September 22, 2005

Sure it's a Category 5, but my dog needs me ...

More legislation designed to protect silly people.
Federal disaster grants to state and local governments should be conditioned on how they accommodate pets in their evacuation plans, say lawmakers disturbed that some Hurricane Katrina victims refused to leave home because they couldn't take their animals with them.

"I cannot help but wonder how many more people could have been saved had they been able to take their pets," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-California, said Thursday.
How about how many more people would have saved themselves had they not been so stupid as to stay for a dog or cat.

As to why we need this legislation ... from the Humane Society of the United States:
"We cannot rely on individual acts of compassion," Markarian said.
As for the American Humane Association:
While the legislation may draw attention to the issue, it doesn't "have any real meat in it," said Sara Spaulding.
On that she might be right, we're gonna need a lot more meat, (and pork,) dogs love meat.


At September 22, 2005 2:51 PM, Blogger thatedeguy said...

Do you have pets? By that I mean, do you have pets that you haven't twirled by their tails or burned their fur off?
I think that I speak for most pet owners when I say that your commentary on this bill is completly without merit.

"stupid enough to stay for a" pet. It's an extremely difficult choice if you've ever been put in it. A lot harder than it seems.

At September 22, 2005 3:41 PM, Blogger Justin Jenkins said...

I’ve had pets, and I don’t see how my comments equaled pet cruelty. You somehow assume because I think it’s stupid to stay in the path of certain destruction because the government didn’t think of a way to save your cat --- that I’m someone that likes to torture pets? That is without merit my friend. How about actually responding to my point?

And I stand by my comments, that if you can’t figure out how to handle your pet situation, and you don’t leave because you can’t figure it out --- then that is stupid. Perhaps I could have said foolish instead. There are a lot of emotions and things you might need to leave behind if it’s a life and death situation. How emotionally hard it is --- doesn’t out way the simple fact that its your life.

It was reasoned by the outliners of this bill that more people died because the government didn’t think of a way to handle their pets --- but in the end it’s not the government’s fault, it was their choice. It’s not the government’s job.

I’m assuming you must have been in this situation from the way you worded this: “It's an extremely difficult choice if you've ever been put in it. A lot harder than it seems.”

If so, did you take your pet? Did you leave your pet? Did you figure out how to take your pet on your own? Where does it stop? Do we save dogs but not cats, cats but not birds, birds but not fish, fish but not gerbils, gerbils but not hermit crabs? All of these pets have emotional connections to someone …

Have you thought about how your pet is your responsibility --- not the federal governments? Do you want someone from the government to come walk and play with your dog too while you’re at work? I know it’s pretty hard to leave your dog alone while at work, it’s a difficult choice, a lot harder then it seems.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home