politics and puppy dogs

ah... there's nothing like eating a little crow, is there? after my big old rant in the "it's a bummer edwards withdraws from the presidential race" post a few weeks back i have to come clean: barack obama is slowly sucking me in. i said as much to drew last night and was relieved to hear him tell me it was happening to him, too. whew! i am not sure what it is or what to make of it, because while i admire the idea of healing the divisions in our country and changing the tone of the public discourse as much as the next person, i also believe that nothing short of being completely committed and willing to go to mat and be just as ruthless as they are will work when dealing with the current crop of right-wing conservatives who have made the uber-partisan, nasty, fearful and intolerant america of today possible. i also think paul krugman, nytimes opinion writer and economist, is correct in his analysis of the slight but important differences between hillary clinton and barack obama's policy positions.

and yet. i think obama has a better chance than clinton in the general election. there's none of the "clinton baggage" that is so popularly bandied about at the moment, and that's unfortunate because it's such bullshit. the "clinton baggage" is misogyny for the most part, imho, especially from the right-wingers who hate her with an irrational zeal. there are people who dislike her because of her politics, although they tend toward the more rational end of the spectrum. i personally think she and bill are nothing more than reagan democrats who were good for the clintons but really quite bad for the democratic party, and consequently i haven't been too impressed with either of them. hillary is vilified for staying in her marriage, but she'd have been as equally vilified had she left bill because of the out of bounds blow jobs. it's their marriage, let them decide how to proceed; i have my hands quite full with my (happy) own, thank you very much. i can't come up with any good reason why the right-wingers get so rabid about her, except that they're threatened by what she stands for: smart, intelligent, forthright women who don't necessarily want or need them. the rush limbaugh's of the world wouldn't have anyone to make them dinner and make sure they take their oxycontin pills on schedule. i am sure poor rush just trembles at the thought of it.

but it's more than just that. i listened to obama's "call to renewal" speech (june 2006) today, which was the keynote address for a call to renewal/sojourners meeting (they've merged as sojourners), a christian faith and justice group that i am a member of, actually. you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the video clips on the obama for president site to get the entire speech, btw. i agree with what he says in this speech. i agree that progressives who refuse or are afraid to talk about how their faith/spirituality informs their politics are making a mistake of colossal proportions, because they're letting the jerry falwells and pat robertsons of the world define what politics informed by religious faith/spirituality is in america. that's incredibly dangerous because speaking to people in religious terms, as obama goes on to say, is a form of communication that is readily accessible to americans, especially as so many of the great reformers in our history have been people of faith of one form or another. they've spoken in religious language in part to give their arguments moral authority, but also because it's something people are familiar with and understand. i'm a theologian by training and this has always been my problem with progressives who are uncomfortable, unwilling or unable to engage the politics informed by faith/spirituality question. it's not either church or state, it's a balancing act of both. you don't have to have politics informed by faith/spirituality, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist for most other people and that it's important in american politics. not just today, either, but historically it always has been. if you won't even try, or even acknowledge this reality, you let the other side define the terms, and whoever defines the terms in politics will always do it to their side's advantage. it's not rocket science, kids; it's human nature.

i guess, as much as this makes me feel like a sheep to admit it, it's nice to feel that someone is at least trying to be positive and stay above all the republican sleaze. i mean, if he does get the nomination the sleaze machine will hit him like a runaway train, make no mistake. but i keep getting this funny feeling that he might just manage to deflect it. or enough of it. so i don't know... i've always said americans will elect a black man for president before they'll elect a woman. maybe it's my brutally dim view of the open-mindedness of america that's nudging me along. in any event, it's not like i have to make my mind up now.

as for the puppies part, well, if you're an animal sucker or tender hearted you might want to skip this new york times article about the best friends animal society's efforts to rehabilitate the poor doggies that were part of michael vick's dog fighting ring. there are other groups, too, like BADRAP, who are doing similar work, but best friends is the organization profiled in the article. you read about some of the Mengele-esque abuse the poor animals suffered which is simply horrifying and heartbreaking, but you also learn about all the really committed, wonderful people who are trying to help, too. that made it worth it for me to read it. that and the great picture of one of the shelter staff crashed out with one of the dogs. totally sweet and hopeful.

i only came across the nytimes article yesterday and was astounded to learn, because i didn't follow the story too closely because it was just so appalling, that instead of euthanizing the poor victims at the center of the dismal affair, i.e. the dogs, as is usual in these cases and was urged by both the humane society and people for the ethical treatment of animals, that the authorities decided to evaluate the dogs for their potential to be rehabilitated. the american society for the prevention of cruelty to animals was one of the animal welfare groups that urged this course of action, which made me happy as i already support them but now i will increase that support. as for peta, they'll never see another dollar of my money ever again, the self-righteous hypocrites. i know that's not entirely fair, i understand where they're coming from on the one hand because they're high risk dogs, no doubt about it. it's just the horribly-abused = unsalvageable-summary-execution argument coming from them is more than i can stomach. pits are such wonderful dogs and i definitely want one someday, and that whole unsalvageable attitude/rationale just reinforces all of the misperceptions about the breed. did you know petey, the good rascals dog, was a pit? well, he was, so think on that! but i digress...

most of the dogs will, eventually, be able to be adopted, even though it could be quite some time before they've healed enough. those that can't be adopted will have a permanent home at the best friends animal society's animal sanctuary. it's being paid for courtesy of an almost million dollar fine that vick, the evil fucking scum bag loser who hanging is too good for, was ordered to pay as part of his sentence. all i can say is he's lucky i wasn't his judge. i am hard-pressed when it comes to my christian duty to have any sort of compassion for someone who abuses the most defenseless among us. he's probably more to be pitied than scorned, given that his inner life must be so devoid of any compassion, richness and beauty that he thinks it's okay to treat animals in the manner he did, but people like him make it awfully easy to scorn them.