The puppy mill bill, HSB604, passed the House Public Safety committee last week here in our great state of Iowa. 
Unfortunately, it is another completely partisan bill. Every “yes” a Democrat, every “no” a Republican.
Warning – this blog post is bi-partisan, so if you’re one of my liberal friends hoping I’m going to bash conservatives – sorry. And if you’re one of my conservative friends waiting for a good fight – no dice.
I’m writing because I’m just sick of politics in the US as it stands today and this bill is a perfect example of what just makes me want to hurl.
Here is the basic focus of the bill (which by the way WAS supported by Representative Curt Hanson) “We need and deserve better oversight of the USDA-licensed breeders in our state. This law will not mandate additional inspections. It will only make it possible for the IA Dept of Ag to inspect upon receipt of a complaint. The breeders’ fee increases will offset any additional costs to implement this.”
Did all the Republicans who voted “no” really want to send the message to their constituents that they are not in favor of protecting puppies? Of course not. What they did is put politics before the people, well in this case the animals, and that’s not going to get this country anywhere but worse off than it is now.
I can’t help but think that the two-party system is coming to an end. Not because it isn’t good in theory, but because what it is turning into is a battleground of rhetoric and wills. One that has little to do with what is best for the country, and EVERYTHING to do with what is best for one of the parties. Sickening… Maddening…
This post is not meant to be a rant, rather, a question to us and our government. What are we going to do to get our country get back on track? How are we going to work TOGETHER, to do what the PEOPLE want and expect, and NOT just what is going to look good to the rest of the party or some talk show host?
Help me out here, anybody. Am I nuts or are what seem to be a majority of our representatives more interested in their jobs and keeping their party in power than in what is best for these United States?
Indeed, I may be seen as generalizing, but when I see votes like this, it is really, really hard to imagine that there is something so dreadfully wrong with saving puppies that it would incite every Republican to vote no.
Well, unless what I don’t know is that the people whom these folks represent actually prefer to torture puppies…
Sorry Mark, you're nuts… You actually expected politicians to use common sense… And it isn't really torture if you a) don't see it b) can't do anything about it c) isn't as important as other more important things (like NASCAR or American Idol) d) means you'd actually have to think about it e) would have to think for yourself rather than following party lines f) Blah g) Blah h) Blah
But don't worry, you're not the only one – I'm nuts too, and so are a lot of my friends on Twitter…
Maybe we should hold the next election on social networking sites….?
Best regards
I'm also aggravated at the state of our politics. But this isn't new. From America's founding we were divided on fundamental issues (thus, slavery was legal in our original Constitution). The only time America has been completely united on large issues is when we're attacked from without: post-Pearl Harbor 1941, post-9/11/2001.
The solution has to come from outside of politics. As long as the people vote (and revote) for smarmy self-righteous self-promoting selfish sleezebags we will get politicians who are smarmy self-righteous self-promoting selfish sleezebags.
The question then is: how do you improve the people who vote?
The answer is traditionally: education. But two centuries of improved education and literacy hasn't (obviously) solved the problem.
Personally, I think the Maharishi was right. For decades he taught that you can't fight darkness on the level of the darkness; instead you need to introduce light and the darkness is dispelled.
Wow, an interesting perspective for sure.
Honestly, as much as I love many of the ideals of the sixties – not to suggest that is what Maharishi was about – I'm not into the Laissez-faire idea. Government does have a major role to play in society.
What the public has to do is to become educated, get involved, and influence government to work for the common good. Way easier said than done, I know.
On topic? Off topic? I'm not sure if the topic is puppies or government. Same thing?
In my heart I'm a knee-jerk liberal, somewhere to the left of Dennis Kucinich. I think government does have a big role to play, but it's playing it all wrong. Government needs to be an honest broker — or maybe a referee — preserving freedom and rights.
Will asked, "I think where we would be in terms of the civil rights movement, with Laisse-Faire?" The laissez-faire I'm looking for would have had the government come out with guns a-blazin', taking down Jim Crow laws that restricted the rights of (non-)consenting adults, taking down segregation that restricted the rights of people to attend the schools they deserved and needed, ended war against countries because the adults in those countries didn't consent to American hegemony.
Laissez-faire doesn't mean — to me, anyway — that we allow the biggest bully to run roughshod over the weak. It's an active way to manage the space between people, saying, "You WILL respect the freedom of your neighbors, or else." I know this sounds absurd to some. But it takes the concept of "good fences make good neighbors" — originally meant to be ironic — and makes it into good policy.
But where does that leave the puppies? Basically without rights of their own, not being human and all. But that doesn't mean good-hearted people couldn't create shelters for the abused animals. They could advertise the option of acquiring animals from cruelty-free farms. Educate the public. But just watch out for the slippery slope of using coercion to enforce adherence to one moral point of view. There be dragons there.
Well put point. I never thought of it like that.
Where does "good fences make good neighbors" come from?
I was re-reading my comments and I see now that "Laissez Faire" isn't the proper term for what I mean. Laissez Faire is usually used in reference to economics, the policy of government not interfering with business interests.
I don't know what to call what I've described — enforced liberty? libertarianism? frost-wall-ism?
Indeed, we do need light. I honestly believe our President is that light. It seems he has been sucked into the deepend however, as even members of his own party are acting in a very partisan manner. They are running scared, not strong. And the other side "just says no."
Meanwhile, people continue to lose jobs, soldiers are dying in the name of "the war on terror", and, well, you know the rest.
Of course it is all about our votes, but so few people actually take advantage of this earned right and when they do, I agree, many are not truly educated. But how can they be with all of the bs ads and rhetoric they encounter?
Well, IMHO, the "in the darkness" approach is with countering bs ads and rhetoric. That seems to lead us exactly where we are. No wonder so many people ignore politics or are "undecided".
Not to preach, but Maharishi's message was "transcend to turn on the lights… for you and for others, too." That's what MUM and MSAE's "consciousness based education" is all about: creating truly educated people. I think it works, but it's not always obvious by looking from the outside. [End of preach]
In the end I think we need a form of government that is laissez-faire, allowing you & me to do whatever our conscience directs us to AS LONG as it only involves/affects consenting adults.
So what does this have to do with puppy mills? Everything. I don't think puppies are consenting adults, so I can't believe the breeders should be allowed to cage and raise them inhumanely. On the other hand, puppies aren't people so I can't believe they should have the same rights as, say, human children.
What to do?
It sickens me, but I think the breeders should be allowed to continue without government interference. Let me repeat: it sickens me. But if I want a laissez-faire society that allows ME to have the right to live as my conscience directs me then I need to allow the sickening breeders their rights too. That's the price of freedom.
In the meantime, "Ommmmmm….." — and hope and expect my good vibes will raise the conscience — and consciousness — of the breeders so they voluntarily put an end to their sickening behavior.
"In the end I think we need a form of government that is laissez-faire, allowing you & me to do whatever our conscience directs us to AS LONG as it only involves/affects consenting adults."
I find myself in an odd place lately where I am outside both conservative and progressive opinion, in believing that government has a strong role in modern society.
I think where we would be in terms of the civil rights movement, with Laisse-Faire?
In terms of the role of government, I think we should be less focused on regulation, and more focused on the military industrial complex, big agriculture, Wall Street, and other forces that are essentially managing government resources (your taxes dollars) to their agendas.
Off topic I know
The saying is most popularly quoted from a Robert Frost poem, Mending Wall, but the saying apparently predates Frost.
Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mending_Wall
…the poem here: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15719
…commentary here: http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/fr...