San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare has proposed a ban on the sale of any pets with the exception of fish. The new ordinance would make it unlawful to sell dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, and other pets.
Chairwoman Sally Stephens insisted that pets are often “impulse buy[s] . . . end up at the shelter and often are euthanized.”
Notably, the law was first proposed to combat puppy mills but animal control officers reported that the real problem was . . . hamsters. Many people buy hamsters without understanding that they bite and scratch. They end up in shelters. The ordinance was therefore expanded to include small animals.
If passed, citizens would have to go outside the jurisdiction to buy pets.
Source: CBS.
In my reply I made this reference, because you sought to interject Constitutional rights in your response, to my post. As I stated at the beginning of my reply, my post made absolutely no such reference because it was not the subject of the article.
The fact that the federal government has failed to uphold its duty to protect their border, while failing to enforce the laws set forth by congress , which again the Constitution requires of our government, more than justifies Arizona’s action. The fact that the federal government can fail as they clearly have to uphold their constitutional duties to the citizens of our country, and now they wish to assert the supremacy clause is absurd. For them to use the constitution to strike down a law that is the direct result of their failure to uphold their Constitutional duties is beyond absurd, it is ludacris.
I fail to see what illegal aliens have to do with commerce, or where Arizona has entered into agreements with states or foreign governments, nor have they declared war or established foreign policy. All they have done is state that they would enforce the laws which congress has created. Unless the federal government is now saying that local law enforcement can no longer enforce any federal law, which would in theory end any felony arrest. Then it is the federal government that is fully in the wrong, and fortunately the majority of Americans concur.
macon pets,
To what degree is the deficit going to be fixed by allowing or not allowing people to buy animals in SF?
Also, what mechanism does the city government use to control the federal deficit? I’m interested.
The deficit is quickly becoming a feature of religion, alongside the mishmash of Nixon, Jesus, Moses, Reagan, loaves and fishes, Noah, Scalia, shamrocks, McCarthy, creationism, Palin, the parting of the Red Sea, new religious sacraments involving CO2 emission and firearms, Jefferson Davis, Thomas Paine (minus his socialist pamphlets), and the English-speaking god-fearing citizens of the U.S. as being God’s Chosen People.
Maroinette,
Just because I didn’t address Constitution Free Zones, don’t think I’m not only appalled by them but know that’s a “law” I do not recognize as valid. “In any civilized society, it is every citizen’s responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen’s responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
The fact of the matter is that CFZ’s are not the subject of this column. Were it the subject of this column, or indeed your original post, I would have had plenty to say about it. The bottom line is I feel DHS is an illegal organization deriving power from the manifestly unconstitutional Patriot Act. Our very own Homeland Gestapo. That Obama hasn’t done away with the Patriot Act (and DHS) is a great betrayal to both his campaign promises to restore the rule of law and of the Constitution and the principles found in the Declaration. The nations we’ve past criticized for lacking a good human rights records and utilizing secret police are laughing their asses off at us now. The Neocons used fear to push through an agenda that’s turning us into that which we fought against in WWII and against the principles this country was founded upon: liberty and justice for all.
As to the Arizona law being unconstitutional, it simply is by the Supremacy Clause as it reserves powers under Art. I, Sec. 8 which reserves the power to the Federal government to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and Art. I, Sec. 10 which states that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” So unless Arizona is arguing that Mexico is invading Arizona, the law is prime facie unconstitutional. That the Arizona law may be a doorway to attack the Patriot Act is merely a reflection of the law of unintended circumstances for those responsible for the Patriot Act do not want it challenged as it is their gateway to the declaration of martial law. But that doesn’t change that Arizona is not free to conduct their own private foreign policy absent Congressional approval and this vague law (also a Constitutional issue) is in operation conducting independent foreign policy. Two wrongs rarely make a right and I’d be surprised if this one does.
As to your assertion that truth is relative, that’s not an argument I buy. Only perception is relative. What is, is. Arguing the factual truth of matters is relative is a distortion. While the universe is gradients of analog gray, a point on a curve is still a point. I’m all for precision, but I’m even more so for facts and evidence, not perception as propaganda is the art of manipulating perception and the tool preferred by the enemies within seeking to install themselves into permanent power. You can convince someone that black is white but the reality does not change that white is the full spectrum at one candle and black is simply the absence or absorption of light.
Blouise
It is a pleasure to receive your response.
It is funny that you would bring up Michael & Maddow.
While in Chad I was contacted by our people in the states about an interesting aspect of this and another story as well.
We contacted every major news station, as well as; Ms. Maddow concerning an interview Mr Hastings had done for Al Jazeera. Not a single one touched it. We primarily deal with tracking the International Slave Trade throughout the world, so we monitor a lot of International forms of media. We did not push this because of my being in Chad, and the fact that people get slapped on the no fly list in the bat of an eye, even under this administration.
After two weeks we finally had to ping it around the underground news network to get it out. To my knowledge there is still no mention of it in the mainstream. Which is not unusual these days, there is a lot of news blacked out by our mainstream media, from getting to the American people. This interview preceded Maddow’s interview with Hastings by 2 days, and we can attest that she was aware of it at the time of her interview. Which was funny, only because in this one he actually made Obama out to be clueless, while providing military Intel.
Our only concern was for our troops in regards to it. Because Aljazeera is the eyes and ears of the insurgent movement, and the interview was almost like an insurgent recruiters dream ad.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/06/201062323918352563.html
Buddha Is Laughing
It is good to hear opinion. However; my remarks involving the subject of this article that effect the People of San Francisco was based solely on a matter of zoning law. In fact I specifically stated that ” With exception to laws of the land.”
I would think you would be more outraged at the fact that the entire city, along with half the state fall with-in the federally mandated “Constitution Free Zone” in which the Constitutional protections of unlawful search and seizure are suspended.
In fact 2/3 of the American population lives in the 100 mile zone which encompasses our entire country, and has been ruled by the Supreme Court not to be Unconstitutional. In fact the entire states of Michigan, Florida, Maine, New Jersey,as well as; NYC, and if irony is to be included, the very place where our physical Constitution resides is itself in a “Constitution Free Zone”.
In regards to your comment concerning the Arizona law being Unconstitutional, I would differ in this regard. The only way to proclaim the Arizona Law to be unconstitutional.Is to proclaim the Federal Law to be Unconstitutional, which I thoroughly agree that it is. However, for the federal government to imply that it is racially motivated is outrageous, when they are doing the exact same thing all over the country. They also use state and local law enforcement to institute these stops and searches in the “Constitution Free Zone”, even in Arizona.
In all honesty, at the start I thought that was Arizona’s under lying motive for passing the law to begin with, because the citizens were outraged over such a Zone. If the court deems the federal law to be Unconstitutional, it would give legal precedent to attack the far more despotic version of it in the Patriot Act, which is the most outrageous of them all.
As for your view about words gaining there power from truth, I thoroughly concur, however; where in my experience I have come to know that the truth has many variances depending upon the perspective from which one views it. Our case is a good example, you view things sincerely from a legal perspective, where I sincerely view them from a spiritual one. If we failed to communicate this to one another, we would fail to realize we both agree on the topic in general, we merely state it from a different perspective. Just as I would define that the truth of propaganda is when one demands that all see and speak the truth from their perspective only.
If we fail in communicating with one another, then we fail to see that our greatest of strengths, arise from those things which make us different, not those which make us the same.
To close I wish to merely point out that I do not seek to deny any the right to speak as they choose,nor denounce them for doing so. As I stated in the post: “as we use to say, I will defend to the death, their right to say them. I truly believe that they would do the same for my right not to”. It will never be my intent to demand such a thing of another. I enjoyed your response, for it affords me yet another perspective from which to experience the truth.
the best thing to do is just keep the govt out of it. They should have more important things to do like take care of the MASSIVE budget deficit out of it.
AY,
That is also why I don’t buy babies from baby mills.
People have children that are less protected than animals.
W=c,
Thank you. The whole “puppy mill” issue is why I’ll never buy a breeder supplied (insert pet of choice here) over a shelter animal. One of my cats is a shelter cat and the other a “walk in” and the shelter cat is hands down the best cat I’ve ever had in the family.
BIL,
The more I read your responses the more I like what you say.
“Words loose their power when they loose their truth. ” This especially rings true to me.
And I love the idea of criminalizing the sale of pets…or is it the unlicensed sale? In any event, it is at least an attemnpt to address a problem that seems to just be getting uglier and uglier.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen the piles and piles of euthanized unwanteds at the local shelter….and the poor souls who have to do this sad act and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would be breeding anything right now.
Marionette Hicks,
” … Unfortunately, our national media does not respect such American principles. They seem to always seek to cause discourse among our citizens, and childishly define it as news. I am rapidly reaching the point, that I do not even listen to their hateful babel, which serves to bring but darkness to our once enlightened land. …”
================================================================
I watch a PBS channel for the evening news and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC for commentary. Quite frankly and perhaps surprisingly, Rolling Stone has garnered some real trust when it comes to investigative reporting .. Michael Hastings and Matt Taibbi …
Marionette,
That’s all well and good but it ignores a few simple facts.
1) “The laws which the people of San Fransisco choose for themselves, should be of no rightful concern of others.”
They should be the concerns of others if they are unconstitutional or manifestly unjust. Just like Arizona’s “immigration law”. Maintaining the laws that protect our liberties, ensure our freedoms and (are supposed to) protect the interests of the common good are the duties of all American citizens, regardless of domicile.
2) “If the people disagree with the laws the can seek to change them, and if not they are free to live elsewhere. This applies to any city or state.”
“They” can seek to change the law, but in the age of sanctioned (and now unlimited thanks to Citizens United) corporate graft, unless you can buy a campaign for a politician or otherwise grease their venal palms, “they” aren’t getting a damn thing changed. For examples, see the recent “health care reform” that is nothing more than propping up the insurance and drug industries and what started out as “Wall St. – we’re going to make you clean up your criminal act” became “Wall St. – we’re going to do whatever you tell us and sell a bunch of whitewash bullshit to the People”. As to the moving proposition? Not everyone has the resources – both economic and social – required to move. That’s the brutal reality of that.
3) “However, in my life I have found that the use of hateful words, does more to restrict the freedom of communication, than it does for ones freedom to speak, for in the absence of communication all words lose their power of meaning.”
I’m glad that’s been your experience. But like the disclaimer says, “Online user experiences may vary.” Different tools for different jobs and (the late Gary Coleman’s favorite) different strokes for different folks. Your statements about the media are dead on. As I described it in an earlier response to you, there is a war going on for the minds of America. The Front Line is what now passes for The Front Page which is in reality nothing more than thinly veiled propaganda and distractions. Wars, even if they are verbal, get ugly. Words don’t loose their power if they are harsh. They loose their power if they are distorted obfuscation or outright lies. They loose their power in this way because that allows liars and evil doers to define the terms. Words loose their power when they loose their truth. Anyone trained in dialectics and/or adversarial processes will tell you a sure step in the wrong direction is to allow others to control definitions. That kind of behavior left unchecked leads to things like Byron – an otherwise intelligent guy – being unable to distinguish collectivism from simple thievery in the case of Robert Mugabe. Distorting definitions – as demonstrated here time and again – is the tool of propagandists and con men. That is also a grim reality. War, in any form, is Hell.
I feel for our kindred spirits of the animal world, for it is the way of most Native American people. They are here to guide us and aid us in understanding the paths that we must take, and aid use to overcome the obstacles we all encounter in life.
No one should be allowed to abuse or force such wonderful spirits into lives of servitude. As the many who love them know, given the chance they choose to freely love and serve us throughout our lives.
The laws which the people of San Fransisco choose for themselves, should be of no rightful concern of others. If the people disagree with the laws the can seek to change them, and if not they are free to live elsewhere. This applies to any city or state. If one disagrees with the laws of one place they can seek to change them, or move to a place that has laws they can better accept. With exception to laws of the land. This is the one thing which makes America unique.
Unfortunately, our national media does not respect such American principles. They seem to always seek to cause discourse among our citizens, and childishly define it as news. I am rapidly reaching the point, that I do not even listen to their hateful babel, which serves to bring but darkness to our once enlightened land.
I know many who visit this blog feel that free speech encompasses all words. However, in my life I have found that the use of hateful words, does more to restrict the freedom of communication, than it does for ones freedom to speak, for in the absence of communication all words lose their power of meaning.
The freedom of expression affords us many more meaningful words, than those of hateful expression. But as we use to say, I will defend to the death, their right to say them. I truly believe that they would do the same for my right not to.
May the Jaguar Medicine visit the hearts and dreams of the good people in San Francisco, and guide them to the understanding wisdom needed in deciding this measure intended to protect our kindred spirits. Hopefully;in a manner that does not deny the freedoms of others.
Long live pets … de-commercialize them …
Need help in choosing a pet?
The Best Pet for Your Sign
Looking for the perfect animal companion for yourself or someone you love? Your Sun Sign can help you choose!
http://astrocenter.astrology.msn.com/msn/ArticleAstrologyHomeV2.aspx?sd=20090407>1=21001
I have no problem with private breeders being able to make a living in markets where there isn’t already a worsening glut of unwanted animals. SF is not such a place.
In general reputable breeders have their litters sold while the animals are still puppies, and they go for quality not quantity. But there’s a slippery slope from reputable breeding to puppy milling, and being a reputable breeder in SF is virtually impossible given that market (with exceptions for those producing specialized breeds, working dogs, etc.)
It would be stupid to outlaw pet sales everywhere- the way we outlaw buying and selling kids everywhere- but it shouldn’t be such a big deal to restrict pet sales in San Francisco. Instead of whining about what they’re not allowed to buy, people should just consider adopting a dog that’s spent its life in a cage and make it the happiest it’s ever been.
maverratick,
I’m a little torn about private breeders though. There’s a long tradition of breeding dogs–the modern dog wouldn’t exist without it. If people are willing to pay $500+ for a specially bred dog, my guess is that the dogs are being well cared for by the breeder (because they are valuable if nothing else).
All pets should be free. SF shelters charge a $100 adoption fee or whatever you call it to cover neutering, shots, etc. People making commodities out of pets is something they are trying to fix, not actual adoptions.
It figures that free trade rednecks across the nation would start right back up with their “only in SF” bullshit even as their own foreclosures generate a flood of befuddled 12 year old family dogs arriving at shelters to die alone.
I could see a ban on commercial pet stores, but I’d hope that shelters would not be affected (and maybe individual breeders too?)