The good, the bad and the unthinkable
In my last post it was remiss of me to fail to acknowledge "dogma," a great web site where I first learned about the neo-fascist "kitler" movement. Dogma is a great blog because, first of all, it's got "dog" in the title. It's written by someone named Gina Spadafori, which, if I'm not mistaken, is human for "Spot," so that's what I'm going to call her, Ms. Spot.
Anyway, in addition to pointing out the kitler thing, Ms. Spot is cool because she's not a big fan of what she calls "Edison medicine" and what I call "electrocution training for dogs." Plus she lives with a parrot that only says "What are you doing?"
However, on the not-so-cool side, she tolerates cats, and she champions her own self by asking, "How many people do you know who subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Whole Dog Journal?" I'll not jump to judgement, but personally, I'm skeptical of a human who get her ideas from a journal that espouses a world view that only the rich and pampered can afford. And for all I know, the Wall Street Journal might be just as bad.
But what really concerns me about Ms. Spot is that she is the author of "Dogs for Dummies." Now I'm all for dogs for the blind, dogs for the deaf, dogs for the sick, dogs for the disabled, dogs for the infirm, dogs for the abused, dogs for prisoners, dogs for humans with old-timers disease and depression, dogs for treehuggers and dogs for ass-kissers, dogs for loggers and dogs for bloggers, dogs for iPods, and even dogs for dogs. There's lots of ways we can contribute if you've got enough biscuits. But when it comes to dogs for dummies, well I just have to put my paws down. It's cruel, uncouth, demeaning, inconsiderate, embarrassing, humiliating and downright rude. "Cats for Dummies," sure. "Birds for Dummies," that's a stretch. But "Dogs for Dummies"? The horror.