Moral Majority vs Vocal Minority

Pets on a Plane

2010-03-01T16:29:00.000-08:00

I read an article online the other day which has really annoyed me. The issue at hand was pets on planes. Specifically people with pet allergies complaining about pets being in plane cabins. Airlines, PC to the end, are, of course, capitulating to their demands and are now starting to ban animals (except for service animals – for now) in cabins on planes. The peanut gallery has chimed in, defending the allergy sufferers, by bringing up the intolerable conditions that having animals in plane cabins subjects them to. Among these conditions are: noise, smell, fleas, ticks, rabies et al and the “fact” that an animal’s owner would grab the carrier from under the seat during an emergency evacuation thus risking human (read: more important) lives.

I fell for the allergy sufferers I really do but seriously folks put on your big girl panties and deal with your condition. It is your problem that you have allergies. You must deal with it. You do not have the right to force other people to suffer and bow down to you because you have a faulty immune system.

A little anecdote to put things in perspective for you. I was diagnosed as an insulin dependent diabetic at the age of 3 in 1984. The proscribed treatment for diabetes at that time (especially for a child) was a strict regimented diet: eat X amount of food at Y time and strictly timed insulin shots. When I was in school they would occasionally have rallies, sports days, fun days et al where food was served. I could not partake of this food as it was not part of my regime. Did my mother call the school and have them ban rallies, sports days et al? No. She told me to suck it up and that my diabetes was my cross to bear and not to ruin everyone else’s good time.

If you have allergies to dogs and or cats it is your responsibility to keep anti histamines on you and/or an EPI pen (depending on the severity of your allergy). Even if they do enact the draconian measure of eliminating pets from planes (pets who, by the by, pet owners have to pay for) there is no guarantee that you won’t be sitting next to a pet owner who is covered in pet hair/dander from having a last minute cuddle before leaving home that morning.

“But it’s not fair” cry the vocal minority. “Why should allergy sufferers, who, after all, did nothing to deserve their allergies, have to take a nasty old anti-histamine that will make them tired and render them unable to operate a motor vehicle when they reach their destination?!?!?!?!?!”

Um, because it’s THEIR problem. Besides folks, it’s the 21^st century. They have non drowsy anti histamines these days.

Another reason cited by opponents of pets on planes is the smell that pets emit.

To these mental giants I can only say: “have you ever had the misfortune to sit beside someone who felt it was necessary to marinade them self in perfume or cologne before boarding the flight? How about someone who last bathed during the Trudeau administration? How about someone who just wolfed down a sandwich laced with onions and copious amounts of garlic (who feels it is an insult to the subway sandwich artist not to belch loudly every few seconds during the meal)? How about someone with foot odour that could kill a mastiff (who simply HAS to take their shoes off because their feet are just SO SORE!)?” I’ve yet to smell an animal that makes me want to run for the nearest vomit bag as homo sapiens.

That’s not to say that dogs don’t smell. However, compared to the olfactory delights our fellow humans are capable of they’re a bouquet of roses. Also, the dog or cat is inside a cage underneath a seat. They’re not leaning on you, drooling on your shoulder.

No complaint would be complete without dragging out the old noise canard. I’m not sure what type of animals these people think pet owners are bringing onto planes. Ducks maybe? Wildebeest? I’m sure there is the occasional Quadruped on a plane who feels he must vocalize his discontent but can the occasional meow or woof be nearly as bad as a screaming infant or a precocious toddler? I’ve been mildly irritated by a dog on a plane who whimpered quietly to himself. I’ve also experienced the inquisition worthy torture for 9 hours (9 HOURS!!) of a human infant screaming its lungs out. I’ve also suffered through a human toddler asking interminable “why” questions along with a running commentary for 9 hours. Sit through 9 hours of “why is that lady wearing blue?” “Why is that man fat?” “I can see her boobies.” This particular child was also kind enough to throw his food at the man sitting across the aisle from him, kick my chair once every pico second and presumably, judging from the smell emanating from him, shit himself shortly after take off (no, they did not have clean pants for him).

By far the scariest reason people giving for forbidding animals to ride on planes is that they may carry diseases. Why, a whole flight had to be cancelled (allegedly no sources were found to back up this claim) because of a flea infestation once.

Aside from the fact that humans can, and do, carry fleas and ticks which could have led to the alleged flight cancellation. The pet owners who take their pets on flights with them are the pet owners who have their pets thoroughly vetted regularly. I’m not saying a dog or cat couldn’t carry fleas on board I’m just saying humans can do a pretty good job of that themselves.

My favourite disease cited was (cue the scary music) RABIES. Seriously? Rabies? The animal IS IN A CAGE. Unless they’re teaching advanced lock picking and zipper opening at the local doggie day care how the hell would the animal spread rabies? Remember the old adage folks: think BEFORE you speak.

Speaking of diseases carried in airplanes. What about the plethora of illnesses that humans spread around? How about crabs, lice, fleas, ticks, rhino virus, flu, conjunctivitis and other innumerable ailments that we spread like wildfire? I think we have more to worry about from our fellow human passengers than fido lying under seat 4A.

Of course, after trotting out the *ahem* justifiable reasons for banning pets in cabins they play the human rights and safety cards.

“It’s not fair,” cry the vocal minority, “it’s an inconvenience to have to share the plane with an animal”. They are unable to explain just HOW it’s inconvenient (except to the owner) to have an animal under someone else’s seat.

At risk of being accused of making a slippery slope argument allow me to make the slippery slope argument. If we ban animals on planes because they are an inconvenience then should we ban the use of iPods? I find it an inconvenience to have to listen to someone’s idea of music. Perhaps we should ban laptops. I’m sure many people find it inconvenient to have their seat mate elbowing them in the ribs while click clacking away at a laptop. While we’re at it we could ban any and all food and drink on planes. It’s very inconvenient to have someone spill their drink on you. It’s also inconvenient to listen to someone smacking their lips and slurping in apparent gustatory delight not to mention VERY inconvenient to feel like spewing your guts because someone has decided to dine on a fish and onion sandwich. Why should we stop there though? We should ban people travelling in groups of 2 or more because it’s inconvenient to have to listen to their personal conversations. People with overactive bladder should be banned because they’re an inconvenience by getting up to pee every five minutes.

I think I’ve flogged the inconvenience horse to death so I’ll leave it be for now and tackle the last defence of the anti pet brigade. The vocal minority’s poster child: “SAFETY”. Did you know that if there is an emergency evacuation of the aircraft the pet owner will try to save his/her pet thereby slowing down other passengers who are trying to escape the plane? DID YOU KNOW THAT?!?!?!? Well holy crap! There go all my arguments OUT the window. They’ve completely demolished the pro pet side there. Except of course that it (like all the other points raised by the anti pet brigade) is simply a desperate appeal to emotion. “Won’t somebody think of the children?” pleads the vocal minority. I think a simple solution to this would simply be to place people with pets in window seats or at the rear of the aircraft. Of course, simple, logical solutions are not acceptable to the vocal minority. We must have hyperbole. We must have fear. We must have an "us vs them" mentality about all things. There can be no compromise. Those who disagree with the vocal minority must be crushed.

Some of the anti pet brigade ask what is so wrong with pets traveling in the cargo area of a plane. To answer that we must ask ourselves a few questions.

1) What are conditions like in the cargo hold of a plane?

2) Would an animal feel pain, either emotional or physical by being subjected to such conditions?

3) Is it humane to subject an animal to those conditions?

4) Will your animal arrive at your destination or be lost?

5) (And I must admit this is something I feel strongly about which may be irrelevant to most people) Would you, yourself want to travel under such conditions or would you be willing to subject a child to such conditions?

In answer to question 1: What are conditions like in the cargo hold of a plane?

The answer can be found by a simple google search. To spare you the monotony of reading my interpretation of things I'll direct you here. By the sound of things it would not be overly comfortable (temperature wise) but hardly the seventh circle of hell.

In answer to question 2: Would an animal feel pain, either emotional or physical by being subjected to such conditions?

It is difficult to quantify and/or qualify pain. I'd wager an animal would feel uncomfortable in the hostile temperatures. Emotionally he would almost certainly be suffering. He's away from his owner, trapped in a box, surrounded by strange things with strange smells. He's got nothing to entertain him and he can hear every creak and grumble of the aircraft.

In answer to question 3: Is it humane to subject an animal to those conditions?

In my opinion no. It isn't

In answer to question 4; Will your animal arrive at your destination or be lost?

There are many documented incidences of baggage being lost by airlines. There are documented cases of animals being lost by airlines. See this page for details. On a personal note. In 1976 my family emigrated to Canada taking their 16 year old corgi, Mitzi, with them. Mitzi was lost by the airline and was eventually found (thanks to amateur sleuthing by my grandmother) near death 2000 miles from where she was supposed to have landed. Mitzi was in the newspapers following her ordeal partly because she was the oldest dog to fly the Atlantic and partly due to the trouble my family had getting her back (the airline wanted to charge them to bring her home!)

Finally, in answer to question 5: Would you, yourself want to travel under such conditions or would you be willing to subject a child to such conditions?

No fucking way! It's bad enough traveling in the passenger cabin. So, if you wouldn't want to travel in a cramped, dark, cold (or sweltering) box with extreme fluctuations in pressure why would you wish it on another sentient being?

I know many people complain that western countries have turned our animals into children. "It's only a dog!" Shouts the vocal minority. Well, 150 years ago you might hear a white man saying that about a black slave. Shouldn't we have moved past that archaic mindset by now?

Besides what's so special about homo sapiens that makes us superior to canis familiaris?

Gay Marriage

2009-04-25T11:25:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of opposition to gay marriage from the vocal minority. Many of them (ad nauseum!) state that allowing gays to marry will mean the redefinition of marriage. They often state that, in the bible (the infallible word of god) god states that marriage is between a man and a woman. REALLY? Lets see what the bible REALLY has to say.

Old Testament

Genesis

polygamy: Lamech 4:19

incest: Abraham and Sarai 12:13, 17:15-16, 20:12

concubines: Abraham 25:6

polygamy: Esau 26:34, 28:9, 36:2,6

polygamy and a lot of other crazy shit: Jacob - Rachel, Leah, Billah, Zilpah: 29:18-30, 31:17

Exodus

incest: 6:20

polygamy: 21:10, 22:16-17 (some other fucked up shit in there too)

Leviticus

if a man has sex with his father's wife (his MOTHER?!) kill them both 20:11

if a man has sex with his mother in law and his wife (incest on the wife's part!) all three must be burned to death 20:14

Religious people make me sad

2009-04-19T09:11:00.000-07:00

I was on post secret this morning when I saw a postcard. It was a picture of the painted ceiling in the Sistine chapel (the section where "god" is reaching out his finger to a man) with the words:

"A while back my husband renounced his religion

Then he lost his job

Now we are about to lose our house

and possibly our marriage.

I wonder when he will see

the connection?"

I find this sad for so many reasons. She blames her husbands' loss of job on not believing in god rather than the recession. The loss of the house, obviously is related to the loss of job. The loss of marriage is probably due to money related issues and (this is conjecture from me, but probably accurate) her nagging him constantly about going to hell.

I also find the egocentrism of the card to be quite sad. SHE knows all the answers, everything is HIS fault. Maybe if you were a little more compassionate and supported your husband while he's trying to find another job instead of posting a sanctimonious post card to a website your marriage wouldn't be in trouble and you could brain storm ideas as to how to save your house.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with Majority vs. Minority. Well, here you are, the moral majority would stand by their husband, maybe go out and take a first or second job while the family is struggling, the moral majority would go to the bank and try to work out a deal with the mortgage lender to buy more time on the mortgage, the moral majority would accept that different people have different views on god and religion and would support and love their spouse no matter what view s/he held. The moral majority would not post a postcard, for millions of people to see, extolling their own virtues and blaming their spouse for all the problems in their life.

The vocal minority on the other hand, are aptly portrayed by this sad, pathetic woman who wrote the postcard. I hope her husband divorces her and does well for himself. He deserves better than that sanctimonious shrew.

What is the Moral Majority vs Vocal Minority?

2009-04-11T15:40:00.000-07:00

What does it mean "Moral Majority vs Vocal Minority"?

Well, I think that most people have a fairly accurate, innate moral compass. With regards to the "moral majority" I think most of us agree that murder is wrong, rape is unforgivable and stealing isn't cool. I think most people believe that although abortion is unfortunate and should be avoided if possible, it should be up to an individual woman to be able to choose to have one or not. I think most people agree that homosexuals deserve the same rights and freedoms that heterosexuals take for granted.

On the other hand, we have the vocal minority. These are people who believe that women are too stupid and sinful to be able to make a decision such as whether to have an abortion or not. They believe that homosexuals are deviants and, at best, should be "cured" and, at worst, should be killed.

Unfortunately for us as a species, the vocal minority is like the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Even though most of us are decent human beings who don't wish any harm to any other human beings the wishes of the few who do wish harm to others are being carried out by our elected officials because the moral majority are too complacent.

I can understand why we are complacent. It's difficult for a kind person to comprehend the kind of hatred, bigotry and outright evil proposed by our fellow humans. We figure, when we do hear someone spouting off about evil homosexuals, that person is a rarity so we ignore him/her and hope s/he goes away quietly into the night. The sad fact of the matter is that we can't ignore the bad people. They will not go away. They will not be quiet and they will not rest until everybody agrees with them and lives by their rules.

Every day I read about the vocal minority destroying lives. I plan to post the stories, and post my response to them on this blog. If any readers happen to see any stories that I've missed please send them to me and I will post them.

Welcome

2009-04-07T15:12:00.001-07:00