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.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)