Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘OT’ Category

Never a perfect match.

I was getting a bit tired of writing, and wanted to find more good blogs to read.

My two favorite dog blogs are terriermandotcom.blogspot and retrieverman.wordpress.

I wanted to find more blogs like those. I tried googling words that I thought people might use who wrote like I like. Needle in a haystack hunt.

So I decided to look up the names of these two blogs and try to find blogs that mentioned them (I mention them and I was NOT listed upon googling them).

I found one that mentioned terrierman. I went to her blog. She not only wrote about things I believe in, she used the same expressions that I do. I kind of thought that I might have found another doppelganger.

But although she mentions terrierman, it is to blast his blog and him.

I thought: Is it possible to like to bloggers, but they don’t like each other at all? She says terrierman kicked her off of his blog.

Personally, I only want readers who agree with my point of view, the rest of the batch can read, but I don’t try to please everyone. To rant about someone or their ideas on their blog, might be a form of trolling.

It’s not just what you say, it is where you say it. For example: If I post Baptist ideas on a Baptist site, that is good. But if I go over to Catholic or Jewish sites, and try to post Baptist ideas there, that’s trolling. Same thing in reverse, Catholics and Jewish people ought not go to Baptist sites and try to post their ideas there.

I write this blog. Trying to post comments that disagree, is like trying to post “You should celebrate Christmas!” on a non Christian site, or going to a Baptist site and criticising baptism. It’s just spoiling for a verbal train wreak.

(Both of those ideas can be discussed, but not where they are not welcome.)

I decided that Id’ of kicked off people trying to post a rant against me, or my ideas, on my site too.

But I was intrigued by the idea of person who agrees with me on so many points. I kind of mulled this new blog around a bit. We disagreed on pit bulls, but she has never had a pit bull.

She mentions the dogs she has had, and none of them are pitbulls. She raises purebreds. She sells purebred puppies. They are not pit bulls. What does she know of pit bulls? She mentions no experience, quotes no sources – at least not on the posts that I read in her archive.

From what I read, her beef is that the local pound can’t find homes for all the pit bulls. That, in my opinion, doesn’t mean that those dogs aren’t being produce in too high of numbers. So I don’t understand what point she was trying to make.

She said terrierman has never bred a litter, and she has bred lots of them. But she failed to state (at least right there on that post, along side her complaint) what he might of said, that he might of said differently, had he been a dog breeder.

I have been a dog breeder. And a cat breeder. And I have bred other animal too. I have hung out at dog shows and I talk to dog show people and dog show breeders.

Yet, I don’t find any weakness in terrierman’s posts – he doesn’t post about what to do to start up a newborn pup that isn’t breathing, or how to help a mother dog who isn’t into being a mommy.

There are things that you learn from experience. There are other things you learn by looking at what is there in plain site – without rose-colored glasses.

A person’s experience means little to other readers, if they are not honest about it. And many of the real problems in dog breeding, can be seen at shows by people who do not breed dogs.

It seems that the problems are mostly from the people who are too close to the problem to see it, or who have motive to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist.

You don’t have to be a drunk to recognise that your vodka swilling boss is an alcoholic.

There are problems with pit bulls. For whatever reason, their bite stats are very very high. And their percentages of euthanasia (nobody wants them) is very very high.

Read Full Post »

OT: The source of the problem.

Terrierman is right on the money again today! But don’t quote him in front of your teachers, teachers don’t like it when you outsmart them, and such things tend to rile up those who chant what they believe, instead of thinking about the problem.

Back when I was in high school, several of the teachers liked to talk about social problems, and I generally liked that – not the “this is how it should be, propaganda type”, but the “there is a problem with ___”.

One day, it suddenly dawned on me that all of these problems had the very same source. We didn’t need to think up hundreds of different solutions to hundreds of different problems, because there was one root source to all of these problems.

I assumed this was really going to lead to a good class discussion (not a good assumption on my part).

Thousands of towns with sewage disposal problems? Hundreds of places where sewage is seeping into the ground water? Growing special monoculture crops with intensive farming methods to try to feed an ever growing population?

Pesticides because crops are too needed to tolerate nature taking her cut? Beef being fed up in cramped feedlots? Traffic? No place for more freeways? Gasoline shortages? Housing shortages? etc.

The problem wasn’t the lack of resources but the booming rate of population growth.

The teacher looked at me like I had said that I’d seen a herd of pink elephants.

I knew I was right, so why was the teacher so displeased? He didn’t even let me finish explaining.

I had opened up a taboo topic, that he was skirting about. So easy to talk over the head of teenager who have never heard the truth.

The kids who had understood what he was talking about were the ones whose churches gave lectures about “Why there is NOT overpopulation'”and “Why overpopulation is impossible”.

Friends, quoting from their church, explained [paraphrasing]: “When the population gets too high, the extra starve to death, and aren’t a problem anymore. Since overpopulation is more people than we can feed, there is never too many, because if there were too many, the extra would be dead”.

The whole point is to keep birth numbers low enough that people aren’t starving to death.

And it is easily possible to have a deadly number of people, yet be able to feed them all. (polution kills).

You can probably afford to feed 50 cats (if you feed them cheap food?) but that wouldn’t make having 50 cats in your house comfortable would it?

Apologies to those readers with 75 cats in their house. Please don’t hiss at me.

Why is the truth taboo? The truth is that our nation has finite resources, and so do other countries.

Our population has passed the point when we can do best on a growth model of economics. We need to have a steady-state system. A matured system. A system not built around the concept of growth.

We need to deal with the plain hard truth that if other countries have raging population growth, they will want the agricultural lands of their neighbors, like Hitler drooling over French farmlands.

We work to help our neighbors with family planning or we end up in war. We help our country with family planning or we deal with poverty on our doorsteps.

Read Full Post »