« Friday Critterblogging II: The Wrath Of Sam | Main | Friday Critterblogging IV: Year Of The Dog »
Friday, December 30, 2005
Friday Critterblogging III: The Voyage Home?
It's impossible to believe that Mexico, a 2-3 year old Basenji/shepherd mix, languished in a shelter in Indiana for nearly a year, passed over for adoption month after lonely month. Cute and inquisitive, smart and sassy, Mexico definitely wears his Basenji heritage proudly. A mere 43 pounds, Mexico is an adorably cute, oddly shaped little fellow who loves to try to scoot out the door when you aren't paying attention. Mexico will take several months to shake off shelter living, and new owner's need to be extra patient with housetraining, as he has forgotten most of the rules of this process. Mexico must be treated like a brand new puppy, with a strict meal and potty schedule, a crate for when he needs to be alone, and close supervision in the house until he has achieved mastery again.
...
Among Mexico's talents is the ability to climb fences, a calling card of many Basenji's. Not a dog to be left unattended in the yard, Mexico would much prefer to be with people anyway! New situations and new faces can be overwhelming for Mexico at first, but he is a very sweet, forgiving dog who has endured many months of confinement and alone time. Mexico may like to chase cats for fun, but it is not likely he means them any harm. Once settled into a new home with a family who is happy to help him re-adjust, Mexico is likely to melt hearts and become a beloved member of the family.
Our friends D and C in Portland told us about the darling boy this week, and we're very seriously considering adopting him. Cairo seems okay with the idea--Sam doesn't seem to care (and we're assured he won't become a doggie snack). According to the shelter's director, Mex is a hot ticket with lots of visitors so he might find a new home before we're able to get up there and meet him, but I'm sending in an adoption application this weekend and hopefully Cairo, Stef and I will be heading up to Maine soon to get acquainted.
ntodd
[Update: before any of my Trek geek readers get on my case, I know STIII was "Search for Spock" and STIV was "The Voyage Home". I just figured the latter sounded better than a "Search for Dog" variant.]
December 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8349dbf0669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Friday Critterblogging III: The Voyage Home?:
Comments
There are, you know, actual HUMAN babies languishing and passed over for adoption month after month too - may want to discuss that with Stef and Cairo too . . .
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 5:41:12 PM
Hey, you know what? You can go fuck yourself, you faux Culture of Life bastard. How about you or the Duggars adopt the babies that are languishing in cages. How about you and the rest of the Puritanical assmunches who run this theocracy cut the "abstenance only" shit and work to provide real sex education and access to contraception? How about you stop killing HUMAN babies in places like Iraq?
Regardless, I'll talk to Stef right away. Maybe we should give up our crazy ideas of changing career paths, get rid of our animals, and take on a lifelong, half-million-dollar burden.
Say...why don't you come over and tell us what color drapes we should put up in the living room? What do you think we should do job-wise? Any other suggestions for how we live our lives? Because I sure do want your fucking advice on that, just like I want the GOP listening to my phone calls, telling my wife what to do with her uterus, etc.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 30, 2005 6:05:05 PM
Charlie - Go Cheney yourself.
Posted by: fiat lux | Dec 30, 2005 6:12:41 PM
No other advice, NTodd - don't get so riled up - I was not the one posting about my adoption(s) for everyone to see.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:17:19 PM
There are, you know, actual HUMAN babies languishing and passed over for adoption month after month too...
Charlie that's so cool! Are they leash trained? Can I leave them in the crate while I'm at work or when hubby and I go out to a hockey game? Will a couple of weeks of obedience training do the trick or will I need to save more extensive .. ya know .. schooling? Can I just put some kibble in the bowl and take them to the vet once a year? Or do you think human babies require a more extensive commitment that maybe not everyone is equipped or wishes to take on?
Because it sounds to me like you're saying raising a pet and raising a child are about comparable. And while adopting an animal is certainly not to be undertaken lightly, I never would have thought to put parenthood on the same footing as pet ownership. But if you think they're about equal, then that's totally cool.
By the way, has Social Services been to your place recently?
Posted by: Litz | Dec 30, 2005 6:20:17 PM
NTodd, good luck with the adoption hope it goes through for you guys. The very few Basenji's I've known have been delightful. You'll all be very lucky.
Posted by: shayera | Dec 30, 2005 6:24:15 PM
No, Litz - probably because I'm not saying raising a pet and raising a child are about comparable - my wife homeschools our child full-time, thank you very much.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:24:21 PM
There are, you know, actual HUMAN babies languishing and passed over for adoption month after month too - may want to discuss that with Stef and Cairo too . . .
Adoption is extremely harmful to women who lose their children and gain life long, potentially disabling grief, due to the marketing and coercive persuasion of infant sellers who comprise the for-profit adoption industry.
Healthy white infants have become an extremely hot commodity and are in short supply in this country. There are no healthy white infants languishing in cages. They are all removed from their mothers and sold to the highest bidders at birth.
There are, however, approximately 175,000 adoptable older children, mixed race and sibling groups languishing in foster care in this country at any given time. These children need permanent homes but are passed over by potential adoptors who literally go to China to adopt the closest thing they can get to a healthy white infant, ie, a female Chinese infant.
Where are the pro-lifers when it comes to adopting these older kids? Nowhere, that's where. The folks who adopt most of these children are primarily gay men.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:25:03 PM
I hope you get to adopt Mexico. He looks absolutely adorable. I really enjoy the pictures and stories about your wonderful pets.
Posted by: M.K. | Dec 30, 2005 6:28:30 PM
Anonymous:
Stef lost a child? I'm sorry to hear anout that, but I never said there where healthy white infants languishing in cages - nonetheless, I have offered repeatedly on-line to help any pregnant woman adopt her newborn regardless of race or health. Lastly, it should go without saying, I am against children being adopted by homosexuals.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:34:39 PM
Not entirely sure what homeschooling your kids has to do with pets ... but maybe it's time Social Services DID pay a call ...
Posted by: Litz | Dec 30, 2005 6:35:50 PM
Since my wife cares for our son full-time (that's why I brought it up - you're the one who keep confusing the 2 concepts - not surprising since you value other animals more than unborn HUMANS), not sure what basis there would be for Social Services to investigate, Litz, but I'm obviously not hiding anything either. In fact, we all just met for just at CPK with a Social Service worker who happens to be in our Bible study. You would think since she's in our home at least every week, warning bells would have gone off already if needed. Have a nice New Years.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:42:11 PM
Charlie,
it's not surprising to me that someone like you would engage in baby selling.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:43:47 PM
You would think since she's in our home at least every week, warning bells would have gone off already if needed.
Does she know about your internet activities regarding pregnant newborns?
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:45:04 PM
Whoops, I meant pregnant women and their newborns. Does your bible believing social worker friend know about your internet activities regarding soliciting pregnant women for their newborns?
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:46:35 PM
Lastly, it should go without saying, I am against children being adopted by homosexuals.
Yes, much better to be warehoused in foster care at the expense of the taxpayer and age out of the system. Quite right.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:48:27 PM
I wouldn't make a single dime - in fact, if I couldn't get the baby placed, my wife and I have discussed adopting any such baby God brings into our lives (we have talked about that in our Bible study group too, so yes, the Social Worker knows) - in that case, we'd be "losing" money on the deal. Next ad hominem attack?
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:48:48 PM
Yes, anonymous, much better for the children and therefore society as a whole for them to be "warehoused" in foster care at the expense of the taxpayer until the age of 18 - sometimes, unfortunately, we have to choose between 2 evils - this choice is pretty clear-cut however.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 6:54:53 PM
I believe trolling for pregnant women and newborns on the internet is cause for FBI investigation, Charlie. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 6:55:27 PM
And, you think I care what you believe? Outfits like Snowflakes.org do it all the time - I think the FBI is going to be busy enough tracking down, you know, real criminals who leak classified information during wartime that damages our national security.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 7:10:06 PM
Yes, anonymous, much better for the children and therefore society as a whole for them to be "warehoused" in foster care at the expense of the taxpayer until the age of 18 - sometimes, unfortunately, we have to choose between 2 evils - this choice is pretty clear-cut however.
So you would rather that kids grow up in an institution like foster care than find a permament family, if that family is headed by two gay men.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/inside/stats.html
»An Uncertain Legacy:
According to a survey of foster care alumni conducted by Casey Family Programs, 13 percent reported being homeless at least once since being discharged. Further, fully 15 percent of the alumni reported being arrested since leaving foster care. "When the system fails, the children are very likely to move out of the system into the juvenile justice system, into the welfare system, into the adult criminal justice system," says Richard Gelles, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Work and one of the authors of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Compare:
http://www.adopting.org/uni/frame.php?url=http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
"Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971), nor have lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow, 1980). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a) and to report
satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989). "
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 7:11:56 PM
And, you think I care what you believe? Outfits like Snowflakes.org do it all the time - I think the FBI is going to be busy enough tracking down, you know, real criminals who leak classified information during wartime that damages our national security.
So, Charlie...you're licensed then?
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 7:15:03 PM
So you would rather that kids grow up in an institution like foster care than find a permament family, if that family is headed by two gay men.
Yes.
P.S. You need a license to post on blogs now-a-days? No wonder you people are so upset about the Patriot Act!
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 7:17:42 PM
Anon wrote: So you would rather that kids grow up in an institution like foster care than find a permament family, if that family is headed by two gay men.
Charlie: Yes.
Your hatreds and biases against gay families fly in the face of all the research, Charlie. Put another way, the facts are biased against you. Can you argue on the facts as presented in the research, or are you just here to indulge your homophobia?
harlie: P.S. You need a license to post on blogs now-a-days? No wonder you people are so upset about the Patriot Act
No, you don't need a license to post on blogs.
But you do need a valid home study, back ground check, clean medical exams and parenting classes in order to do a standard adoption.
Now. IF you are circumventing all of that, you, Charlie, are doing black market adoptions.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 7:29:02 PM
Anon: So you would rather that kids grow up in an institution like foster care than find a permament family, if that family is headed by two gay men.
Charlie:Yes.
Well, Charlie, the facts of the matter as established by research are, as Rob Corddry so brilliantly observed, "biased against" you. The outcomes of individuals aging out of the foster care system are well documented. There is much evidence, many government and private studies that document the deleterious effects of growing up in foster care, as opposed to an adoptive home. There is also a huge body of research documenting the fact that gays are as fit to parent as straights. I have presented you with the tiniest taste of this research, but the fact of the matter is that you don't give a tinker's damn what the research says. I doubt you even looked at those cites.
The fact of the matter is, just what you have stated. You are against gays adopting children, period.
I must therefore conclude that you are not here to discuss permanency issues based on research, reason and rationality, but are merely a tr00l who is here to indulge your homophobia.
You are, therefore, not worthy of the investment required to construct an intellectual structure -ie, a discussion. You are wasting everyone's time.
So, go punch a pillow, fella.
NTodd: If a tree falls in a forest and everyone ignores it, it doesn't make a sound.
Posted by: | Dec 30, 2005 7:43:06 PM
Love comes in all shapes and sizes. It is inclusive not exclusive. It is life affirming, joyful, flexible. It is part of the human condition, indifferent to politics, hatred, religion. People have died for it, because of it, because they never had it. People live to experience it, leave all to acquire it.
Gay people are capable of the kindest acts, the most gracious of gestures, the deepest understanding of a broken heart. They are immensely qualified to take those who are the flotsam and jetsam of society and love them. They will help guide these children to becoming fulfulled members of our community.
What are you so afraid of, Charlie?
Posted by: ellroon | Dec 30, 2005 8:14:14 PM
"charlie" is what's going terribly, terribly wrong with the US of A. A religious nutwad home-schooler who believes he has the right - no, the fucking DUTY - to tell the rest of us how to live.
FOAD, "charlie". Go poke your...dick...somewhere else.
NTodd - good luck w/Mexico. I've known a couple of loverly basenjis. Hunters used to carry them on their shoulders (slung around their necks)so they did not tire unnecessarily, I believe.
SD
Posted by: Sarah Deere | Dec 30, 2005 8:20:04 PM
Move to ban Charlie. Permanently. Do I hear a second?
Posted by: Michael | Dec 30, 2005 8:43:04 PM
Nah, don't ban him. He's harmless, factless, and sadly deluded. He's a good illustration of how kneejerk neocons think.
Could anyone here possibly change their liberal educated minds by reading what Charlie has to say? Didn't think so. I do have to give him credit though for repeatedly coming back here and trying to argue the latest talking points; he must be getting gold stars from his church for talking to godless progressive heathens.
Posted by: ellroon | Dec 30, 2005 8:58:12 PM
he must be getting gold stars from his church for talking to godless progressive heathens.
...or maybe he's getting gold stars for reproductively harvesting women in dire straits and obtaining healthy white infants for Xtian adoption, thereby swelling church membership.
here's an interesting thought. if a licensed social worker illegally or unethically takes a child for adoption, she is protected from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution by virtue of prosecutorial immunity granted to licensed child welfare workers.
not so for unlicensed individuals who may be obtaining babies for adoption. they can be sued.
Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 30, 2005 9:18:29 PM
Let him get his own blog, then. He adds nothing to this site.
Posted by: Michael | Dec 30, 2005 9:47:42 PM
was not the one posting about my adoption(s) for everyone to see.
Leave it to Mr Civility to turn an innocuous post about a dog into a chance to push moralizing crap. If somebody holds an Open House, I guess you'd just waltz right into the living room, pull down your pants and shit on the couch, too. I mean, heck, people let you in, so they must expect such things.
Let him get his own blog, then. He adds nothing to this site.
I know you feel strongly about it, and I don't like the dude either, but he is following the Charlie Troll Rules and I've always been an advocate of protecting hate speech. Consider Charlie our canary in the mine: as he gets more shrill, it becomes apparent that the cognitive dissonance is becoming hard to bear for even the 35-percenters.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 31, 2005 10:01:50 AM
I don't need Charlie for canary purposes. That's what the MSM are for.
Though I suppose I should be thankful for his visit to my place the other day. It sure drove up my hit statistics for the week: three hours, 22 minutes and 9 seconds, and 64 page views, and on the firm's dime, too. Must have been a slow afternoon around the law office.
Posted by: Michael | Dec 31, 2005 12:54:20 PM
You could borrow Teresa Nielsen Hayden's disemvoweling Perl software. When that gets put into use it makes for no end of interesting diversions.
Posted by: Linkmeister | Dec 31, 2005 7:26:09 PM
Hee, I think I got deleted as comment spam the first time - that will teach me to be too brief.
Disemvoweling app:
http://novalis.org/cgi/vowel.cgi
Plug the text in, hit the button, ta da, disemvoweled whatever.
No affiliation, just find it useful sometimes.
Posted by: wren | Jan 1, 2006 2:57:46 AM
Buy me stuff off my 
