A trip to the dog park is usually a peaceful, relaxing experience – perhaps more so for Gracie than for me. Most of the folks who show up regularly find that sports is the subject of choice and the mornings are replete with stories about how they “would have hit that eight teamer … if only (fill in the blank) hadn’t happened.” This, of course, reminds me of the old story that if only the bull had teats he would have been a cow.
Well, this morning, things were slightly different. And the basis for the minor brouhaha had not to do with sports but stemmed from a discussion about dogs.
As three of us regulars were talking, the question of the genetic background of a dog who appears only occasionally arose. The dog is a Labrador/French poodle mix which the owner had hoped to breed but ultimately could not find any takers so he had the dog neutered. One of us, she maintains homes in Las Vegas and southern California made the observation that, ‘In California it’s illegal to cross breed dogs.” She herself has a lovely Golden Retriever.
This prompted the other party to this conversation to make an observation about the stupidity (although he didn’t use that term) of all the laws in California and how Jerry Brown and the Democrat controlled chambers were ruining the state. The statement went unchallenged by the woman – until my friend left – and she then lambasted me for the statement made by my friend who had already left. My friend and I are both more closely attuned politically – and the woman who was incensed leans decidedly to the left.
In her rant, she said, “I’m tired of being attacked for my political views.” In fact, nothing had been said about her views – merely about the governor of California. She went on to say that, “Neither of you lives in California – so what right do you have to an opinion about how the state is being run?” That statement so artfully fits into the thinking of those on the left that I suspect that if there is a manual on “How To Be A Liberal,” that primmer extolls that viewpoint in its first chapter.
I find it rather telling that in a state committed to “diversity” there should be an interdiction against creating dogs that are more “diverse.” Hasn’t anyone wondered what the offspring of a Great Dane and a Chinese Hairless would look like? And more to the specific point, the Golden Retriever, a breed which I love, has only been recognized as a “purebred” by the AKC since 1925. The breed came about as the result of mixing Wavy-Coated Retrievers with the now extinct Tweed Water Spaniel. Had the California law been in effect when the breed first saw the light of day it might never have come into being.
Returning to the point that, “If you don’t live there you’re not entitled to an opinion,” this is merely the outgrowth of a liberal philosophy which, by extension, should require that accused rapists can only be tried by a jury of other accused rapists; accused murderers should be tried only before others who were themselves accused of murder; and only women should be permitted to enact laws or adjudicate them which are relevant to other women. Which brings us to the interesting question of why is it that the left endorses the 7 – 2 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade which was handed down by an all male court? There is, however, an explanation. I will leave it to you to determine its plausibility.
It’s been forty-one years since that decision was rendered. Back in those days most Americans recognized people who belonged to one of two sexes. That was before we became more enlightened and aware that there were also people whom today we call transgendered which, if I understand it properly refers to people who may be anatomically identified as belonging to one gender but who psychological identify as a member of the opposite sex.
While the number of people in America who are transgendered is difficult to ascertain accurately, the most recent data, which includes a survey that the State of California conducted, suggests that the total transgendered adult population is approximately 0.3% of the population, although other estimates suggest the number may be as high as 3.5%. In 1973 when Roe v Wade was adjudicated, the total adult population of the country was 180 million – only a small percentage of whom, thankfully, were lawyers – and an even small number of those held positions as Federal judges – the primary recruiting source from which Supreme Court justices are recruited.
If we accept the premise that only women can logically decide issues that pertain to other women, then it would seem we are left with two rather disparate possibilities with regard to the landmark case. Either the seven male Justices who voted in favor of legalizing abortion made a mistake; or the seven male Justices who voted in favor of legalizing abortion were actually transgendered. Who knew that it would be possible to stack the court with that many transgendered people?
I look forward to my visit to the dog park tomorrow morning. Who knows what else I’m going to learn?