Err, Amanda?

Just a thought:

I think Heather Havrilesky might be a tad too generous here about why there seems to be an influx of draconian, insufferably self-righteous assholes in animal rescue, particularly in big, liberal, coastal cities. She assumes it must be the nature of the work slowly molds people into inflexible, impractical meanies who get off on judging other as inadequate compared to themselves in terms of good treatment of animals, but I think it might be that rigid, holier-than-thou types are drawn to the work, and in very large cities, the population of holier-than-thou types is sufficiently large enough that animal rescue operations can be staffed completely with them, and no one of common sense punctures the bubble to remind people that their job is getting animals into homes, not passing often arbitrary judgments on perfectly acceptable people in order to feel self-righteous.

That supply of insufferably self-righteous assholes is virtually unlimited. Every bureaucracy on the planet is stuffed with them and every time a new such is set up more appear to populate it. Politicians are simply the same squared, raised to a higher power.

That\’s why we don\’t want to give such people any power over our lives: otherwise we\’ll be treated just like the animals in the shelters. You might recall that a number of States have indeed been run by such bureaucracies and they instituted very much the same programs that the shelters do: from sterilization all the way to euthanasia of those deemed unwanted.

Just a thought, you know, that your observation might have some wider application.

8 thoughts on “Err, Amanda?”

  1. Not sure what those stories say about the animal rescue people, but they sure say a lot about the complete self-absorption of the likes of De Generes & Marcotte.

    Their attitude appears to be: ‘How dare you judge us, we are such obviously good people…we hate Bush, endorse free abortion & embrace gay lifestyles, so why can’t we have a dog or cat from you wretched proles. Don’t you know who we are!’

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    There is an interesting lack of self awareness in people like this. You can see how the road to Hell is not paved so much with good intentions, as with assumptions about the goodness of our own characters. If we do “good” work, are we exempt from examining the contents of our actions and behaviour all the time? Obviously those people involved in animal shelters think otherwise. Perhaps it would be a good start for people like these to reject the idea their enemies are evil. Bad things can be done by people with good intentions. And usually are.

  3. “Like most liberal activists”

    I find it very sad that the word “liberal” has been hijacked so that it now refers to people who aren’t interested in freedom at all.

  4. So the first three comments here are *defending* the decision of the animal shelters to ban families with kids from owning dogs? Freedom-tacular!

  5. “So the first three comments here are *defending* the decision of the animal shelters to ban families with kids from owning dogs?”

    Can’t speak for the other two commenters, but there could well be good reasons why a particular dog (or cat) might be best not homed with children.

    I’d have thought that was so blatantly obvious, it didn’t need to be overtly stated. But then, I guess not…

    De Generes entered into a contract with the rehoming centre that if the dog didn’t work out with her, it would be returned to them, not passed off to a friend. But agreements, like rules, are for the little people, as IR noted.

  6. The Cats’ Protection League here, on inspecting a potential home, noticed a photograph of the potential new owner riding to hounds, and refused to let her have a cat simply because of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *