In today's pages: Republican budget-blockers, preening pedophiles, conservatives for Clinton
The editorial board wonders what to do with the innocent but publicity-seeking pedophile Jack McClellan:
[I]n an age when we are inundated with revelations of child sexual abuse, McClellan, a self-described pedophile, has generated a new category of creep. Trumpeting his sexual interest in little girls on television and the Internet, selecting no individual victim but extending his potential interest to all, McClellan has successfully revolted much of California.
He cannot be allowed to succeed in this act of emotional terrorism. And he will if we contort the laws and statutes created for 36 million residents in order to address one man's twisted publicity spree.
The board is glad Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf didn't declare a state of emergency. The board asks Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to start acting like the state's top Republican and get his party to back a budget.
Columnist Joel Stein realizes that he doesn't hate dogs -- he actually hates dog owners. Former Ronald Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett says Hillary Clinton may be a good choice for GOP members unimpressed by their party's candidates. Gov. Schwarzenegger's Cabinet secretary Dan Dunmoyer wonders why state Republicans would block a budget that undeniably bears the mark of their party. Columnist Rosa Brooks thinks cuts in newspapers' foreign bureaus will leave the world worse off.
Letter writers respond to the Bible being taught in public schools. Seal Beach's Tom Pontac says, "While we're at it, how about teaching -- as literature, of course -- the Koran, the Upanishads, the Torah and the teachings of Buddha to give our students a more complete grasp of this genre of literature?"
"What I've come to realize is that what I really hate is you, the dog owner. Because you're the one who honestly believes that your dog is sentient and that he loves you."
Dogs are sentient.
Maybe he meant to use another word? Maybe he meant "conscious" or "self-aware"--even then I'd take issue.
I suspect the belief that there's an enormous gulf between what we and our animal cousins experience of the world is a relic of creationism. If adaptations like loyalty and morality are found nowhere else in the natural world, assuming there is no creator God, how should we account for their origins?
I suggest that Stein take a look at this piece...
"If Darwinian theory is sound, morality in humans results at least in some part from evolutionary processes, and when they act as moral beings humans are displaying capacities they have in common with some other animals. Rather than suppressing their instincts, they are behaving naturally."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20171
(Subscription Required)
P.S. My big problem with Kobe is the way he played with Shaq in the final that year. Refusing to throw to Shaq, wide open under the basket, in the finals? That's like Joe Montana refusing to pass "the catch" to Dwight Clark! That's like Franco Harris refusing to make the "immaculate reception"! ...all because Kobe's ego wouldn't let him make a play with a teammate he didn't like?!
I can't root for a team whose star player doesn't care enough about me as a fan to get over his ego enough to pass the ball in the championship.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | August 10, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Per usual, Joel Stein pops a splashy headline, then proves he MISSED THE POINT of the story.
The problem isn't that people's reaction to Michael Vick's "alleged" involvement in dogfighting was/is excessive. It isn't. I'm not even a pet owner (much less one of those PETA approved 'pet-guardians') and I'm welll beyond outraged by the acts contained in the allegations.
No person with a conscience should be LESS than outraged at the brutalization of dumb animals who are incapable of calling the police and filing a complaint themselves, due to their lack of vocal cords and thumbs to sign the complaint with. I'm quite sure that 99.9% of the strippers, wives and other victims of assaults by athletes Stein mentions were and are quite capable of dialing 911 or a lawyers' office. I'm also quite sure that the proportion of dogs who are able to make that call is pretty much nil. Having the ability to make that call for help is a very large factor in both the level and the sustainability of people's outrage in this particular case.
HOWEVER: The actual problem that Stein once again has utterly missed in his typical overly glib and facile attempt to get public attention is that PEOPLE LET ATHLETES (and to a certain extent other celebrities) OFF THE HOOK AS A RULE when they can't manage to behave according to the rules society has established.
THAT'S where the problem is. Not with dog owners, but with HUMAN BEINGS who consistently overlook the disgusting, evil, unforgivable behavior of other allegedly human beings against other living beings--be they animals or other humans.
(And just to be clear: I haven't spent a single dime on anything--or accepted a gift of anything--even remotely connected to the Lakers since Mr. Bryant was accused, nor will I as long as the Busses own the team or any member of the current organization is involved with it--nor will I ever support any organization that involves themselves with Mr. Bryant. The fact that there were absolutely no consequences to behavior that was at best anti-social proved that the Laker organization is only interested it's bank accounts, and not at all in the example being set for public consumption. It was a disgusting abdication of the Laker organization's responsiblity to the community at large. At least the Falcons and the NFL are evincing some level of public disgust at Vick's "alleged" behavior.)
People whose emotional stability is wrapped up in their pets ARE in a very bad way emotionally, that's undeniably true. Pets are a wonderful part of life, when they're only a part of a person's healthy emotional landscape, and when viewed from a reasonable perspective. Pets, however beloved they are, don't have human emotions, don't have human intelligence, and don't have human value. But that's another issue, and ENTIRELY separate from the allegations of deliberate, entertainment-valued cruelty and torture that's inspired the outrage Stein thinks is so misplaced and misdirected.
Perhaps it's Stein's brain that's been misplaced--or maybe it's just his morals. In either case, inappropriate reliance on pets for your emotional life is an entirely different question than whether Michael Vick is being unfairly railroaded for torturing animals, and the juxtaposition of the two in one column does a huge disservice to BOTH questions, even from Stein's self-satisfied and unfunny POV.
Posted by: Sheryl | August 10, 2007 at 01:16 PM