By the way Jones, that was a metaphor.

What you wrote before was an analogy!!

You can complain about the weather.
Or mortality.
For all the good it will do. There is something called the Serenity Prayer, which contains some handy wisdom.
It explains the importance in distinguishing between the things one can change, and the things one can't.

"God grant me the serenity 
 to accept the things I cannot change; 
 courage to change the things I can;
 and wisdom to know the difference."

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Marina Baktis has proven she lacks this wisdom.
You cannot change anything if you insist on banging your head on the unchangeable, by refusing to accept reality as it is no matter how unpleasing it may be.
The thing that Marina could not change was that a little dog had been incorrectly placed beyond her reach, and beyond her control.
Incorrectly.
This dog had been given a home. Marina was not consulted. This was wrong. Marina and her organization had been disrespected by a very powerful person. Ellen and Portia had an obligation and a commitment that they violated. Marina had an obligation and a commitment to the well being of this young and fragile puppy.
This obligation and commitment that Marina had accepted was thrown out, unfortunately, when Marina failed to see the reality of the situation as it was. Instead, she saw it only in terms of herself, ignoring the feelings of Iggy, the other people involved, and the obvious consequences of her actions; which should have been anticipated by any reasonable person. Marina was justifiably upset and was not reasonable. Too bad Marina failed to realize that she had already lost control of Iggy. Too bad Marina could not forsee that for a rescue worker to forcibly remove a dog from a home he had already adapted to without showing a good reason would be a controversial and questionable move at best, and should have been resorted to only as an absolute last resort. Too bad she continues to blame Ellen for the bad press she herself created by her radical and unkind actions.
Too bad Marina chose to damage the reputation and and credibility of rescues everywhere due to the fact that she lacked the common decency to stand up and admit she was upset and acted in haste.

Both the ASPCA and Humane Society disapproved of Marina's handling of this situation.
Sometimes, the weather gets bad. Sometimes things happen to us that are unfair. Acting like a jerk tends not to correct these injustices and inconveniences that life dishes out.
Rules are not to be blindly followed because they are "rules". What exactly are the rules for?
What are the rules trying to achieve?
In this case the rules existed so that a puppy would wind up in a lifetime healthy and happy home. The excuse given for Marina removing Iggy from just such a home was that she was enforcing the Rules. She lied and broke the law to do so.
Too bad Marina lacked the vision to distinguish between the things that she could change and the things she could not.
Yes, she got away with illegally and cruelly removing a dog from his home. But she cannot change that she did this, in direct and ironic contradiction to her mandate to put dogs in homes, not forcibly remove them out of anger and pettiness.
So many seem to nastily gloat on the fact that Marina has "won".

Has she?

Posted by jones | November 22, 2007 6:38 PM

Aces imatating Jones:

“Oh well let’s see, I spent all day on the Internet and found out that Marina’s business is a sham. Never saw a legal paper nor been to Mutt’s and Mom’s, but the computer told me so. I also found some old law that stated 9/10’s of the law. I have never read an actual law book, nor do I know intimately how the legal system works. But from my very reliable jargon I fished off the Internet, I have declared definitively that Marina is a criminal. It doesn’t matter that no crime was charged or that a court of law has not decided it because that isn’t necessary in my world. What do they know? All people who can’t see this are ignorant and liars.”

Sound about right, Jones?

Dear Aces,
I think it is a shame how some people treat you. To ridicule the handicapped in this manner is so icky. Do not be afraid of the dark. I know what will make you feel better.

Dear Genius,

M-e-t-a-p-h-o-r

MET'-uh-4

lets all say it together, "Met-a-phor"

I was afraid it might be over your poor little head, Deucey

time for nighty-night

Gee Jones...Do you even care about truth...or is this just a big brash attempt at appearing intelligent by the truly misguided?

How many times can we insult? You’re a big proud person aren't you?

Laughing at you Jones...

Battered woman...That’s how you see Ellen?

I am sure she is down on her knee's thanking you for that image...

Marina an abusive husband.... laugh?

First, if I must spell out for you, where was the battery? The only one who got even close to battered is Marina with all of her threats of violence (idyll as they may have been.)

You obviously didn’t learn anything when Bob G. graciously tried to enlighten you towards your poor choice of vocabulary. NAZI? So now Marina has been equated as both a Mass Murderer and a Violent Man?

Give it up already; take the lead of your fearless leader. The sad thing is I am sure Ellen already knows how much she ******up and is grateful Marina isn't seeking damages.

But let's see I guess Marina is just a big ol' wife beater, right? Who just sits up all-night trying to figure out which small children she can really upset today?

Congratulations Jones, you have proven your self to be a brilliantly perceptive individual. Did you get proper schooling for that? Sign me up!!!

Aceless,

You, talking about bad taste? Well, you are the expert. A metaphor on a blog is bad taste while stealing a puppy from his home is okay? Um-hm.

you uttured:

"Alan Smithee equating Ellen's public outcry with that of a battered woman confronting her abusive husband is not only false, but also in bad taste."

And if this statement is false, EXPLAIN WHY, as it makes perfect sense to me. We can't all be geniuses like you. Or is it that you just couldn't read all the big words, so in made no sense?

Explain why this is a false metaphor, or kindly shut the hell up.
And WHY is it that your pal Stefany has more credibility than Mr. Smithee?

You have a long history on this blog of changing names constantly, and NEVER explaining or citing facts for any of your outrageous statements (in addition to embarrassing yourself with your feeble and childish attempts to copy my limericks, including the ones with my name and personal attacks contained therein.)

Hi Alan:

Can't start a thread without name calling? You sure didn't read my previous message to New Blogger, did you? But then I guess you only see what you want.

You sure didn't pay any attention to the time lines, the e-mails or even what Ellen said on the air, did you?

I've done with the high road with your ilk. Now I play down and dirty like you. But I don't name call.

What I really said to Karen was:

"It is also you and Jones who have perpetuated this by feeling the need to counter, sometimes viciously, each and every criticism made about Ellen. Sometime I wonder if it might have been you two who initially sent some threats to Mutts and Moms. It wouldn't surprise me in the least."

If the shoe fits, Alan, wear it.

neg·li·gence

Alan Smithee look that up in your law book and see what you discover.

And of course, Jones, Stefany must be a phoney if she disagrees with you, right?

An Argument Favoring Arguments

Fair is when you see both sides of an argument, and choose one and argue against the other. It is a fair and noble activity, as you now have two people trying to shoot holes in each other's position while defending their own side, leading hopefully to a new, wiser, and more highly evolved consensus than either argument was to begin with.

When done correctly, ideally the falsehood on both sides gets shot down and only the truth remains; and this is a higher truth than either side as it embodies the merits of differing viewpoints and is by definition the product of more than one mind. It is the result of evolution and concession, and continued argument to wash the crap off the truth. The truth is that which withstands the scrutiny of argument, and welcomes challange rather than evading it.

So an argument can be a great tool in seeking a solution where none has yet to become apparent. So in reality, those who see differing sides and debate/discuss/argue in addressing these points of contention are actually only apparent, or temporary adversaries. If they have a common goal, which is doing the right thing, then they have that goal in common and wind up two on the same team. This is if they are willing to let go of their untruths and occasionally adopt some of the opponent's truths, as continued argument and deliberation can lead to as they simultaneously present, explain, and defend their own argument. Fair play and logic can lead to higher thoughts when effort and passion is added. This is an organic process of sifting and is not to be feared. The grain is kept while the chaff is discarded.

And in the end, we keep the good and throw out the bad, the untrue, and the MISTAKES and we are left with something that works that we can all take credit for.
This is all idealistic and hypothetical though, since some hooligan who thinks they are better than everybody always has to come along and NOT see both sides of an argument and embrace one, but who sees only one side and ignores the rest, and in doing so never addresses or adopts anything but their own argument and remains in a bubble of exclusive unreality. In doing so, that person breaks the system by failing to see and embrace their opponent's merits and see their own failings in the respective arguments, and refuses to interact and allow for any growth or resolution. Closing your eyes does not change the truth or the facts. This stops the exchange of ideas and derails the entire process, and undermines the objective.
This merely sustains the appearance of an argument, but leads nowhere but to further polarization and animosity.

You may have a nice new car, but if the dog poops in it you throw the poop out, not ignore it and call it new car smell.

You lose the mistakes by identifying them as such, and throwing them out, so you are left only with workable truth. If you cling to the mistakes, you never lose the stink and dilute what truth you may have, and weaken it.

Wake up, sleepyheads.

Posted by Alan Smithee | November 16, 2007 5:06 AM