Federal Legislation Regarding Dog Breeding
*Those who fall under the proposed legislation:
-If a breeder sells more than 40 dogs annually, they are subject to the following laws.
-If a breeder houses (dogs must be on the property for more than 90-days to apply) more than 40 dogs, they are subject to the follow rules.
-If a breeder houses more than 20 female dogs, this legislation applies.
-Co-Ownership (if the dog does not reside with one an applicable owner) does not apply.
-Dog handlers (for show ring purposes), or temporary ownership does not apply.
-Dog shelters are subject to different business and state legislation and therefore do not apply.
-Pet shops do not apply unless the business breeds dogs.
-This legislation is limited to canines only and does not apply to any other type of animal.
*Proposed Laws:
Responsible Dog Breeding Workshop
-All business owners must attend the annual “Responsible Dog Breeding Workshop” offered in two locations per state.
-The workshop will be offered twice a year in two different locations.
-States may incorporate more frequent workshops to accommodate business owners.
-The workshops can only be attended after a business license is approved.
Veterinary Care:
-Ongoing veterinary care (if applicable, specific rules follow) is required for each dog while on the premises of each breeder.
-Files must be maintained and kept for five years on each dog.
-Show dogs must obtain required vaccinations (per state).
-It is not necessary for all dogs on the premises to visit a veterinarian regularly; however, if illness is present in dogs during inspection, business owners should have proof of veterinary care on file.
Additional Record Keeping:
-Records of sales and breeding must be kept on file for five years after the breeding or sale occurred.
-Records for previous inspections are to be kept (and readily available) for 10 years.
Breeding Limitations:
-Only female dogs between the ages of 18-months and 8 years can be bred.
-Female dogs cannot be bred more than twice annually.
-Unexpected pregnancies occur; a fine will be issued for each pregnancy. If more than two occur per year per dog, licenses can be suspended.
Animal Caging:
-Each dog must have its own cage, with ample room (6-inches on all sides) to stand up and turn around.
-Every cage must be on the ground.
-Cages must be kept clean, within reason.
-Wire caging is permitted, but not on the bottom of the cage.
-Specific bottoms of the cage will not be required, as long as wire (or a wire-like) material is not used.
-Clean drinking water must be available in each cage.
-Every dog can have a maximum of 12 hours in a cage daily.
-No more than 8 hours should pass without a dog leaving a cage.
Free Area:
-One acre is required per 20 permanent dogs.
-Outside space should also provide shelter. This amount will not be specified, but should allow adequate room for all dogs (20 per acre) to gather at one time. An example would be a carport like area to protect dogs from the elements. This space does not need four walls, only a roof is required.
-All outdoor areas accessed by dogs must be kept clean and free of excess feces.
-No other plant, animal, or activity should be conducted in the outdoor space.
-This space will be specifically allotted for dogs.
-Clean water should be always available.
*Outline of Breeding License:
-A federally issued “breeder” license is issued once the initial inspection has been conducted and the premises is approved.
-Subsequent annual inspections will re-issue licenses only if the premises meets law requirements.
-Only one license per person, per location will be issued.
-Two licenses cannot be granted in one location.
*Enforcement of Laws:
-A state official will visit the premises once annually. If problems or citations occur, these visits will increase.
-Each visit, no matter the reason, does not require previous notification.
*Costs and Funding:
-Each state, depending on size and population, will be allowed sufficient money to ensure laws. These funds will come from other areas in the federal budget, not taxes, as well as the fees incurred by breeders.
-An annual fee of $2,500 will be collected during the reissuance of licenses.
-Licenses will not be granted until an inspection has occurred and
*Time period for adjustment:
*All existing breeders will have one year from the time of official legislation to accommodate new laws.
*All new breeders must begin business according to inspection rules before selling, housing, or breeding dogs.
*Exceptions:
-If dog rescue work meets or exceeds 25% of the business, annual fees can be lowered or eliminated.
*Punishment for laws not upheld:
-Non compliance of laws will result in varying punishments.
-These punishments include: warnings, fines, suspension of license, jail, and revocation of license.
-Specific punishments will be outlined once this bill is approved.
*Detailed explanation of why each law was chosen:
Responsible Dog Breeding Workshop:
This mandatory workshop will be created to enhance awareness and consistency throughout the breeding community. Many breeders have little or no education about what it actually takes to breed and raise multiple dogs. These workshops will give them a chance to unite with other breeders and form potential networking systems.
We understand that business owners are busy and cannot be expected to get away several days a year, so these workshops will be offered in two (or more) locations, twice yearly. The workshops will last one full business day and include a multitude of classes, some required and others optional (treated like electives).
Veterinary Laws:
Dogs should, like humans, be cared for. They get sick, have babies, and contract diseases which require a doctor. This law omitted the requirement for all dogs to have a regular veterinarian (unless for reasons earlier broached) because some breeders may choose a holistic or alternative medicine, which has proven itself effective in the past.
Show dogs are required by the AKC to be up-to-date on vaccinations, thus the enforcement of veterinary care requirement for them. Also, it is in the best interest for all dogs exposed to the public to be protected from potential disease.
Five years allows enough time for breeders and potential owners to refer back to previous health problems.
Additional Record Keeping:
Five years allows enough time for breeders and potential owners to refer back to previous purchases. The health of dogs can be optimized if they are not paired (bred) with another dog with issues.
Inspection records should remain consistent between breeders and the state. Keeping them for 10 years should allow enough time for referring back to previous inspections. This amount of time is intended to protect breeders from inconsistencies during inspections.
Breeding Limitations:
Very young and old dogs are susceptible to many more health problems when bred. Thus the basis for this section of the proposed legislation. It is meant to protect dogs from being bred too young or too old.
Dogs should not be bred during each heat cycle. Allowing only two breeding per year gives female dogs the chance to recover from pregnancy and raise puppies.
It is well known to breeders that accidents occur and dogs can breed themselves. Thus the allowance (fine only) for such occasions. Dogs, however, should be closely monitored to protect them from over breeding. Punishments can occur if this happens repeatedly.
Animal Caging:
One of the biggest problems of puppy mills are is the environment in which dogs live. They are often crammed into cages without adequate room to move and no drinking water. Also, wire cages can cut the feet of dogs if over exposed. This portion of the law is very important because dogs should have a safe and clean “home.”
Dogs need to have time outside cages. This is also a big problem with puppy mills. It is understandable that business owners have time to sleep or leave the premises, which is why 8 hours is for the dogs to remain in cages. Dogs are meant to have time to run, so they are to be caged for a maximum of 12 hours daily. This allows them plenty of free time and socialization.
Free Areas:
Most dogs enjoy running outside. They, depending on size, should have ample room to do so. One acre per 20 dogs seems adequate for them to run freely. Many dogs, especially smaller breeds, require shelter from the elements. Having a covered space allows them to feel secure while outside.
Having the acreage dedicated solely to dogs protects them from other animals, poisonous plants, etc…
It is understandable that a certain amount of feces be present when housing 20 dogs on one acre. Messes should be cleaned daily to prevent the area from becoming hazardous to dogs.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Op Ed
The AKC suggests self-governance is the best way for dog breeders to conduct their business. Conversely, PETA is calling for intense legislation, which mostly bans breeding all together. Can we find a middle ground? Potentially, yes.
Both sides of the argument seem a bit idealistic and lack realistic governance of breeders and breeding. Let us start with the facts about breeding and pet overpopulation. First, according to the humane society, over 5 million animals (dogs and cats) are euthanized each year. This fact, to most, would warrant a claim that too many animals exist in the United States. Next, few states have laws governing the breeding of animals and their welfare. Finally, the AKC has yet to admit that pet overpopulation exists, instead calling it a “perceived problem.”
Let us first broach legislation. Since it is widely believed that self-governance is not realistic, this would leave the idea of legislation open for a solution to pet overpopulation. Also leaving choices up to the general population would generate varying levels of governance, leaving out consistency.
Current breeding laws vary from state to state, so a federal blanket law would be most effective. For the sake of time, I will not outline specifics of legislation; instead I urge that it is explored.
Virginia has adopted recent laws that specifically govern dog breeders. This law specifically states that those who breed more than a certain amount of dogs (that are subsequently sold) must adhere to veterinary, exercise, and caging restrictions.
A law similar to the one in Virginia could be a stepping-stone toward federal legislation. However, we must first explore the Virginia case to find what works and does not work. Implementation is also a key aspect of potential laws surrounding dog breeding. It isn’t enough to enact laws; they must also be enforced. Once federal laws are approved, money should be set aside to ensure that they are upheld.
Both sides of the argument seem a bit idealistic and lack realistic governance of breeders and breeding. Let us start with the facts about breeding and pet overpopulation. First, according to the humane society, over 5 million animals (dogs and cats) are euthanized each year. This fact, to most, would warrant a claim that too many animals exist in the United States. Next, few states have laws governing the breeding of animals and their welfare. Finally, the AKC has yet to admit that pet overpopulation exists, instead calling it a “perceived problem.”
Let us first broach legislation. Since it is widely believed that self-governance is not realistic, this would leave the idea of legislation open for a solution to pet overpopulation. Also leaving choices up to the general population would generate varying levels of governance, leaving out consistency.
Current breeding laws vary from state to state, so a federal blanket law would be most effective. For the sake of time, I will not outline specifics of legislation; instead I urge that it is explored.
Virginia has adopted recent laws that specifically govern dog breeders. This law specifically states that those who breed more than a certain amount of dogs (that are subsequently sold) must adhere to veterinary, exercise, and caging restrictions.
A law similar to the one in Virginia could be a stepping-stone toward federal legislation. However, we must first explore the Virginia case to find what works and does not work. Implementation is also a key aspect of potential laws surrounding dog breeding. It isn’t enough to enact laws; they must also be enforced. Once federal laws are approved, money should be set aside to ensure that they are upheld.
PETA
Personally, I feel that imagery is easily taken too far when it deals with fiction. Horrific images are displayed on network television nightly. People are killed, raped and maimed in front of us, but real images from PETA are often considered too graphic for primetime television. Why are we, as a society, comfortable with fictitious images of cruelty, but condemn PETA for displaying non-fiction?
Subconsciously we might know that crimes committed on television are fake, thus making us okay with watching it. I say, worry about what is really happening instead of subjecting oneself to the “pretend” stresses of fictional drama.
Animals are actually dying because of neglect and overpopulation. This is a fact, yet so many people cry extremism when it comes to PETA’s powerful videos. Think about, PETA does not condone violence of any kind. It refrains from abusive protests and normally launches campaigns on its website. Not exactly a flag burning type of organization. We, the public, have the choice to visit PETA’s website and subject ourselves to its views.
PETA probably uses extreme visuals to grasp the attention of those even partially interested. Yes, the images could potentially turn off potential supporters, but polarization—even peaceful—tends to draw attention. Taking one side or another has come to a head in the U.S. post September 11th and I believe that PETA has (to some extent) jumped on the bandwagon of the “with or against us” mentality. Conversely, it has used powerful images and campaigns to reach out to those interested in animal welfare and pet overpopulation. But has done so in a peaceful manner.
Subconsciously we might know that crimes committed on television are fake, thus making us okay with watching it. I say, worry about what is really happening instead of subjecting oneself to the “pretend” stresses of fictional drama.
Animals are actually dying because of neglect and overpopulation. This is a fact, yet so many people cry extremism when it comes to PETA’s powerful videos. Think about, PETA does not condone violence of any kind. It refrains from abusive protests and normally launches campaigns on its website. Not exactly a flag burning type of organization. We, the public, have the choice to visit PETA’s website and subject ourselves to its views.
PETA probably uses extreme visuals to grasp the attention of those even partially interested. Yes, the images could potentially turn off potential supporters, but polarization—even peaceful—tends to draw attention. Taking one side or another has come to a head in the U.S. post September 11th and I believe that PETA has (to some extent) jumped on the bandwagon of the “with or against us” mentality. Conversely, it has used powerful images and campaigns to reach out to those interested in animal welfare and pet overpopulation. But has done so in a peaceful manner.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Military and Octomom
Personally, I believe that reproduction rights should be open and women should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies. This, however, is a broad statement when reproduction aspects like military involvement and invetro fertilization comes into play.
Today we looked at two different arguments about womens' reproductive rights. On one hand, it was argued that they should receive special--or different--treatment from the military when pregnant or already have children. Conversely, we discussed how someone like Nadia Suleman probably should not be reproducing 14 times in her young and single life.
In keeping with my personal feeling about women's rights, I believe that military moms should take their personal and professional lives into consideration when enlisting. They have a unique and very different situation from most working mothers. For instance, a tax accountant would most likely be able to take a moderate amount of time off work post pregnancy, but a military mom might be expected to return to duty--and travel outside the country--very soon after giving birth. Where does the difference lie? In the job.
When enlisting in the military everyone should--like any other job--take children and the future into consideration. This, of course, seems idealistic, but is rather simple when you think about it. Those in the military (especially during times of war) must expect that they will be sent far away for long periods of time. Thus creating issues when pregnancy and parenthood are concerned.
We cannot, however, guarantee that everyone puts such thought into the future, so blanket laws should be enacted. Single parents should not be sent away. The risk of death and parent less children are too high in this situation. I'm not positive, but feel confident that numerous jobs are available that do not require relocation to a war zone. Such a law would allow single parents to enlist, but also be kept out of harms way professionally.
Suleman, the octomom, is another story altogether. She chose to--and delivered--14 children in her life. She is a jobless single mom with no realistic plan for how to care for her children. Multiple interviews have produced conflicting stories and blatant lies from her...and has left all of us wondering why she felt it necessary to have so many kids.
I could go into overpopulation or tax payers, but the underlying problem with Suleman seems to be her mental health. Should her doctor have allowed 6 potential babies to be implanted in her? According to me, the answer is no. But, she could have found another doctor willing to perform the surgery.
Today we looked at two different arguments about womens' reproductive rights. On one hand, it was argued that they should receive special--or different--treatment from the military when pregnant or already have children. Conversely, we discussed how someone like Nadia Suleman probably should not be reproducing 14 times in her young and single life.
In keeping with my personal feeling about women's rights, I believe that military moms should take their personal and professional lives into consideration when enlisting. They have a unique and very different situation from most working mothers. For instance, a tax accountant would most likely be able to take a moderate amount of time off work post pregnancy, but a military mom might be expected to return to duty--and travel outside the country--very soon after giving birth. Where does the difference lie? In the job.
When enlisting in the military everyone should--like any other job--take children and the future into consideration. This, of course, seems idealistic, but is rather simple when you think about it. Those in the military (especially during times of war) must expect that they will be sent far away for long periods of time. Thus creating issues when pregnancy and parenthood are concerned.
We cannot, however, guarantee that everyone puts such thought into the future, so blanket laws should be enacted. Single parents should not be sent away. The risk of death and parent less children are too high in this situation. I'm not positive, but feel confident that numerous jobs are available that do not require relocation to a war zone. Such a law would allow single parents to enlist, but also be kept out of harms way professionally.
Suleman, the octomom, is another story altogether. She chose to--and delivered--14 children in her life. She is a jobless single mom with no realistic plan for how to care for her children. Multiple interviews have produced conflicting stories and blatant lies from her...and has left all of us wondering why she felt it necessary to have so many kids.
I could go into overpopulation or tax payers, but the underlying problem with Suleman seems to be her mental health. Should her doctor have allowed 6 potential babies to be implanted in her? According to me, the answer is no. But, she could have found another doctor willing to perform the surgery.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Make claim...
I have conducted extensive research on dog breeding and the world of show dogs. After that research, I have decided that legislation should be enacted to govern dog breeding.
The most predominant issue is pet overpopulation. The AKC doesn't really recognize that it even exists. Conversely, PETA believes that virtually no one should breed, unless a specific license is obtained. Clearly, a middle ground should be reached.
Few laws currently exist surrounding breeding. Basically anyone can breed as dogs wherever and whenever they choose. This lack of governance has resulted in millions of dogs euthanized yearly in shelters. Also, puppy mills are rampant throughout the U.S. They provide almost all of the dogs that are sold in pet stores.
Honestly I think that people just don't do the adequate research prior to purchasing a dog. Every breed is different and not all of them will work for everyone. Ample research is required before buying a dog. Also, dogs should be purchased from reputable sources. Yes, the AKC has members that are often "good" breeders, but they are harder to find and often more expensive.
The only viable way to ensure the safety of animals is through legislation. Money should be put behind laws, then it should be used to govern them.
The most predominant issue is pet overpopulation. The AKC doesn't really recognize that it even exists. Conversely, PETA believes that virtually no one should breed, unless a specific license is obtained. Clearly, a middle ground should be reached.
Few laws currently exist surrounding breeding. Basically anyone can breed as dogs wherever and whenever they choose. This lack of governance has resulted in millions of dogs euthanized yearly in shelters. Also, puppy mills are rampant throughout the U.S. They provide almost all of the dogs that are sold in pet stores.
Honestly I think that people just don't do the adequate research prior to purchasing a dog. Every breed is different and not all of them will work for everyone. Ample research is required before buying a dog. Also, dogs should be purchased from reputable sources. Yes, the AKC has members that are often "good" breeders, but they are harder to find and often more expensive.
The only viable way to ensure the safety of animals is through legislation. Money should be put behind laws, then it should be used to govern them.
Viaduct Replacement
A replacement to the Alaskan Way Viaduct is inevitable, thus I would vote in favor of a tunnel. First and fore most, our state is in dire need of jobs and this project would provide tens of thousands of jobs throughout the next nine years.
Next, Seattle is well-known for traffic problems. Nothing will better relieve conjestion than additional roadways. Seattleites that currently use public transportation are unlikely to revert back to the roads just because a new tunnel is in existance. Yes, the tunnel could free up some traffic, but it is not likely to solve the problem all together.
Finally, the current viaduct is dangerous. Numerous experiements have proven that it is likely to collapse in an earthquake. A safe and effective alternative is necessary.
Next, Seattle is well-known for traffic problems. Nothing will better relieve conjestion than additional roadways. Seattleites that currently use public transportation are unlikely to revert back to the roads just because a new tunnel is in existance. Yes, the tunnel could free up some traffic, but it is not likely to solve the problem all together.
Finally, the current viaduct is dangerous. Numerous experiements have proven that it is likely to collapse in an earthquake. A safe and effective alternative is necessary.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Veronica Martin
Veronica Martin
Martin takes a personal approach to her education and hopes to further her personal interests through the education received at Seattle University.
It was a toss up between Seattle U and Chapman in Orange, California. In retrospect she feels that the schools are polar opposite and is happy with the decision to attend S.U.
Martin has, however, discovered that Journalism promotes relationship with people that is forced and relies on the “what’s in it for me?” approach. She does not feel comfortable looking at friends as potential stories and would like to lead her life in a different manner.
Martin takes a personal approach to her education and hopes to further her personal interests through the education received at Seattle University.
It was a toss up between Seattle U and Chapman in Orange, California. In retrospect she feels that the schools are polar opposite and is happy with the decision to attend S.U.
Martin has, however, discovered that Journalism promotes relationship with people that is forced and relies on the “what’s in it for me?” approach. She does not feel comfortable looking at friends as potential stories and would like to lead her life in a different manner.
Socrates Interpretation
Seattle University is divided over the transition to Division One basketball. The impending change to Division One has students taking sides, either for the transition or against it.
Let us apply the following Socrates proverb to the Division One transition. “The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits.” Some, like Alyss Tsukayama, feel that placing more emphasis on sports could impede her education.
“I feel that Seattle University has a great reputation for high qualities of education, and that is why I chose this school over others that spent more money on sports,” she says.
Tsukayama could be onto something—or missing the point--when juxtaposing Socrates’ stance on bitter and sweet. Her fears and anticipation about Seattle University putting more stock in Division One sports might end up improving the academic experiences for students.
Seattle University basketball coach Gweth talks about the unexpected winning season for his team.
“We came out of nowhere and ended up traveling thousands of miles this season,” he says. “My team goes out on the court and is winning—without the attitude of other teams.”
Taking the time to work, practice and sneak-in might give Seattle U the winning edge. After all, it is easier to win as the expected underdog, without the pressures of previous success.
Because change can harbor resistance, the quote from Socrates could lend a helping hand to those concerned about Seattle University. All anyone can really do s wait and see. This difficult time of transition could end up reaping rewards of improved education from increased finances granted to the school.
Let us apply the following Socrates proverb to the Division One transition. “The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits.” Some, like Alyss Tsukayama, feel that placing more emphasis on sports could impede her education.
“I feel that Seattle University has a great reputation for high qualities of education, and that is why I chose this school over others that spent more money on sports,” she says.
Tsukayama could be onto something—or missing the point--when juxtaposing Socrates’ stance on bitter and sweet. Her fears and anticipation about Seattle University putting more stock in Division One sports might end up improving the academic experiences for students.
Seattle University basketball coach Gweth talks about the unexpected winning season for his team.
“We came out of nowhere and ended up traveling thousands of miles this season,” he says. “My team goes out on the court and is winning—without the attitude of other teams.”
Taking the time to work, practice and sneak-in might give Seattle U the winning edge. After all, it is easier to win as the expected underdog, without the pressures of previous success.
Because change can harbor resistance, the quote from Socrates could lend a helping hand to those concerned about Seattle University. All anyone can really do s wait and see. This difficult time of transition could end up reaping rewards of improved education from increased finances granted to the school.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hook-Up Culture
Hook-Up Culture –Jack Grimes
It seems, for me, that Grimes shifts back and forth between acceptable evidence and fallacy. He touches on an aspect of commitment and power that I find interesting. According to Grimes, hooking up is easier and less vulnerable than having a relationship, but those involved gain a great sense of power.
First, he explains that power is involved in the act of sexual intimacy. And that nothing is more powerful than feeling the “liveliness” of sex between two people. Something very “powerful” is achieved when consensual sex is practiced. In my opinion, the generation of which Grimes speaks is one that often seeks power without extensive work. More than every, people—especially the youth—are celebrity obsessed and want to live the life of Britney Spears without working for it. This is not to say that many, many people aspire and achieve through hard work, but it only takes a few minutes of watching MTV to validate my point.
Maybe our college-aged youth find hooking up so appealing because of that power aspect Grimes mentioned. After all, hooking up requires little emotional work and only physical vulnerability is needed. If someone hooks up with another for the night, his or her relationship is based on only a few hours of commitment. Therefore it is much easier to accomplish than trying to forge ahead with a traditional relationship, which required a great deal of work and compromise.
Grimes also noted what hooking up is about “…holding back, not giving one’s self, not committing.” This ties into the vulnerability aspect discussed earlier. It takes a level of commitment and maturity to let one’s self become vulnerable and allow another person a level of power.
Grimes did note that he finds the notion of sexual and powerful women “strange.” I think this does nothing to further his claims and most likely will distract his target audience, leaving some of his other claims in the dust. He calls women that hook up prostitutes, while not referring to men in the same way. This is not a fair and balanced explanation of both sides. If one is powerful, then so is the other.
It seems, for me, that Grimes shifts back and forth between acceptable evidence and fallacy. He touches on an aspect of commitment and power that I find interesting. According to Grimes, hooking up is easier and less vulnerable than having a relationship, but those involved gain a great sense of power.
First, he explains that power is involved in the act of sexual intimacy. And that nothing is more powerful than feeling the “liveliness” of sex between two people. Something very “powerful” is achieved when consensual sex is practiced. In my opinion, the generation of which Grimes speaks is one that often seeks power without extensive work. More than every, people—especially the youth—are celebrity obsessed and want to live the life of Britney Spears without working for it. This is not to say that many, many people aspire and achieve through hard work, but it only takes a few minutes of watching MTV to validate my point.
Maybe our college-aged youth find hooking up so appealing because of that power aspect Grimes mentioned. After all, hooking up requires little emotional work and only physical vulnerability is needed. If someone hooks up with another for the night, his or her relationship is based on only a few hours of commitment. Therefore it is much easier to accomplish than trying to forge ahead with a traditional relationship, which required a great deal of work and compromise.
Grimes also noted what hooking up is about “…holding back, not giving one’s self, not committing.” This ties into the vulnerability aspect discussed earlier. It takes a level of commitment and maturity to let one’s self become vulnerable and allow another person a level of power.
Grimes did note that he finds the notion of sexual and powerful women “strange.” I think this does nothing to further his claims and most likely will distract his target audience, leaving some of his other claims in the dust. He calls women that hook up prostitutes, while not referring to men in the same way. This is not a fair and balanced explanation of both sides. If one is powerful, then so is the other.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Guantanamo Bay
On his first full day in office, President Obama ordered the closure Guantanamo Bay. This displays, for me, that Obama’s actions are coinciding with his words early on in his presidency. Lofty promises were spewed during this most lengthy campaign and I almost tuned out his hopeful rhetoric. Not because I disliked Obama or didn’t trust him, instead because our government has reacted so poorly and too many promises were abandoned.
To his credit, former President Bush did follow through on certain policies, but I don’t think they were in line with what his people wanted. He made pact to stop terrorism, yet he condoned torture and the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
The closure of Guantanamo Bay says that the U.S. is ready to lead again. And, our leader is prepared to do so in a lawful and humane manner. It is time for our government to follow the constitution and international laws. Because, after all, war does not constitute betrayal of international expectations and does not give global governance to one leader.
I realize that the process of closing prison camps can be lengthy and arduous, but I also understand that just taking the step toward ending torture is more telling than the time it will take to disband Guantanamo.
Being a large and powerful country, U.S. leaders should set an example for the rest of the world. This may sound idealistic, however if terrorism is illegal in the U.S., it should not be executed in our camps. I praise Obama for acting so quickly and ending tempering the level of hypocrisy our government has displayed for so many years.
On his first full day in office, President Obama ordered the closure Guantanamo Bay. This displays, for me, that Obama’s actions are coinciding with his words early on in his presidency. Lofty promises were spewed during this most lengthy campaign and I almost tuned out his hopeful rhetoric. Not because I disliked Obama or didn’t trust him, instead because our government has reacted so poorly and too many promises were abandoned.
To his credit, former President Bush did follow through on certain policies, but I don’t think they were in line with what his people wanted. He made pact to stop terrorism, yet he condoned torture and the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
The closure of Guantanamo Bay says that the U.S. is ready to lead again. And, our leader is prepared to do so in a lawful and humane manner. It is time for our government to follow the constitution and international laws. Because, after all, war does not constitute betrayal of international expectations and does not give global governance to one leader.
I realize that the process of closing prison camps can be lengthy and arduous, but I also understand that just taking the step toward ending torture is more telling than the time it will take to disband Guantanamo.
Being a large and powerful country, U.S. leaders should set an example for the rest of the world. This may sound idealistic, however if terrorism is illegal in the U.S., it should not be executed in our camps. I praise Obama for acting so quickly and ending tempering the level of hypocrisy our government has displayed for so many years.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Aesthetic Imperative
The Aesthetic Imperative –Postrel
Postrel claims that we (as humans) are drawn to aesthetics because it feels natural and motivational, instead of forced. She says that we demand things and have expectations of stores, businesses, etc to look a certain way. She also claims that we—now more than ever—are educated and place higher expectations on innovators.
Instead of feeling good about something, Postrel says that we are drawn to things because of good design. “That design makes sense” is something she feels would motivate a purchase as opposed to evoking a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Postrel claims that we expect things to look good and that designs make sense. Not only should the display at target “flow,” but also the items on the display look a certain way. This, Postrel feels, is a result our demands.
We are more educated than ever and our expectations are ever increasing, Postrel says. And, as a result, company ceo’s and designers have to work harder to create products to meet our needs.
Great design used to be an opulence enjoyed by the elite. Now, with lower-end retail stores offering “designer looking” items, it is accessible to everyone. This does not mean that design—or concept—has been dumbed down. Instead, it is more utilized and thoughtful.
Think about it: People have been looking to Martha Stewart for inspiration for 25-years, and now we can purchase look-alike items at Macy’s for a fraction of what she paid for the original. Stewart’s retail displays at Macy’s mimic her own home, giving a feeling of opulence and organization. Then, on those displays are beautiful—and inexpensive—items that have been unattainable for the masses until now.
I think that visual/tactile aesthetic is a good thing. But, keep in mind that it can be another marketing tactic. For example, people wear Ed Hardy because it looks original and messy, but it comes at a price. His t-shirts can run upward of $100. Those who purchase his clothing feel original and not manipulated, but should think again because the sparkly displays are aesthetically pleasing and a great marketing tool.
Postrel claims that we (as humans) are drawn to aesthetics because it feels natural and motivational, instead of forced. She says that we demand things and have expectations of stores, businesses, etc to look a certain way. She also claims that we—now more than ever—are educated and place higher expectations on innovators.
Instead of feeling good about something, Postrel says that we are drawn to things because of good design. “That design makes sense” is something she feels would motivate a purchase as opposed to evoking a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Postrel claims that we expect things to look good and that designs make sense. Not only should the display at target “flow,” but also the items on the display look a certain way. This, Postrel feels, is a result our demands.
We are more educated than ever and our expectations are ever increasing, Postrel says. And, as a result, company ceo’s and designers have to work harder to create products to meet our needs.
Great design used to be an opulence enjoyed by the elite. Now, with lower-end retail stores offering “designer looking” items, it is accessible to everyone. This does not mean that design—or concept—has been dumbed down. Instead, it is more utilized and thoughtful.
Think about it: People have been looking to Martha Stewart for inspiration for 25-years, and now we can purchase look-alike items at Macy’s for a fraction of what she paid for the original. Stewart’s retail displays at Macy’s mimic her own home, giving a feeling of opulence and organization. Then, on those displays are beautiful—and inexpensive—items that have been unattainable for the masses until now.
I think that visual/tactile aesthetic is a good thing. But, keep in mind that it can be another marketing tactic. For example, people wear Ed Hardy because it looks original and messy, but it comes at a price. His t-shirts can run upward of $100. Those who purchase his clothing feel original and not manipulated, but should think again because the sparkly displays are aesthetically pleasing and a great marketing tool.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Westboro Freaks
I have been thinking about how to approach a conversation with its members after reviewing the Westboro Baptist Church website on Tuesday. In all reality it would take a bit of soul-searching about how to communicate with people that have very, very little in common with myself.
First, I think it would behoove me to approach the conversation as a listener instead of an argument. Being a combative person, this would initially be a challenge for me. But, to truly listen to someone, it is best to remain quiet and try to relate to something they are saying.
Also, my personal stance on their key issues would cause trouble because I am a very liberal gay man. Thus it would be way too easy to get into a fight with these people.
I have friends of all political parties and when I know a disagreement could ensue, I try to see their point of view and listen to what they have to say. Everyone has their reasons for why they feel. Who am I to judge someone else for feeing they way they do? Unfortunately members of the Westboro church do not take that same approach…
I live my life very open, but in this situation I might remain mum about anything personal to keep them from feeling defensive. No, this is not the approach I normally take. Because they are very open about their feelings, I think they would be rather forthcoming in an interview. People who are willing to protest in public normally don’t have any qualms about talking to a vehicle that could further publicize their opinions.
First, I think it would behoove me to approach the conversation as a listener instead of an argument. Being a combative person, this would initially be a challenge for me. But, to truly listen to someone, it is best to remain quiet and try to relate to something they are saying.
Also, my personal stance on their key issues would cause trouble because I am a very liberal gay man. Thus it would be way too easy to get into a fight with these people.
I have friends of all political parties and when I know a disagreement could ensue, I try to see their point of view and listen to what they have to say. Everyone has their reasons for why they feel. Who am I to judge someone else for feeing they way they do? Unfortunately members of the Westboro church do not take that same approach…
I live my life very open, but in this situation I might remain mum about anything personal to keep them from feeling defensive. No, this is not the approach I normally take. Because they are very open about their feelings, I think they would be rather forthcoming in an interview. People who are willing to protest in public normally don’t have any qualms about talking to a vehicle that could further publicize their opinions.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Minor Analysis
Most people agree that puppy mills should be closed or at leastmonitored, but others disagree. Some feel that it is difficult todefine breeding and therefore it should be completely legal. Many feelthat laws should govern breeders, but others feel that it would get inthe way of their practice. Just defining "puppy mill" can be an arduous task. Breeding can be aMom and Pop establishment that involves friends and family. And, onthe other hand, it can be a big business that involves huge revenue. The problem at large, however, is the treatment of animals. Oftenlarge-scale operations slip under the radar and are able to operatewithout governance. Discovering the mistreatment of animals is onlyrecognized once someone has complained. It seems impossible forhundreds of animals to be properly cared for in one establishment,especially when different types and breeds of animals are involved. P.E.T.A., an organization committed to animal safety feels thatstricter laws should in place for dog breeding. Breeders have beenaccused of mating dogs for their looks, instead of preserving thebreed. According to a letter to the A.K.C., from P.E.T.A., they areasking the A.K.C to stop televising dog showed because they feel itpromotes ill-intentioned breeding. States like Ohio have little to no laws protecting dogs within theconfines of a breeder or mill. According to the states website, dogsshould be cared for, but a court ordered search warrant is necessaryto enter private property. Thus making monitoring mills or breedersdifficult. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is in play, but again lacks thedefinition of mills, commercial dealers, and breeders. All three oftenoperate under very different standards and P.E.T.A. representativesfeel that they should individually be held accountable. In addition,the AWA does not cover commercial breeders who sell to the public. Options differ on the governance of breeders and mills, but somestates, including Virginia are passing stricter laws on the issue.
Part Two 1) Laws regarding dog breeding mandate limits on the amount and agesfemale, the housing of these animals, and requires them to obtain abusiness license. Breeders within the state can have no more than 30 female dogs bredat one time and they must be within the age of 18 months and eightyears. This, according to the law, can protect dogs from overbreeding. In addition, all dogs must be kept in floored cages, because somefeel that wire cages can damage the paws of dogs. The law also takes the health of dogs into account. Dogs mustmaintain an exercise regime and breeders must seek regularveterinarian care. Finally, commercial dog-breeding operations are now required toobtain a business license and are subject to health inspections. 2) Most would agree that dogs deserve a fair chance at life. A newlaw in Virginia requires that breeders follow laws to ensure thesafety of dogs. This law comes as a relief to dog lovers andrequires—among other things—that commercial breeders obtain a license,submit veterinarian records, keep the dogs on the floor in comfortablecages, and let them out for exercise. Too few laws have governed breeders and puppy mills are out ofcontrol. While some feel that inspections can be invasive, they shouldbe subject to inspection just like every other business. If they haveproblems with inspections, which are understandable, they should askthat the inspectors contact them prior to arrival to ensure that it isa good time to visit. 3) Once again, animals are being put a head of people. Innocentbreeders are now subject to many new laws that require a myriad ofintrusions like veterinarians and state inspectors. The law now in effect in Virginia takes the business of dog breedingway too far. It is unfair to assume that all large-scale breederscommit crimes. It seems that all we hear about are the bad stories.What about the hundreds of reputable breeders, just trying to make alittle money? Inspections and veterinary rules can be too costly. Law abidingbreeders are now under the radar and at risk of financial collapsebecause of this law. 4) Most businesses in the U.S. are somehow governed. The addition ofthe breeding laws in Virginia only round out other laws surroundingbusinesses. Restaurants are required to uphold particular temperaturesfor safety. Thus it only makes sense for breeders to do the same forthe living being they are raising. Proponents of this law are responding to the outcry of breeders,animal welfare activists, and lawmakers. This comes as little surpriseto the aforementioned organizations because they have long tried forsuch laws. This law is only applicable in Virginia. That leaves 49 other stateswith potentially weaker governance of dog breeding. Constraints havebeen placed because breeders can simply relocate if they wish to notbe inspected.
Part Two 1) Laws regarding dog breeding mandate limits on the amount and agesfemale, the housing of these animals, and requires them to obtain abusiness license. Breeders within the state can have no more than 30 female dogs bredat one time and they must be within the age of 18 months and eightyears. This, according to the law, can protect dogs from overbreeding. In addition, all dogs must be kept in floored cages, because somefeel that wire cages can damage the paws of dogs. The law also takes the health of dogs into account. Dogs mustmaintain an exercise regime and breeders must seek regularveterinarian care. Finally, commercial dog-breeding operations are now required toobtain a business license and are subject to health inspections. 2) Most would agree that dogs deserve a fair chance at life. A newlaw in Virginia requires that breeders follow laws to ensure thesafety of dogs. This law comes as a relief to dog lovers andrequires—among other things—that commercial breeders obtain a license,submit veterinarian records, keep the dogs on the floor in comfortablecages, and let them out for exercise. Too few laws have governed breeders and puppy mills are out ofcontrol. While some feel that inspections can be invasive, they shouldbe subject to inspection just like every other business. If they haveproblems with inspections, which are understandable, they should askthat the inspectors contact them prior to arrival to ensure that it isa good time to visit. 3) Once again, animals are being put a head of people. Innocentbreeders are now subject to many new laws that require a myriad ofintrusions like veterinarians and state inspectors. The law now in effect in Virginia takes the business of dog breedingway too far. It is unfair to assume that all large-scale breederscommit crimes. It seems that all we hear about are the bad stories.What about the hundreds of reputable breeders, just trying to make alittle money? Inspections and veterinary rules can be too costly. Law abidingbreeders are now under the radar and at risk of financial collapsebecause of this law. 4) Most businesses in the U.S. are somehow governed. The addition ofthe breeding laws in Virginia only round out other laws surroundingbusinesses. Restaurants are required to uphold particular temperaturesfor safety. Thus it only makes sense for breeders to do the same forthe living being they are raising. Proponents of this law are responding to the outcry of breeders,animal welfare activists, and lawmakers. This comes as little surpriseto the aforementioned organizations because they have long tried forsuch laws. This law is only applicable in Virginia. That leaves 49 other stateswith potentially weaker governance of dog breeding. Constraints havebeen placed because breeders can simply relocate if they wish to notbe inspected.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Obama
Obama enters the white house January 20th. This is old news. His possibilities and challenges are staggering, but so many in this nation are looking to Obama for change; the rhetoric of his campaign.
I, for one, do not have huge expectations during Obama’s first four years. He is, after all, entering the white house during insurmountable debt and national unemployment.
On the other hand, I finally feel that Obama will slowly turn the fundamentals of government around. Too much stock has been placed in corporate America. With Obama, it seems that our nation has a chance of recovery, albeit slow.
For the past eight years I have felt completely out-of-touch with our government and most every decision President Bush made. Although I do not agree with everything Barack Obama stands for, I do feel that his ideals are so much closer to my own. Once again, our nation may slowly awaken.
I, for one, do not have huge expectations during Obama’s first four years. He is, after all, entering the white house during insurmountable debt and national unemployment.
On the other hand, I finally feel that Obama will slowly turn the fundamentals of government around. Too much stock has been placed in corporate America. With Obama, it seems that our nation has a chance of recovery, albeit slow.
For the past eight years I have felt completely out-of-touch with our government and most every decision President Bush made. Although I do not agree with everything Barack Obama stands for, I do feel that his ideals are so much closer to my own. Once again, our nation may slowly awaken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)