Hi Humans,
So the Zimmerman trial is over and Zimmerman has been aquitted. I don't know if Zimmerman's version of the events leading to the death of Travon Martin was true or not, but the prosecution had the burden of proof to convict him. They were not able to convince the jury of his guilt with absolute certainty.
Looking at Zimmerman on the television screen, I was struck that he looked like a little nebbish. He had volunteered for a neighborhood watch program, carried a concealed gun, and tried to act like a big policeman (which he was not). His inept vigilantism resulted in tragedy. One wonders how many nebisshes are out there in the human community who feel the need to carry a gun to make up for their lack of self esteem. The gun lobby feeds on those people who enrich the gun manufacturers by buying guns to somehow make themselves feel important.
We dogs don't have such needs. We know we are just dogs, and we don't need guns to make us feel more important than we are.
Chloe
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Zimmerman Trial
Hi Humans,
You humans have been talking a lot about the Zimmerman trial on television. I don't know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder or not, i.e. did he really intend to commit murder? You humans have all these categories of killing (first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter). I would say that he should not have been carrying a gun in the first place, and so he was guilty of negligence resulting in death. So one might say he committed involuntary manslaughter. Perhaps the real guilt belongs to a culture that worships guns. Evil is not always committed by psychopaths but often by simple people who are misled by their environment. I would be more sympathetic to Mr. Zimmerman if he would acknowledge the evil that his carrying a gun caused and separate himself from the gun nuts who support him. But on that issue he is silent. As far as I can tell, he thinks he was correct and was only defending himself. Sometimes I don't understand you humans with your supposedly big brains.
Chloe
You humans have been talking a lot about the Zimmerman trial on television. I don't know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder or not, i.e. did he really intend to commit murder? You humans have all these categories of killing (first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter). I would say that he should not have been carrying a gun in the first place, and so he was guilty of negligence resulting in death. So one might say he committed involuntary manslaughter. Perhaps the real guilt belongs to a culture that worships guns. Evil is not always committed by psychopaths but often by simple people who are misled by their environment. I would be more sympathetic to Mr. Zimmerman if he would acknowledge the evil that his carrying a gun caused and separate himself from the gun nuts who support him. But on that issue he is silent. As far as I can tell, he thinks he was correct and was only defending himself. Sometimes I don't understand you humans with your supposedly big brains.
Chloe
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Happy Fourth of July
Hi Humans,
I am thankful that I live in the USA in a nice home. Even though I am just a dog who lives mainly in a laundry room with a doggie door that gives me access to my side yard, I have more freedom then many humans in this world, freedom to do what dogs like to do, freedom from hunger, and freedom from violence. What more can I ask for?
Chloe
I am thankful that I live in the USA in a nice home. Even though I am just a dog who lives mainly in a laundry room with a doggie door that gives me access to my side yard, I have more freedom then many humans in this world, freedom to do what dogs like to do, freedom from hunger, and freedom from violence. What more can I ask for?
Chloe
Monday, June 24, 2013
Leaker
Hi Humans,
Let me give you my opinion about that guy who leaked out US Government intelligence information, supposedly in the name of promoting transparency. I think he should be arrested, put on trial, and locked away in jail if he's found guilty. He probably is guilty since he publicly confessed because he thinks he did a good deed. Transparency (honesty) is good in most situations. However intelligence (information often gained by spying) is not one of those situations. It would be nice if all the people and nations in the world were honest with each other, always cooperated with each other, and never did harm to each other. But really that is not the way it is in your human world in which all of us creatures must live. Most governments do spy on each other. Nowadays there are also terrorists out there, in some cases acting independently and in other cases supported by certain governments. They mean to do harm to other people with whom they disagree. And in some cases like 911 and the Boston marathon bombing, they actually carried out their harmful intentions. I realize there is some conflict between freedom from being snooped on and freedom from being killed by a terrorist gun or bomb. You need some balance, but between the 2 threats I would prefer life over protection of the telephone or e-mail.
But what do I know? I'm just a dog.
Chloe
Let me give you my opinion about that guy who leaked out US Government intelligence information, supposedly in the name of promoting transparency. I think he should be arrested, put on trial, and locked away in jail if he's found guilty. He probably is guilty since he publicly confessed because he thinks he did a good deed. Transparency (honesty) is good in most situations. However intelligence (information often gained by spying) is not one of those situations. It would be nice if all the people and nations in the world were honest with each other, always cooperated with each other, and never did harm to each other. But really that is not the way it is in your human world in which all of us creatures must live. Most governments do spy on each other. Nowadays there are also terrorists out there, in some cases acting independently and in other cases supported by certain governments. They mean to do harm to other people with whom they disagree. And in some cases like 911 and the Boston marathon bombing, they actually carried out their harmful intentions. I realize there is some conflict between freedom from being snooped on and freedom from being killed by a terrorist gun or bomb. You need some balance, but between the 2 threats I would prefer life over protection of the telephone or e-mail.
But what do I know? I'm just a dog.
Chloe
Friday, June 7, 2013
A letter to Mr. Pierre and Other Gun Tools
To Wayne La Pierre, the NRA, Assorted Gun Bullies, and other Tools of the gun Lobby,
Dear Mr. La Pierre, et al.
So one of your gun screwballs again performed mass murder in Santa Monica, California with an assault weapon before being himself killed by the police. Doesn't it make sense to you humans that fighting the creation of gun safety laws harms the safety of law abiding citizens? The more readily available guns are, the more likely crazy people will buy them to kill other people. You greedy gun bullies value your toys and the money you make by selling them above the lives of others. No reasonable person could possibly believe your lies when you argue that more guns means more safety. It just doesn't make sense. And I am not talking about the lives of the rest of the creatures that you kill for "sport." What kind of sport is it that the deer, rabbits, and others that you kill don't have guns to fight back. Using your logic, maybe they should be also be armed. Then you could sell more guns and make more money.
Incidentally, the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides for "a well regulated militia". That today is known as the National Guard. It does not say that you must not have universal background checks or that private individuals should be more heavily armed than the police.
Chloe
Dear Mr. La Pierre, et al.
So one of your gun screwballs again performed mass murder in Santa Monica, California with an assault weapon before being himself killed by the police. Doesn't it make sense to you humans that fighting the creation of gun safety laws harms the safety of law abiding citizens? The more readily available guns are, the more likely crazy people will buy them to kill other people. You greedy gun bullies value your toys and the money you make by selling them above the lives of others. No reasonable person could possibly believe your lies when you argue that more guns means more safety. It just doesn't make sense. And I am not talking about the lives of the rest of the creatures that you kill for "sport." What kind of sport is it that the deer, rabbits, and others that you kill don't have guns to fight back. Using your logic, maybe they should be also be armed. Then you could sell more guns and make more money.
Incidentally, the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides for "a well regulated militia". That today is known as the National Guard. It does not say that you must not have universal background checks or that private individuals should be more heavily armed than the police.
Chloe
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Second Amendment Interpretation for Gun Nuts
Hi Humans,
I live in Northridge, California, where if one wants to e-mail Mr. Wilk, the local State Representative, about gun safety, one must choose between support or oppose the Second Amendment. That is code that says he opposes gun control (gun safety). The issue is actually between for or against gun control (gun safety). The Second Amendment says that states can form militias (the National Guard). In fact it says a "well regulated militia." It doesn't say that every screwball can arm himself with all kinds of weapons, which is how the NRA, the gun lobby, and the present radical right Republican party interpret it.
If it is obvious to a little dog like me, why can't you humans with your big brains see it? If I were human and could vote, I wouldn't vote for a guy like that.
Chloe
I live in Northridge, California, where if one wants to e-mail Mr. Wilk, the local State Representative, about gun safety, one must choose between support or oppose the Second Amendment. That is code that says he opposes gun control (gun safety). The issue is actually between for or against gun control (gun safety). The Second Amendment says that states can form militias (the National Guard). In fact it says a "well regulated militia." It doesn't say that every screwball can arm himself with all kinds of weapons, which is how the NRA, the gun lobby, and the present radical right Republican party interpret it.
If it is obvious to a little dog like me, why can't you humans with your big brains see it? If I were human and could vote, I wouldn't vote for a guy like that.
Chloe
Friday, May 3, 2013
Austerity
Hi Humans,
We dogs know that we must pay for what we get. Perform a trick and you get a treat. Misbehave and you pay a punishment. But many humans don't seem to think that way. They want a treat for other's performance, and they want others to pay for their misbehavior. For example, look at those humans who preach austerity but really mean austerity for other humans. They want to cut taxes and pay for the tax cuts with less government services. That is because taxes affect them more than services. They want to shift the cost to those who would be more affected by services. But it is not always clear as to who would be affected by what. Recently, the sequester hit the airline industry because of lay offs of air traffic controllers. Now all of a sudden austerity became inconvenient, so Congress fixed it by shifting money from elsewhere. Eventually, the bite will reach the elsewhere, and if their constituents are vocal enough, Congress will have to play the shell game again. Maybe, eventually, they will find a fair balance between taxes and services. Maybe they will raise taxes and give it another name to save face. That's another trick that humans like to do. Fortunately, we dogs live a more simple life and understand a more simple vocabulary.
Chloe
We dogs know that we must pay for what we get. Perform a trick and you get a treat. Misbehave and you pay a punishment. But many humans don't seem to think that way. They want a treat for other's performance, and they want others to pay for their misbehavior. For example, look at those humans who preach austerity but really mean austerity for other humans. They want to cut taxes and pay for the tax cuts with less government services. That is because taxes affect them more than services. They want to shift the cost to those who would be more affected by services. But it is not always clear as to who would be affected by what. Recently, the sequester hit the airline industry because of lay offs of air traffic controllers. Now all of a sudden austerity became inconvenient, so Congress fixed it by shifting money from elsewhere. Eventually, the bite will reach the elsewhere, and if their constituents are vocal enough, Congress will have to play the shell game again. Maybe, eventually, they will find a fair balance between taxes and services. Maybe they will raise taxes and give it another name to save face. That's another trick that humans like to do. Fortunately, we dogs live a more simple life and understand a more simple vocabulary.
Chloe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)