"additionally, it just occurred to me that this is why young people don't make grassroots efforts, go to protests, etc, anymore. incremental change isn't good enough anymore - it's got to be all or nothing, or you're a failure. if their liberal parents had taught them how to pursue slow change, perhaps they'd bother. instead, my friends and i see our contributions as worthless, because there's no link between our small efforts and the greater goal. the more that can be achieved now the better."

While I understand what you're saying, I have to disagree. Yes, prolonged struggle is important. But just as important is being an attentive student to history, which illustrates that leaving people behind in a movement, blacks and women, laborers and minorities, always slows down the movement as a whole. It's a fact of history that divided movements are less successful than united ones. Gandhi himself would have made the same statement when addressing the concerns of Muslims. He didn't throw them under the bus because he was more concerned with Hindus. He believed in unity above all.

Gandhi had every flipping word he said recorded. The context for that statement is that if you are in a concentration camp you could commit suicide in defiance against an enemy that was already killing you. He wasn't saying, "Oh, go die. I don't care for jews."

The context for the statement can be found here within the original letter:

http://www.alshindagah.com/jan2001/9a.html

While I was slightly wrong about the context -- he wasn't referring to concentration camps -- he was referring to satyagraha, civil disobedience. He was calling on a unified jewish population to defy Hitler. So, yes, Gandhi did advocate unity above all.

Anywho, this section is about trans rights, so I won't be writing about this minor point again.

"Cuz god will mess you up big time, more than any terrorist. Am I right New Orleans?"

Wow. That was awesome! I lurv you guys!

RSU gets better and bettter!

I only got to page 8 of the comments, so I don't know if this has been said so far, but I want to point out that many readers have chimed in to say that 1.) They tried employing a rescue shelter as a method of getting a pet. That tells me that, in of and itself, they appreciated the work the rescuers were doing. But that 2.) ONCE THEY FELT UNCOMFORTABLE with or rejected by these organizations, they took their business elsewhere.

So, like it or not, people who want pets get them wherever or however they can, regardless of whatever private standards are created. In this way I'm reminded of the arguments for and against abortion, and, following those guidelines, I would extend the metaphor; Rather than judge all applicants for pets stringently, why don't we recognize that everyone who is turned down by a rescue shelter will inevitably end up either at a puppy mill or somewhere with fewer caveats to their adoption policies? Seems like more energy should be put into raising the overall quality of the lives of adopted pets. Maybe adopters need more carrot and less stick, more training options and fewer rules on disqualifying willing candidates.

I also want to stress, once again, that people who disagree with the outcome of the situation, who say that Ellen and her friends were treated unfairly, are not necessarily enemies of animal rescuers. You can have a public disagreement over the issue and still support the work that these people do. I think Heather's article states that pretty clearly.

As for the collar issue, I've used a choke collar on several breeds and the dogs have all been uniformly fine and dandy, chipper, joyful animals who still wiggle their tails excitedly at the prospect of a good walk. And I've also slipped on sprained my ankle on at least one occasion because of a dog that was improperly collared. I giant dog that bolts at a whim can be dangerous for the 120 lb woman behind the leash. That's just a fact.

What I keep thinking in response to all the arguments against (post-publication disclosure) is simply this: Why do you want to limit the definition of literature? Just because it was one way in the past doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. Just because USUALLY writers do not disclose information about their carefully crafted worlds after the fact, doesn't mean that they never should and never will.

There is something very near to play that J.K. Rowling has experienced, or, at least, that's how I imagine it. Once you work that hard to create something it's just ridiculous not to have a little fun with it. So she's having fun! Settle down, Ms. Traister. It's really no skin off our nose. And if you cannot reconcile her version of the characters you are free to ignore it and think of it in your own way. That is the beauty of fiction! Because, after a time, it is your world, too.