Canine Voting Rights - Two steps forward, one step back

The state of Washington has grudgingly permitted Canine-Americans to register to vote.  That’s one down, 49 states to go, before we will have the full equality accorded even the most loathsome, dog-abusing humans.  What the state of Washington is doing is to be commended as a step in the right direction, for sure, but it is by no means perfect.  You see, only dogs who have these IDs get to vote – a ‘voter ID’ law.  I don’t know if this is a deliberate attempt to continue to disenfranchise dogs or a misguided effort to protect against unfounded accusations of canine voting fraud.  If the latter, then I don’t think these state officials know what a burden it is for some of my kind to get an ID.  First, places to get IDs are often miles away and it is hard for us to get there.  Dogs can’t drive standard automobiles because our hind-paws can’t reach the pedals.  Only the richest 1% dogs are able to afford specially equipped canine-friendly cars.  Second, sometimes they make you pay for the IDs with money.  Again, only those 1% dogs, like those with trust funds, have ready cash.  Most of us dogs are paid for our good deeds in kind, with things like bologna and toys, which would not be accepted as legal tender.  So I’m glad that Duncan is able to vote.  He looks like a good dog who will make wise decisions.  But what about the rest of Washington’s dogs?  Are their barks not to be heard?

Canine-American Voting Rights

Hats off to my big brother for finding this outrageous article:

WP:  In Va., dogs and the dead are invited to vote

• "A group that tries to get "historically underrepresented groups" to the polls has targeted some particularly unlikely voters:  dogs and dead Virginians."

Here’s this group, the “Voter Participation Center” out there trying to secure the voting rights of under-represented minorities like Canine-Americans.  And then some newspaper person makes it out to be a big joke, like dogs voting is as funny as dead people voting.  Well the joke's lost on me . . . dogs will continue to be oppressed until all of us have secured our rights as citizens.

Obama vs. Romney: Advantage Obama

I’d like to thank the two candidates running for president for coming on this blog and sharing their ideas on canine rights and helping dogs.  The president began to lay out his plan to tax the rich and use some of the proceeds to help us pets to get the affordable care we need.  While the president was a little vague and condescending, he and I agree in principle on the basic goal.  Mr. Romney, who aspires to this important position, came on my blog and made some abstract arguments about ‘kibble procurers,’ which I didn’t really understand and I don’t think will convince any dogs to vote for him.  He wants us to rely on our human owners, with no help from the government giving us free things.  I appreciate Mr. Romney’s reference to the great Cocker Henry who said ‘give me chicken or give me death,’ but it was clearly a gratuitous reference that didn’t seem to support his point.

 I’m glad to see the two candidates discard the politics of personal destruction long enough to discuss the important matters.  As things stand now, despite the fact that he is not a dog lover (except when the dog is on his plate), I’m starting to lean towards President Obama.

I'd like to invite the candidates to continue to use this blog to reach out to the canine community.  And if I've misrepresented their positions in any way, they can clarify

Tax the Rich!

I think it is terrific that President Obama and my big brother, two of the smartest people I know, are using the comment section of my humble blog as a forum for debating the BIG issues of the day.  President Obama has argued that if we tax the rich, there will be sufficient money to include dogs in the Affordable Care Act.  In this, the president and I agree, and not only as a vehicle to assure even basic health care for all canines.  But we should tax the rich just on basic fairness.  The president and I only disagree on the definition of ‘rich’.  The president considers you rich if you make more than $200,000 per year, but that is way too conservative a benchmark.  Almost every person I see is fabulously wealthy compared to even the most privileged of us dogs.  All the people are eating like kings at large tables, while we dogs are eating scraps and kibbles off the floor.  All the people sleep on comfy beds while we dogs struggle to find even a little room on the bed and sometimes end up on the floor.  All the people have TVs, computers, and cars while we dogs are lucky to have a few meager toys like an old sock, a chewed up tennis ball, or a stuffed monkey.  All the people roam free while we dogs are dragged around on leashes like animals.  All the people are afforded basic civil rights, due process, and fair trials, while we dogs are hauled off for ‘euthanasia’ for the smallest infractions or just because they got tired of us.  Yes I say, go ahead and tax the rich, and by all means direct the proceeds to the oppressed canine community.  But let’s call it like it is – all you people are filthy rich and should be taxed a lot.

Now mind you, I am not complaining for myself.  I have a good life with my nice human family.  But I’ve heard too many tails of woe from my furry friends.

Affordable Care Act - II

I am quite unpersuaded by the comment President Obama wrote in response to my last blog post.  He's trying to pander to us dogs with his double talk:

The Affordable Care Act allows you to keep your current insurance and current care provider at absolutely no change in your current cost. . .

But the fact remains that his 'Affordable Care Act' did nothing for us.  My big brother was oh so right when he stated:

. . . the current quantity of health care supplied to you is effectively zero.

It is quite evident that current health care provided to Canine-Americans is woefully inadequate and the facts clearly speak for themselves.  The average life expectancy of a human in the US is over 78 years, whereas a dog born today can expect to live less than 13 years!  And it is much lower than that for bigger varieties like bull dog and doberman, who through no fault of their own may need even more health care because of their size.  [some of my best friends back on the farm were dobermans and now that 6 years have lapsed, no telling how many of them are even left.]  We are losing many of our precious canine resources far too soon when they still have so much to offer.  It is more than a national tragedy.  It speaks to who we are as a nation; it is a moral issue.

So what are you doing about that, Mr. President?

Affordable Care Act? Affordable for Whom?

WOW, are the dog days ever upon us.  It's hot, I'm furry, and I don't feel like doing any physical activity.  So I've been spending the past couple of days inside, researching the human president's Affordable Care Act.  It's long, no doubt (you can read the whole thing here: 
Obama's Affordable Care Act) . . .  and by all accounts contained far too much for all those congresspeople and senators to read before passing it.  So it was with great anticipation that I sat down to read about all the benefits that will now accrue to the canine community.

So after reading the whole thing, I've transcribed here the passages that pertain to us dogs:

" . . ."

That's right, nothing, not a single word! 

Mr. President, you'r a dog owner and by some accounts some of the members of you family even love Bo.  But what if Bo becomes sick and needs vet care?  Do you realize how much the vets charge?  I know you're a successful, well-paid politician and can afford it, come what may.  But what about the rest of us dogs out here, the 99% dogs?  What's to become of us?