Bunnies

We have a cat that we adopted as a young kitten from a farm family with which we are acquainted. He was neutered at about four months of age but never adapted well to being an indoor cat. In spite of being neutered he was always urinating on our belongings and trying to get outside. We finally gave up & let him go out whenever he wants. He will probably be killed by a car eventually but better a shortened, happy life than a miserable, confined life of resentment towards us for restricting his freedom.

Anyway, he has become a mighty hunter in the course of his outdoor sojourns. He will frequently bring a dead bird or mouse and leave it on our back steps as sort of a gift to us. This would be fine and we would appreciate it in the spirit in which it was intended, except for the fact that we let our dogs out the back door every morning. If Mr. Toto has left a gift it is inevitably brought inside by one of the dogs. I can usually tell by their furtive countenance upon reentering the house, but my husband is not always so attentive to their moods. Once in the house, Toto's gift will be shared between the members of our little menagerie for recreational purposes until one of the fun-killing humans discovers it and throws it in the trash.

Recently Mr. Toto has taken to killing baby bunnies. He also seems to enjoy eviscerating them. It is a macabre business indeed to pry the still-warm and bloody corpse of what was once a cute and fluffy baby rabbit from the jaws of our canine friends. At one time I would have been mortified by even the thought of this, but apparently I have become rather hardened. At this time my only goal is to prevent fur and blood from getting on the carpets. I do feel rather sad about the killings but our neighborhood has an abundance of fertile Leporidae, so I doubt they will be missed.

Is Andrew Sullivan a Misogynist?

As my readers know, I am a faithful reader of Andrew Sullivan. Not because I agree with him, mind you, but because I am fascinated with the mental gyrations he undertakes to justify his somewhat flexible positions.

Sullivan is notorious for his conspiracy theories about the birth of Trig Palin. He has now gained additional notoriety for his insistence that Elena Kagan publicly declare her sexual preference (or "emotional orientation" as he now describes it).

To use one of Sullivan's favorite phrases, "in my view," Andrew is highly suspicious of powerful, authoritative women. I can't understand what else would motivate his dislike of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and now Elena Kagan. I do, however, expect his view of Kagan will evolve into affection and admiration once it becomes clear that Obama (who can do no wrong Link) fully supports her.

To illustrate my "view", I here provide examples of Andrew's double standard concerning women, education, and elitism.
This post of his included the notorious "softball" picture of Kagan: Link.

"... where has she experienced the brunt of the law on ordinary people, as the president has described one of his criteria for the court? I guess if you regard Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree as victims of the world, you could make a case for her empathy. But apart from that? Not much that I can see.

Where is the struggle in her life story...? The NYT is very keen to let us know that the Upper West Side where she grew up was not as tony as it is today. Er, that's about it. ... Not a single anecdote in her life-story would be out of place in a Rhodes Scholar application - and I mean that as damning."

On the other hand, here is a post of his commenting on David Cameron, the newly elected UK prime minister: Link

"And here is where he reminds me a little of Obama. Class in Britain is what race is in America. Cameron never denied his past and even engaged in some of its more obnoxious practices. But he loves his country, and endured great prejudice, as well as great privilege, because of his class. Yes, Etonians can be victims too. He both owned his identity - all of it - and yet sought to transcend it."

I notice a bit of a difference there in his views; what could possibly account for that?

And here, he comments on Sarah Palin's educational background: Link

"Memo to Kristol: you may think Palin is sophisticated enough to grasp the high-level fantasies and abstractions that you have devised in your own head to defend the indefensible. But she isn't, buddy. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho, and went to several colleges in several years. She thinks Leo Strauss is a brand of jeans. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Remember: she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and heard about the surge 'on the news'.

This is your lipsticked pitbull, buddy. Own it. And all the immense incuriosity, minimal education, and fact-resistant ambition that comes with it." 

How can we explain Andrew Sullivan's diverse opinions on "elitism", class, and educational background? I leave this as an open question for the reader to contemplate.

Here is a picture of Andrew Sullivan arranging flowers. Because "in my view," all men who arrange flowers are gay, and all men who are gay arrange flowers - just as Andrew seems to believe that all women who play softball are lesbians, and all women who are lesbians play softball. Not that Andrew or I believe in stereotyping homosexuals or anything.

Where's that rope again?

Ticks

In the Midwest, ticks can be a problem for dog owners during the months from April until late October. They are disgusting little creatures which fasten themselves to your dog, and then feed on its blood until they become so bloated they can no longer hold on. At that point they fall off, and drag their nasty, swollen bodies across the floor until you find them or they are able to hide under your furniture.

The current state of the federal government reminds me of a giant tick. A tick does not have the goal of killing its host, but a large tick on a small animal can cause severe damage due to its consumption of the host's very life-blood. In such a way our government is now sucking the life-blood out of our nation's economy, as in my illustration:

New insight from Andrew Sullivan

Today Andrew Sullivan employs the title, "Sacrificing Freedom to Gain More" with a link to a post by Hilary Bok Enhancing Freedom By Government Regulations.

The gist of her argument is that the safety and security afforded us by governmental control of certain areas of our lives increases our "freedom" despite its restriction of personal choice. Her example is traffic laws, which serve to make our collective driving experience safer and easier.

Disregarding the Orwellian notion that restrictions make us freer, the "traffic laws" example is most unfortunate, considering recent studies of the elimination of traffic regulations in certain areas. See this article, for example:

Link to article

Andrew Sullivan's leftward slide is not news to anyone who reads him regularly, but his latest epiphany that governmental restrictions increase liberty is, to put it kindly, "eccentric".

I view governmental mandates and intrusion into my personal health decisions somewhat differently.

As Samuel Adams once said, "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Crouch down, Andrew, and lick the hand that grants you the "right" to purchase health insurance, which, should you choose not to exercise it, will earn you a penalty from the IRS. Thankfully Andrew is not yet one of our countrymen, lest we should have to disown him and his refreshing new notions of "liberty".