Actually, that isn't true. There is a lot of laxity because the ADA (rightfully, in my opinion) errs on the side of protecting people's privacy. If, for example, my psychiatrist tells me that getting a dog will help keep me engaged to fight my clinical depression, I can go to the shelter and get a dog. No special training would ever be required of the dog. Restaurants and libraries and other public places would be violating my rights to ask me what my disability is. In some places, a person must register with animal control and get special tags, but there's no special screening.
I grew up right outside of NYC and live in San Francisco, so I'm a cab regular. I have never had a weirder experience with cabs than a recent one in DC. I attended a conference at the George Washington University School of Law. When the conference ended, on a Sunday afternoon, dozens of us tried to get cabs to one of the two airports or the train station.
Cab drivers would refuse to go to one airport of the other and pass people up. Others would go only to an airport not to the train station. Some refused to take more than one rider. None of the 4 companies we tried would respond to a general request to send more cabs, and that dozens of people at this spot might be looking for cabs, whether around town or to get out of town. I had to call 3 companies to get one that would even agree to go to the train station; I reserved a cab, and it never came.
I almost missed my train. Fortunately it was delayed. I would never, ever have imagined that hailing a cab in a major city would be that difficult!
My hackles go up when I hear pseudo-scientific arguments. If you believe it is a moral imperative not to eat meat, Come Out With It! That is a perfectly respectful, admirable position even if (gasp!) human bodies were designed to be FLEXIBLE! Many, if not most, people can survive without animal products AND members of our species can live to be 100 as meat eaters.
"You'll grow hair on your palms," is an irritating lie. "Smoke pot and next thing ya know, you'll be selling your body for heroin," is an irritating lie. "Human beings MUST eat meat," is an irritating like. And "humans are herbivores," is an irritating lie.
Hmm...from what I understand, people with higher IQs and educations are more likely to be openly adopt unconventional lifestyles of all kinds because a) they get exposed to them by reading or education and b) that same education often affords them more freedom of lifestyle. I think this is old news and says little about the "intelligence" of the choice itself.
The disappearance of black cats around Halloween time is a MYTH. There is no evidence that this is the case. The story got popular, I believe, around the time when there was a lot of media coverage about "Satanic cults molesting children". This also turned out to be sensationalized, with the vast majority of these cases being plain, old child abuse sans Satan. The myth, perpetrated by shelters and animal lovers, sadly CONTRIBUTES to the problem of these cats not being adopted.
I adopted a black cat from a rescue in late October. I had just lost a black cat, so I was specifically seeking another one. The rescue held onto her for a week, didn't let me take her home until November 1st! Some people would just have gotten another cat, with the result being another unadopted black cat added to the stat.
Some shelters (including one I worked for) had a policy of not placing animals for adoption at more than X miles distance. I think that policy is outdated and misguided.
I disagree with this: "My problem with Oreo's law is not that someone wanted to help her, it is shelters being forced to turn dogs over. The shelter that took her in has vast resources for dealing with behavior and training. To be literal, the dog was owned by them. If the ASPCA was not comfortable releasing her, then that should be accepted by the rest of us, even if we do not like the end result. "
It gives far too much power to the ASPCA. Nothing against the ASPCA, but I don't think any organization should get that kind of total discretion. Even the best-intentioned organizations are pulled by conflicts of interest. We need checks and balances.
Whence comes the authority of the ASPCA? One of the troubling aspects of this issue isn't about dogs at all. (Don't get me wrong, I care deeply about dogs.)
The ASPCA is a private organization. It has lots of experience dealing with animals. It is NOT the be-all, end-all expert on animals nor - and this is important - the be-all, end-all judge of other people's expertise on animals.
It is dangerous to allow a particular organization to claim absolute decision-making authority based on reputation, and then to expect everyone from lawmakers to private citizens to roll over when it commands.
I'm guessing the vast majority of people with 60-mile commutes are "choosing" this reluctantly because they can't afford to live near their jobs or can't get a job where the home they own already is.
I am also tired of the conversation immediately moving to people wanting to make a "fortune." Count me as another person who left the nonprofit sector because I simply could not make enough money to secure my future. I also tired of the hypocrisy in organizations' seeking "people of color" and "people from working class backgrounds", when the people they supposedly seek don't have the luxury of working at places that don't pay a salary equivalent to living expenses plus student loans plus retirement if an inheritance is not in the offing (and maybe plus the care of parents who do not have money. And "being supported by the husband who works at Google" is not an answer to this issue!
|
1 Action
|