I'm a glass pusher too, partly because of static discharge but also because of germs, even though the likelihood of germs surviving on metal probably isn't great, but I could be seconds behind someone who just sneezed into his hand before touching the handle. However, I usually use my forearm or elbow to push it open, so no dirty handprints on the glass :D. After all, the last person to glass push might also have just sneezed into his hand...
Seriously? Have you seen their annual profit and loss statements? They don't exactly make my list of unfortunate souls who deserve our sympathy.
Frankly, I'm glad to see them honoring the results of clinical trials rather than putting out drugs that, oops, end up producing unexpected and unwanted side effects, like liver failure, kidney failure, or death.
@skipweasel. It's hardly gullibility. It's actually more closely related to the differences between allopathic medicine (where the symptoms of the disease are treated more often than the source of the disease) and true holistic medicine (where you take actions that support your body's ability to regulate and sometimes heal itself; mind over matter also fits in here, i.e. the placebo effect). The mind is a powerful tool. Try using it some time :p
Allopathic medicine has it's place, of course. If I have a severe systemic infection, I'm not going to see a holistic doctor. I'm going to get some powerful antibiotics and worry about replenishing beneficial bacteria afterwards. But for chronic medical conditions, holistic medicine can work quite well. And it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can use holistic medicine to support your allopathic efforts.
I'm for it as well. What we've lost by living in larger cities where it's easier to be anonymous is a sense of accountability. In a smaller town, you'd get a reputation and wouldn't be able to find another place to rent if you pulled this too often. Small communities can more easily "encourage" ethical and moral behavior whereas in larger cities the only recourse for the aggrieved landlord is an impersonal, convoluted, lengthy legal process. We now rely on lawyers and police to do what the neighborhood gossip could do faster and sometimes more effectively (not that gossips aren't known to abuse their power just as much as the police sometimes do).
This does go both ways. If the landlord is not living up to his responsibilities, publicly shame him, too! Let him have trouble finding a quality tenant. Landlords can run a credit check to help determine a renter's suitability but tenants don't have any similar tools at their disposal, except again by the landlord having a reputation in the community.
The "system" isn't the problem; the people in it are. Good luck trying to design a system that both protects the intended beneficiaries and doesn't allow for abuse by the clever and the motivated. Individuals are always the wild card and people are amazingly ingenious when it comes to getting something they want, whether by hook or by crook.
That was funny. Made me chuckle as I watched. And I agree it's basically Chippendales on ice. As to the people who are saying it's gay (I assume you're all male), I doubt many of you are self-confident enough to go see male strippers if something this silly and fun frightens you. If you men can find entertainment in a woman hanging upside down from a pole, I think we women with a sense of humor can enjoy a little bum wagging on skates. Thanks for my grin for the day!
Everyone involved failed to behave to the best of their abilities. Ellen shouldn't have used her celebrity to try to force the agency to accept her unilateral decision to re-home the dog, in violation of the agreement she made with the agency. The agency should have evaluated the family before taking the dog to see if an exception could have been made, not because it was Ellen asking, but because the dog was already placed there (being shuffled around is traumatic for the dog). And frankly, if this hadn't blown up in the media, that exception would not have become a problem because the vast majority of people wouldn't have known an exception was even made here.
And Dcer, there's an enormous difference between a minority's right to have a roof over his head, considered a basic right as a human being in this country, and the right to own a pet, which is wholly discretionary, both on the part of the adopter to choose the appropriate agency and the agency to work with an adopter.
Adopters have choices and so do the agencies. Both parties have valid complaints here and both dropped the ball in terms of how they handled the problem.
FWIW, we adopted 2 dogs from a rescue that holds that same policy. Their personalities were matched with ours and with each other since we adopted them at the same time. The people who run the rescue from which we adopted have gone to shelters to retrieve dogs that were surrendered there in violation of the contract signed. But, I know them pretty well and I think they would evaluate the new home before they'd remove a dog from a re-home situation. A good home is a good home, after all. They also don't have rigid rules about the ages of the household members; it's decided on a case by case basis. Maybe it helps that they also have kids.
And yeah, rescue people are fanatical. Who else would devote their own money, time, energy, and home to helping animals? I, for one, am glad they do. It's what they're passionate about and, usually, it helps make this a better world. What's wrong with that? Being rigid and/or hostile doesn't help anyone, though, in *any* situation.
I'm also a minority and a lawyer. Age discrimination actually has a fairly narrow application and doesn't apply to a private agency that offers pets for adoption.
Seriously? Have you seen their annual profit and loss statements? They don't exactly make my list of unfortunate souls who deserve our sympathy.
Frankly, I'm glad to see them honoring the results of clinical trials rather than putting out drugs that, oops, end up producing unexpected and unwanted side effects, like liver failure, kidney failure, or death.
@skipweasel. It's hardly gullibility. It's actually more closely related to the differences between allopathic medicine (where the symptoms of the disease are treated more often than the source of the disease) and true holistic medicine (where you take actions that support your body's ability to regulate and sometimes heal itself; mind over matter also fits in here, i.e. the placebo effect). The mind is a powerful tool. Try using it some time :p
Allopathic medicine has it's place, of course. If I have a severe systemic infection, I'm not going to see a holistic doctor. I'm going to get some powerful antibiotics and worry about replenishing beneficial bacteria afterwards. But for chronic medical conditions, holistic medicine can work quite well. And it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can use holistic medicine to support your allopathic efforts.
This does go both ways. If the landlord is not living up to his responsibilities, publicly shame him, too! Let him have trouble finding a quality tenant. Landlords can run a credit check to help determine a renter's suitability but tenants don't have any similar tools at their disposal, except again by the landlord having a reputation in the community.
The "system" isn't the problem; the people in it are. Good luck trying to design a system that both protects the intended beneficiaries and doesn't allow for abuse by the clever and the motivated. Individuals are always the wild card and people are amazingly ingenious when it comes to getting something they want, whether by hook or by crook.
1. He really is insane.
2. He knew exactly what he was doing and he's trying to get away with murder by copping insanity.
Who calls the police while surrounded by the evidence of their crime?
And Dcer, there's an enormous difference between a minority's right to have a roof over his head, considered a basic right as a human being in this country, and the right to own a pet, which is wholly discretionary, both on the part of the adopter to choose the appropriate agency and the agency to work with an adopter.
Adopters have choices and so do the agencies. Both parties have valid complaints here and both dropped the ball in terms of how they handled the problem.
FWIW, we adopted 2 dogs from a rescue that holds that same policy. Their personalities were matched with ours and with each other since we adopted them at the same time. The people who run the rescue from which we adopted have gone to shelters to retrieve dogs that were surrendered there in violation of the contract signed. But, I know them pretty well and I think they would evaluate the new home before they'd remove a dog from a re-home situation. A good home is a good home, after all. They also don't have rigid rules about the ages of the household members; it's decided on a case by case basis. Maybe it helps that they also have kids.
And yeah, rescue people are fanatical. Who else would devote their own money, time, energy, and home to helping animals? I, for one, am glad they do. It's what they're passionate about and, usually, it helps make this a better world. What's wrong with that? Being rigid and/or hostile doesn't help anyone, though, in *any* situation.
I'm also a minority and a lawyer. Age discrimination actually has a fairly narrow application and doesn't apply to a private agency that offers pets for adoption.