Open Thread .02

Conversation starters:

Where's the Beast?  The Mickey Cam has been down for DAYS.  Has the beast been set loose from the jail?  Look, even the Save Mickey nutters are smart enough to get a webcam up within FIVE DAYS!  This STINKS!  SHOW ME THE BEAST!

Why don't people complain more?  Well, that would be due to the cultural norm of NEVER BLAMING A DOG OR OWNER FOR ANYTHING!   In other words...

Those guilty of BadSpeak and BadThink will be sent to the doggy GULAG!   Comrade Mickey will make it so!

On a lighter note, anyone want to adopt this monster?

 

Look at the maw on that damn thing.  It could crush a bowling ball for #%&@ sake!  Who would want that in their home?  It could take your head off with one bite!  It is something out of a sci-fi horror movie!  Yet, SOMEHOW it is pimped as a great family pet.  Whodathunkit!!!!

Value corruptus

What are the values of our opposition?   Last time, we discussed *our* values.  What are the values of the yard barker's owner, the power dog fanatic, and various other miscreants?  How do they justify doing what they are doing?

While I/we can't get completely into their heads (and probably would not want to if we could), we can listen to what they say, watch what they do, and induce a value system from that.  In other words, you can take someone's secondary values and "back them up" into a primary belief system.

The dog fanatic does not have any real system of ethics.  They do not think critically.  They have no objective sense of right and wrong.  They have a belief system based entirely on faith.  As I've said before, their "value" system resembles a primitive religion:   It is so, because Dog Almighty made it so!

I am going to refer to these "true believers" as The Initiate.

The primary value of The Initiate's belief system is this:

Dogs and dog owners are always the agents of good.   This is an axiom, not a general belief.  By that, I mean that it is always true, with no exceptions.  I.E. 2+2 always = 4, there is no discussion, digression, or exceptions.   It is important to consider that this pernicious "value" has infected the larger culture and is now a primary ethic of a large part of the population. 


Everything else flows to and from the primary "ethic" above.  It demands the following secondary values.  Note that the following are not true ethics, just a set of conceits based on the primary ethic indicated above.

All dog and dog owner behavior is self justifying.  If a dog does it, it is good.  If a dog owner says it, it is true.  Its just a dog being a dog, its what they do, etc...  When a dog owner is terrorizing the neighborhood, just go over and talk nicely to them - its a fact that they are great people - they must be, they own dogs!

The interests of dogs and owners take precedence in any and all situations.  As long as the dog and/or owner gets what they want, its good.  The rights, needs, and interests of others are of no consideration.  Ever.

Place no boundaries on dog or owner behavior.  The dog not only has the right to make noise, but to be heard.  Dog owners have an unconditional right to let their dog run free, and to take their dog anywhere they want.  Everything they do is just and good by definition.  You cannot improve upon perfection.

Always blame the victim.   Do not bother investigating any dog related "problem", simply because no such "problem" could possibly exist:   The "incident" is either made up or the victim/complainant deserved what happened to them.  To The Initiate, the Dog and Dog Owner can't do anything wrong, so it MUST be the victims fault. There is no one else TO blame.  Best case, it was just an accident.

Block any and all effective measures that might solve the problem.  Again, to The Initiate, the "problem" is the victim's complaints.  This is why "anti" barking laws place a ridiculous burden of proof on the complainant:  To them, our neighborhoods do NOT have a barking problem, or the barking is 100% justified.  Therefore, the complainants are always the problem, not the dogs or the owners.  Moreover, since it is a given that all dogs and dog owners are perfect, why would we need to place any boundaries on their behavior?   We can't improve on perfection!

Dogs and dog owners are at the top of the social and legal hierarchy.   This enumerates the right of dogs and owners to exert control over everyone around them.  Again, legal and social boundaries are for US not THEM.  See, this is why THEY get to decide when you get up in the morning.   Indeed, your front yard IS their dog's toilet.  They even get to make life and death decisions for you.  THEY get to make your life choices from now on, not you.  Essentially, they OWN you.  Why?  Again, go back to the First Principle - they are better than you, that is why! 

Force must never be exerted against dogs or owners for any reason.   The interests of dogs and owners is paramount, so they cannot under any circumstances be stopped from doing what they are doing.    No fines, no lawsuits, no impoundments, no arrests, no self help/defense.  Ever.  Again, you cannot improve upon perfection.  Is a given that the dog and the owner are in the right, so preventing them from doing anything would be completely wrong.   Moreover, due to their place at the top of the legal hierarchy, they have a 100% monopoly on the use of force. 

Anything done to promote the interests of dogs and/or owners is good.   Forget about any objective "Golden Rule".  Lying, cheating, even killing people is just fine when it promotes the stature of any dog or dog owner.  Remember, YOU are an egg that needs to be broken to make the Omelet of dogtopia!

Dogs make everything better.  Dogs must be everywhere, all the time.  They not only have an unconditional right to be in restaurants, computer factories, and construction sites, they MUST be running loose in those places.  It will improve the quality of life of everyone to be completely surrounded by dogs every minute of their life.  

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and some of these "values" overlap each other.

Note how these "values" conflict with the set of values outlined the other day.  The Initiate has no real ethics - they don't believe in Truth, Peace or honesty.  Their ethic is Canine Supremacy - If there is a dog involved, its all GOOD.

One thing a reader may want to do is, consider each of these "values" and do a bit of self-analysis - if you harbor any of these "ethics" you may want to re-structure your belief system a bit.

The challenge for the rest of us is to undermine the legitimacy of this primary value - convince people that MAYBE - just MAYBE - a dog or owner just MIGHT be in the wrong?   Not to bash all of them, or even most of them, but consider the possibility that its NOT always the victims fault?   Perhaps they should NOT be making life decisions for everyone else?

THINK ABOUT IT.

Values

I've been writing a lot about First Principles, or basic values, the past year or so.  With all of these ludicrous, damaging, degenerate events going on, its sometime tough to keep track of your basic values.  Its easy to get off on tangents, and criticize this or that, without being consciously aware of WHY I/we are criticizing it.

Everything I write and say comes from First Principles.  I do not pretend to be credentialed in any relevant area, nor do I necessarily have any deep insight into any of these issues.  What I write about is self evident based on First Principles.

What are my First Principles?  (not an exhaustive list).

- Truth / Honesty.
- Peace.
- Safety.
- Freedom. 
- Stability.
- The Golden Rule (treat people the way you would have them treat you).
- Legal / Social equity. 

The above are primary values.  Now, hating pit bulls (or even all dogs) would be more of a secondary value / principle.  Why hate them?  Well, its self evident that (in many cases) uncontrolled pit bulls are an active threat to basic values such as Peace, Safety, and Stability.  Furthermore, the antics of their owners are a threat to Truth and Freedom:  They lie like rugs and suppress everyone who does not buy into their DOGma.  The government does not recognize the right of victims and complainants to legal equity.  So, secondary values flow from primary values.  If our primary values were respected, there would be no need for the hate.

Snark, humor, even ad homenem can have a basis in first principles.  For example, when I refer to the Mickey foamers as degenerates, that is ad homenem.  However, it is also true - it is self evident that the Mickey foamers lack civilized values:  They are a supremacy cult that lies, cheats, and shows a complete disregard for the rights of others.  They are a bunch of revolting misanthropes.

One of my other favorite topics is excessive barking.   Here is an article by Your Quiet Neighbor about a successful lawsuit prosecuted against owners of 2 chronically barking dogs.

I detest chronic barking because it violates SO MANY basic principles:
- It is destructive of the PEACE.
- It prevents the surrounding community from using their private and public spaces as they see fit.
- The dog owners almost always lie about it.
- Authorities put the onus on the *complainant* to solve the problem, instead of where it belongs - ON THE DOG OWNER.

The plaintiffs in the case above finally prevailed, and yes... they deserve every penny of that $240,000.00 award.  And, YES, this case was not won by default... THE JURY FOUND IN THEIR FAVOR.  240K for a full DECADE of harassment and abuse almost seems a bit small.

Coming up next... our adversaries.  What do THEY value?

It gets betterer and betterer

Check it out... the Mickey Admins are falling asleep on the job!

(check out the last 2 messages at the bottom!)

Don't bother going to the "Watch Mickey Beat Cancer" page, they will surely have purged all anti-DOGma by then!

Pursuant to an ongoing theme on this blog - censorship is SUCH a monumental task, isn't it?  Think of those "poor" MICKEY admins that have to toil DAY AND NIGHT to delete ALL of those hateful anti-mickey messages! 

I've been trying to work up an essay on this massive struggle, but can't quite get my head around it.  What I'll say for now is this:

OUR side has no funding, no organization, and no leadership.  THEY have multimillionaires, major celebrities, and the President himself on their side.  And, you know what?   We manage to hold them off (much of the time).   THEY spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort to hold off a bunch of US unwashed rabble! 

THIS people, is TRUE GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM! KEEP IT UP.

As always:

HEEEES BAAAAAACK!

Thank DOG, our savior has RISEN!

Watch Mickey Beat Cancer is back online!!!  

Check it out!

My theories (because we will probably never know) are:

1)  Mickey admins took the page down intentionally so they could do a thorough cleaning of the anti-Mickey messages and anything that does not fit perfectly with the Utopian Dogocracy.  

2) They (the admins) deliberately took it down to manufacture drama among the initiate - a great way to stir up the Mickey and dog fanatic foamers:  "Dog haters took down our PAGE!  OH BOO HOO POOR US!".   

Yup, Schill and his ilk know how to play them like a violin.  I'm sure they will need additional funds to prevent such a "hacker attack" in the future.

Seen a Mickey lover recently?  

 

Service dog shenanigans

There have been a few side conversations on here regarding fake/legit service dogs, use of therapy dogs and the like.

To cut through the BS Here is the link to the US Department Of Justice Fact Sheet on the issue.

Read it.
Learn it.
Know it.

Excerpts from the Government website:

Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

From the above, note that:

- Service dogs are NOT pets.  They are animals trained to perform specific tasks for a human owner.  Legit service dog training typically takes MONTHS and can run into the tens of thousands of dollars.  This means that the pit bull you just picked up at the pound is NOT A SERVICE DOG, and probably never will be.

- "Emotional Therapy" and "comfort" dogs are NOT QUALIFIED SERVICE ANIMALS.  THIS MEANS THEY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE ADA!

Almost everyone, at this point, has experienced an obviously fake service dog at one point or another.  Malicious, entitled dog owners will abuse the process, abuse sympathy for the disabled, and abuse the general love of dogs so they can have Fido drag them everywhere dogs are not welcome.

The last sentence above is key:  WE are forced by LAW to associate with dogs!   If that is the case, then these dogs BETTER be legit!  How about if we were to do the same with heavy weapons permits?

They get away with this by exploiting loopholes in the law, and exploiting ignorance about the law itself.

Long term, loopholes need to be closed.  The biggest loophole in my opinion:  "Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task."

Consider what I highlighted above.  Now, you may not ask the dog owner "what is your disability" or the like because that violates their right of privacy.  However, by not requiring ID on the dog, that means the dog owner can buy a $30 vest on Ebay, slap it on the dog and take it to the local steak joint.  No problemo!   Consider this article.      Or, simply Google "service dog fraud":  It is nearly ubiquitous nowadays!

This loophole needs to close.  Each service dog should be licensed by the Federal Government.  This document should be a hard-card ID (similar to a driver's license) with a photo of the dog, a photo of the owner, with a serial number that matches a chip in the dog.  The license does NOT need to indicate the specific task training, nor the disability of the human handler - thus medical privacy is maintained.   Penalties should be steep for presenting fake ID's.   All online sales of service dog ID's, vests and the like should be shut down (HT - Eileen).  Prescriptions for service dogs must be made IN PERSON, not online or over the phone, and there should be penalties for doctors that hand out frivolous service dog prescriptions (again, HT Eileen).  Hell, they have high standards for narcotics prescriptions, why not service dog prescriptions?

Libertarian type objections will not float here.  Again, the government is FORCING US BY LAW TO ASSOCIATE WITH CERTAIN DOGS.  Whether we like it or not!  Allergic?  Terrified?  TOO BAD!  UNCLE SAM SAYS YOU MUST HAVE THIS DOG IN YOUR ESTABLISHMENT!   The rest of us then should be able to demand the dog is performing a legit function.  In a libertarian universe, there would be NO ADA.  So, either get used to some restrictions, dog owners, or give up your protections.  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Again, like everything else in the doggy universe there are no standards, and malicious dog owners exploit every loophole to the extreme.

FOR NOW, here are a few things that may protect you.  You ARE allowed to inquire the following:  Staff may ask two questions: 

(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and 
(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. 

Of course, if the owner is a good BS artist, I'm sure they may have the above down pat.

Some other tidbits that may protect you:

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: 
(1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or 
(2) the dog is not housebroken. 

So, if the dog berzerks or pees in the aisle.... BUH BYE FIDO!

Also:

If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.

Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

For now, the law protects dog owner bad behavior (nothing unusual about that).  That said, learn the law and make sure they do not step one inch over the line!

There has been a lot of buzz about implementing BSL in the service doggy universe.  This is a great idea, but I want to bump it up a notch... instead of blacklisting attack dogs and the like, there should be a "white list" of breeds found to be good service animals.  If the dog breed in question is NOT on the white list, it may NOT be a service animal.  Period.

For now, Job #1 should be a proofing/ID system.  I guarantee most (99+%) of Pit Bull service dogs are fake.  Simply eliminating the fakes should take care of the phony attack dog service issue.

Probably the worst thing about the epidemic of service dog fraud is the fact that it discredits and disparages legitimate service dogs and their owners.  Folks who are legitimately disabled and depend on their properly trained dogs to function would benefit from this new regime. 

VERIFICATION NOW.

Things that make me go HMMMMM....

No deep, pithy post today.  Out hiking with limited capabilities.

It came to my attention today that the "Save Mickey"/"Watch Mickey Beat Cancer" facebook page is DOWN and has been so ALL DAY.

Check it out.

Who knows, maybe it will be back by the time I actually post this.

Note that the Mickey Cam appears functional.  His legion of fans can still view the beast.   Meh: This may be playback from two weeks ago for all we know.   Honesty and ethics are WAY beyond the reach of the Save Micky folks.

First, I recommend bunkering down with canned goods and shotguns.... the horde of Mickey fans will likely berserk without their Mickey "fix"!!!

So, what are the WHAT, WHO, and WHYs of this sudden change?  Did the evil haters finally prevail over our favorite dog saviour?  Did Mickey kill one of his inmate handlers?  Were the Save Mickey admins tired of deleting the avalanche of "anti-Mickey" messages?   Did Zuckerberg himself delete the page in a spasm of complete disgust?  Are the funds to sustain Mickey (and his inner-party handlers) near exhaustion?

OHHHH NOOOO!   Did Schill and the rest of Mickey's sycophants finally realize that they worship a FALSE DOG?   Perhaps dogs that kill other dogs and rip the faces off little kids (that are needed to be the next generation of dog fanatics) really SHOULD be put down?   Nah, they are not smart enough for that.

In any case, the Mickey gravy train was not sustainable.  Did these idiots intend to keep up this nonsense for another 5-7 years?   Are they going to keep fighting for Mickey for that long?  The resources (time, money, labor, political capital) required to keep this clown act going were/are going to run out sooner or later. 

If this isn't the end of the Mickster, the end is coming.  Soon.  Watch for it.

Nanny Dogs, Part Deux

So, any of you complete your reading assignment, yet?   HUSTLE UP, that book is not going to read itself!

I just started reading "Red Zone" by A. Jones last night.  Relates to the Diane Whipple case.  What kind of a world do we live in where someone can be literally EATEN by vicious animals on the 6th floor of an upscale apartment building?!?!  That is not a hazard a city should pose.

Anyways, the Nanny Dog myth is an interesting one.  The lies/excuses/myths that dog fanatics invent to promote their "interests" are usually impossibly stupid, and only make sense to other cult members.

Impossibly stupid?  Really?  How did the ridiculous notion of a "Nanny Dog" catch on in the first place?   How about auto mechanic dog, or airline pilot dog?   Lawyer dog?   Tax accountant dog?

Sure, some dogs have been inbred to perform certain tasks.  Retrieving is a good example:  Pick something up and bring it to me.  Perhaps they will learn algebra next?

While not rocket science, "Nanny-ing" is a job encompassing several complex tasks that may only be performed by human beings.

Nanny tasks may include, but are not limited to:
- Preparing meals for self and children and cleaning up after.  (licking plates clean does not count).
- Changing diapers.  (eating poop out of the diaper does not count, either, sorry).
- Driving children to and from school, sporting events and other activities.  (chasing cars does not count).
- Assisting children with homework assignments.  (Peeing on the homework is NOT generally considered to be a useful assist, sorry).
- Doing laundry.  (no snark here, sorry).
- Calling relevant authorities in the case of emergency:  I.E. 911.  (sorry, mindlessly barking all day does not count).
- Etc...

Dog lovers have anthropomorphized the object of their love to the point that they believe dogs are capable of anything a human can do.  Eileen noted that search and rescue dogs, police dogs and the like are really just tools used by humans to do a job:  This is a correct analysis, of course, but to the True Believer, those dogs are full fledged Cops, Firefighters and Soldiers! 

So, with that under consideration, the Nanny Dog proposal is certainly plausible to the initiate.  If a dog can be a cop, why not a Nanny?

Of course, the dog lover will shout "My Fido is safe around kids!!!!".  (This is without even raising the danger the scenario may pose - they are revealing their insecurity and self-doubt).   In my utter magnanimity, lets give him the benefit of the doubt on that - the dog is harmless.  Well, genius, so is my oriental rug.  I would never claim my rug is a "Nanny Rug" as it just sits there - it cannot perform any Nanny-esque duties.

Now, the fact that an unstable beast such as the Pit Bull was arbitrarily chosen to be the "Nanny Dog" moves the notion from sheer stupidity to full retardation. 

Again, pit nuttery = dog love gone full retard.

Nanny Dogs, Part 1.

New book out:   Misunderstood Nanny Dogs?: A Critical and Objective Analysis of the Facts & Myths Concerning Pit Bulls.

Note the link above goes to Amazon.com.


I have not read the book, so I cannot critique it in any way.  I plan to read it at some point, but have many other books ahead of it in my reading "Queue".   I encourage others to do so, and if you do, feel free to post a review on here at any time, even if OT.

Somehow, I feel this book is going to leave us a dollar short.  I'm not perfectly aligned with the Anti-Pit / Pro-BSL movement.  Sure, I don't want the beasts around:  Who would, other than a raging dog fanatic?  Yes, they were bred to fight dogs and other animals;  Yes, they are the #1 killer of people and other animals;  Yes, they have a rabid, destructive, foaming-at-the-mouth fan base that would embarrass ISIS.   Yada, Yada, Yada, I've heard it a million times before and so has everyone else.  Is there anything new to add?  

Hopefully, the author of the book will apply some critical thinking to the issue and not simply drown the reader in statistics and gory anecdotes (not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with those things).   If I want statistics, I'll go to the Congressional Budget Office website.  If I want gore, I'll re-watch the last couple of seasons of "The Walking Dead" (which has the added bonus of good gun p0rn).

What is interesting to me is, how did this predicament occur?  What is the root cause?  Who and/or what is promoting it?   What makes people act this way?  

What makes people act this way?!?   Isn't this about DOGS?  No:  If no one wanted a pit bull, or any dog even, the problem simply would not exist.   Consider that any BSL arrangement is aimed at potential dog OWNERS.  Dogs cannot read statutes.  BSL is PEOPLE CONTROL.

In my opinion the Pit Bull "problem" is not a problem.  It is a symptom.  It is an outgrowth of the larger dog culture.  To cure the symptom, you have to address the underlying problem. 

The problem is the dog culture itself.

Now, many dog lovers will deny this:  They assert that the pit bull issue was spawned in a vacuum, and that Socially Mandated Dog Love has nothing to do with it.   The fact that everyone is supposed to sing Fido's praises or shut up did not contribute to the growth of the problem.  Squashing of effective animal control by dog lovers is not related in any way.  The numerous, extreme, legal double standards applied to dogs and their owners had no effect, whatsoever.  The fact that society demands that victims of barking, biting, and other social problems related to dogs are always at fault has nothing to do with it.  The ever increasing burdens placed on complainants is not relevant in any way at all.  Nope, the rest of the doggy universe remains perfect and innocent.  

The Pit Bull "problem" is simply doggy love gone full retard.