Well, folks, it looks like my irony fell flat on its farce.

I would have thought that after so much of my harping on the topic of nature vs nurture around here that my sarcasm in my post on page one here was obvious - of course I don't believe that all dogs are born equal - in the sense of having equal qualities, that is.

The issue is dealt with here, on a random dog-training site:


Genetics matter

"A genetic predisposition toward fearful or aggressive behavior can make it very difficult for even experienced dog owners to avoid having fearful or aggressive behaviors reinforced in a dog. Some dogs will never be completely comfortable around whatever their aggression target is, even after being trained so that they don't display aggressive behavior any more. The safety of the aggression target is never assured. I trained one of my dogs not to attack people on bikes under virtually any circumstance, at any speed, even off-leash. Yet one day, while I was tying my shoelace, she lunged at a rider as he passed. I hadn't trained for that! Hope that the training will generalize, but even if it does, do not expect 100% reliability.

Some dogs, and some breeds in particular, are more likely to "fight" than "flee" when faced with a stressful situation. It is no coincidence that my golden retriever runs from a stressful situation, while my German shepherd will stay and face the threat head-on. Both responses are entirely normal for the breeds (to a degree). It would be very difficult to train a police dog who ran away when faced with threat. That doesn't mean that all phenotypically-ideal German shepherds will be aggressive, but it may mean that extra care is required to ensure that behaviors appropriate to the situation are reinforced and trained to fluency."

The idea that genetics and evolution count for almost nothing in life (the current social view), and that nurture is ALL, is nonsense. Life is not play-dough to be molded into whatever shape one desires.

And the "blank slate" ideal applied to animals is a recipe for tragedy. How many children are going to be mauled in future by unsuitable pets directly because of the belief that if you give an animal enough love and care it will always return the same.

As the passage above indicates, genetics does not determine behaviour, but to discount genetic elements entirely is simply ludicrous. Environment and experience are both crucial to development, but they are NOT the only factors.

Turn about's fair play.

what's the difference between Palin and an Alaskan Timber Wolf?

Palin shoots back and she's more accurate.

What's the difference between Palin and an Alaskan Timber Wolf in heat?

The Alaskan Timber Wolf was born there.



[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 08, 2008).]

What's the difference between Dick Chaney and Sarah Palin?

Lipstick.

Ugh. I've sunk to a new low.

'I've sunk to a new low.'

Yea. And you can't spell 'Cheney' either.

This week, apparently.

They "offered" an interview to Charles Gibson. You remember Gibson, dontcha? He's the one who co-hosted the democratic debate and spent 40 minutes asking Obama questions about his remarks that small-town residents bitterly cling to guns and religion; the inflammatory sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Stephanopoulos followup: "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"); why Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin; and his relationship with William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has acknowledged involvement in several bombings in the 1970s.

When media and viewers alike complained about the personal nature of the questions, his sidekick, Stephanopoulos, replied, "Senator Obama is the front-runner. Our thinking was, electability was the number one issue, and questions about relationships and character go to the heart of it."

The ABC moderators found themselves under fire for focusing on campaign gaffes and training most of their ammunition on Obama. Huffington Post blogger Jason Linkins called the debate "utterly asinine." Washington Post television critic Tom Shales called the duo's performance "despicable." Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch said the moderators "disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself."

In response to their critics, Stephanopoulos said, "I think the questions were certainly pointed -- tough at times, as they should be in a presidential debate -- but not inappropriate or irrelevant at all. The questions have been part of this campaign and in the news. We did our job. You're not going to satisfy everyone."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...800912_pf.html

I don't suppose this means Charlie will ask any questions about relationships and character of Sarah, do you? Even though ABC has declared that personal and pointed questions aren't at all inappropriate or irrelevant. Not if they've been part of the campaign and the news, anyhow.

If I was a cynic I'd say Charlie and his boss, George, were hand-picked by The McCain/Palin campaign.

Oh wait - they were.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...839375,00.html



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 08, 2008).]

I just can't bear to type it over again and deal with all the page-stretching links.

If anyone's interested there's a whole (factual) rant about McCain and his about-face stance on Community Organizer's and his plan to appoint members to his cabinet and pay them a $1.00 a year because they've "made enough money" here:
http://lauraheidy.blogspot.com/2008/...ich-is-it.html

And you're surprised by this how?

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Anyone know if Pelosi has kids? If so, what sport do they play? Are we looking at a possible hockey mom/soccer mom administration?

Nancy has 5 children and 7 grandchildren. As far as I know she has never used them to further her political career.

She probably was a soccer mom or a hockey mom or even a swim mom at one time - anyone with a set of car keys and a child qualifies - but she's never been a Political-Mom.

Ha - there ya go "Poli-Mom" - one who uses her children to promote her own self interest.



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 09, 2008).]

I seem to recall a comment by Pelosi, made when she had just become Speaker, about knowing how to use her "mother-of-five voice." That was the first I'd heard about her mom experience.