Letters to the Editor
-
Our Apt Didn't Allow Dogs --- But We Tried To Get One Anyway!
No, our apartment didn't allow pets of any kind.
But my wife and I reasoned this is America and we can "bend rules" if they are obviously unfair and burdensome. Besides, we really, really wanted a dog and couldn't move until our lease was up 10 months later.
So we went to a shelter.
The first thing they wanted to do was do a home inspection and then (can you believe this??) they wanted to speak to the apartment manager personally to verify that we were allowed to have pets per our lease agreement!
Those commmies!
How dare they?
Well, we just went right out and got a dog from an ad we saw in the paper. No questions asked!
That'll show those smug bastards at the shelter! How dare you tell me I can't do whatever I want, whenever I want.
(no, we don't have the dog anymore. I think it's in as helter somewhere)
-
Ellen's disconnect
Responding to this "Anonymous" entry because it is typical.
"Ellen made a mistake regarding the contract. She did not make a mistake in the care of the dog, which was in a loving home"
A contractual violation is sufficient grounds for requiring the dog to be returned.
"If you had a daily talk show and that monster had stolen the dog of your friend's little girl,"
But this didn't happen, because it wasn't the friend's little girl's dog. Not in any legally binding sense.
To repeat myself, say I walk into the bank. I want to adopt some of their money. It's no problem, I tell them, because they'll get it back. They'll get back more than I adopted in fact. If I cannot provide a good home for their money, I'll find a friend who can. I'm a good person, right? I won't be cruel to the money (that's not even possible, right?).
A bank would not even reject the above proposal out of hand, but they'd require a bully called a loan officer to demand all kinds of documents. True, they probably wouldn't agree if I transferred the loan to my hairdresser's daughter, who I insist is very good with money and will pay back the loan sooner.
But now we're just talking about cold, hard cash, not about animals who are capable of feeling pain. We accept a certain amount of due diligence from a bank, and we expect them to be very strict about process. Why is an animal adoption agency supposed to be less rigorous?
In other words, am I right in thinking that all you animal lovers out there believe that money is a more serious area, requiring more serious legal protection than the life of an adopted pet?
-
Not a hard decision
It's not clear why so many people regard municipal pounds as a "last resort" for adopting animals. Pound animals generally have much shorter lifespans owing to the combination of limited resources and open-ended obligation to take all comers inherent in a civic service. You're not rescuing a pound animal from a sorrowful life in a cage — you're rescuing it from certain, scheduled death.
Something about the obsession with private animal shelters reminds me of the way people buy their water in bottles now, as if public services are somehow suspect simply by virtue of ... what? Being public? Not being run by precious staffers anxiously wringing their hands and charging you for the privilege of going through them?
I've never gotten a pet from a shelter, always the pound. The folks there have their own kind of insensitivity — as Heather Havrilesky points out, it's not like the system is conducive to a lot of optimism about human nature — but the animals are just as real and the experience hugely less stiflingly bourgeois.
Unless, you know, bourgeois pet shopping is your thing, in which case quit your crying.
-
Great Article!
Thanks for the rational opinion on that Ellen situation. If a dog had a new home where he was loved and being taken care of, why would you take it out to prove a point? Those people are idiots! Ellen felt bad because those kids had fallen in love with the dog and then it was snatched away by some power tripping morons. I am sure any other dog that ends up in that home will be very happy.
-
Missing the point
Ellen violated an agreement she signed with regard to this dog. She was free not to sign it or get a pet from another rescue. I really wonder if she was fit to even have the dog given she clearly did not read what she signed.
So this article is off base.
I have three dogs all of whom are rescued the sleep with us every night - never outside for some bored kid to use as BB gun practice.
But I do think we are confusing two issues. Some rescues do have crazy rules, but they tell you about it up front. If it bothers you go to the local animal shelther for your pet or an agency with less rules.
Ellen violated an agreement the clearly instructed her to bring the pet back to the rescue group. Makes me wonder how she could not have known in advance that a hyper dog would bother her cats.
She also had no business taking this public if she truly cared about the dog rather then just wanting her way or better ratings.
-
Television is an emotional medium.
Everything, every single second of what's on your television screen, from sitcoms to commercials to documentaries to the evening news, is there for one single reason: to elicit an emotion from you. That's how television sells, that's how it informs and that's how it entertains. If television weren't about emotions, nobody would watch it.
I can't disagree more that displaying honest emotions on television is somehow inferior to displaying manufactured emotions. On the contrary, an authentic display of emotions does not cheapen the viewer or the portrayer, it strengthens the humanity of both. Being embarrassed by the honest display of emotions is another matter entirely, and speaks to the individual psychology of the viewer. Television is at its best and its most memorable when it reinforces the human condition through the spontaneous expression of heartfelt emotions.
The proof is this: it will be a long time before people forget about this particular Ellen show while most don't have a clue what happened on her show just the day before.