (a procedure which renders a cat vulnerable by removing its primary means of self defense): In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton disclosed that Socks has been declawed in December 1996. The First Family's decision to declaw Socks was in part at the insistence of the Secret Service, after Bill was seen wearing a bandage on his cheek. At first, he said he had cut himself shaving, but later he revealed Socks had scratched him. Perhaps the declawing was postponed until until after the presidential electlion to avoid it becoming a campaign issue.This horrific and sadistic act caused an NPR reporter/cat lover to negatively compare Hillary to the (Pat) Buchanans (who did not declaw their cat): the Buchanans did not have their cat declawed, which is more than you can say for our current president. Mrs. Clinton recently told the world on TV, and without a hint of remorse, that Socks was declawed years ago - probably to save the White House furniture.For shame! Again, I think Ann Althouse was being too kind. The overwhelming evidence is that as a cat parent, Hillary Clinton stinks. (I guess that would be stank.) Thus, sense of humor or not, there is no practical need for any catfight. posted by Eric on 10.22.07 at 10:51 PM
Comments
That's pretty close to the concern I was expressing. The adoption and rescue agencies generally do not believe in animals as property (many advocate changing the law), and they will make you sign agreements which recite that the animal has to go back to them if you no longer want it. If you want to own a dog (or the cat), you should buy one. Ironically, I think "adoption" may be contributing to the throwaway pet culture, as people don't think their pets are theirs. Eric Scheie · October 23, 2007 08:41 AM I don't understand your definition of adoption, unless you're restricting it to these contractual obligations. I've given homes to several pets (dogs and cats; I'm charmed by both), but they were private agreements between me and the previous owners. No money changed hands, but these animals are secure as long as I live. I consider this adoption, and it has been a good deal for both my pets and myself. Then again, I'm one of those neanderthals who thinks keeping his word is a virtue. Brett · October 23, 2007 09:46 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2007
October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
the slippery moral slope that slides both ways
When skepticism becomes heresy "Making a difference" Drew Carey On Medical Marijuana HAPPY HALLOWEEN! (Especially for prudes....) Forgotten threats from forgotten anonymous commenters mothers against move on! "Invincible" Hillary has bad night in Philadelphia Blog Radio Sex scandal, but which sex?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The part I still labor over is whether you actually adopt property. I always thought that animals were property. Livestock and fatstock carry certificates of sale and transfer. Barring such certificates or a municipal pet license, isn't possession nine tenths of the law. Does the adoption of animal property have any legal standing in any court of the USA. I mean I mean if it does, then can I adopt a sofa?