Fantasies of the Poor: Oh to be a Rich Person’s Pet.

Emotion-driven humans are prone to perpetual folly. And capitalists, it seems, are everlastingly ready to take advantage of them. Greed, alas, springs eternal. – Lynn Parramore

 

 

You know, despite what some may think, I really don’t hate rich people simply because they are loaded.  It isn’t the having of wealth that often gives the rich a poor image.   Many use their great wealth for socially beneficial things.  Hell, even the nefarious Koch Brothers contribute vast quantities of their wealth to the arts, education, and medical research.

 

It is how some of this great wealth is spent though that rubs many of us wrong who see basic needs for human survival getting overlooked, not only in this country but around the world.  In the case of the Koch Brothers they spend huge sums to ensure that there are idle and poorly paid income earners, hoping I guess that they will visit the museums they support during their off-time from productive work .

But beyond this there are those who have so much cash left after paying for essentials and various luxuries that they still have “pocket change” left that goes to an area that is an insult to any child who goes without food or a family in drought stricken countries that have to walk all day just to get enough potable water for essential use including food preparation and limited hygiene.

In this era of late capitalism, we live in a top-heavy society where the rich are flush with far more cash than they know what to do with. That development has merged with a post-war trend in which pet owners increasingly view animal companions as surrogate children and even mates. The anthropomorphizing tendency seems to be speeding along full-tilt, with owners choosing human-sounding names for their pets and insisting on bringing furballs along to bed and even to the dinner table.   SOURCE

 

Let me state up front that as a dog owner I have no problem with “Millie” and “Bandit” sitting next to me on the couch or sleeping between my wife and I at night.  But beyond that and maybe a few table scraps on occasion, they live a dog’s life and I make no pretense that they are my equal.  I give them proper medical care when they need it, which includes preventative medical treatment that requires a visit once a year to the vet to get their annual shots for common dog related issues.

The relationship I have with my dogs is a close bond but when they die they will get buried in the back yard as earlier pets have and I will shed a few tears at their passing.  But unlike my wife and my two children I will not spend inordinate amounts of money for my pets on a funeral and a casket while someone who has been ordained in the clergy reads eulogies over them.

Their bodies will eventually decompose and enrich the soils giving new life above ground for other creatures to feed from like the families of squirrels and birds that inhabit my small space in this world.  I will not spend good money to have them mummified or frozen in cute positions and placed on display for me to fondly remember them.  Roy Rogers I’m not

 

And even if it is less conspicuous, I would NEVER cremate them and then use their ashes to manufacture a piece of jewelry to wear so I will always be reminded how they touched my life.  That’s what pictures are for.  So what if I’ve converted the spare bedroom into a gallery for my pets.  It was wasted space anyway. (Just kidding)

Now, to be clear, in their moment of grief at losing something that has supplanted a human relationship, people can become vulnerable to exploitation by that entrepreneur spirit that borders on the snake-oil salesman mentality.  And if you just happen to have a  monetary value equivalent to a few small countries you can be sure these vultures will devise ways to separate you from any excesses you have.  But I would implore all such people of wealth to keep in mind that though you have emotional needs that need to be met following the death of  “MiMi” or “Sebastian”, there are still families near and far that barely find enough to eat to meet basic nutritional requirements or water supplies to prevent serious dehydration.

Unlike your pets, these will likely be people that weren’t there to comfort you when your stock took a nosedive or the the family yacht had to be dry-docked but I’ll bet they are capable of showing love if they knew you had a hand in their survival.  Hell, they may even name their family goat after you and drink it’s milk to your health every time they sit at their small wooden table that sits on an earthen floor under a thatched roof which keeps most of rain out in the monsoon season.

“More please Mr. Romney”

Advertisements

13 responses to “Fantasies of the Poor: Oh to be a Rich Person’s Pet.

  1. Gee, I thought “Sedate me” was talking to you at first, and then realized that if he was he completely misunderstood you. Glad to find out it was in response to someone else! As for the ‘lame libertarian’ approach – I think a lot of people fall in love with a theory – an ideology – of how they think the world should run. Ideologies are always vastly oversimplified understandings of reality. Almost all ideologies can explain parts of what happened, and are weak in other areas. That’s why so many can co-exist and remain unfalsified despite often being in extreme contradiction to each other. Anyone who treats an ideology as gospel does so at the expense of actually taking reality seriously.

    • Sorry about the confusion Scott.

      People like John Barron, who Sedate Me was responding to, are those died-in-the-wool, Charles and David Koch-type libertarians that have a very narrow frame of reference that they judge people by and no amount of facts will alter view one iota. Anyone perceived as liberals are viewed as always wrong while their views are always right. I simply don’t even try anymore. I believe you have one of these that hover on your blog named Alan.

      Thanks for dropping by.

    • To be clear, I was in NO way referring to Woodgate or to what he wrote in his good article.

      I just dropped by and noticed that some clueless idiot head over heels in love with his own delusional ideology was trying to shit on Woodgate for no apparent reason. Barron couldn’t even grasp that his comments were more than just laughably wrong, but may have been “hate driven”.

      I myself am under no such delusion. I am fully aware many of my comments are “hate-driven” on one level or another. Seeing the potential of things getting nasty, I decided (to use a hockey term) to be the “3rd man in” and do Woodgate a favour by pummelling that clown in the hopes he would slink back to his personal blogging Utopia where the “intelligent, hard working and irreplaceable” 1% are worshipped as the Gods they are while the “stupid, lazy, useless” Poors are left to wither & die as the result of their own flawed characters & bad decisions. (aka Libertarian Paradise!)

      Unfortunately, by the time I cranked out my rant, the entire series of posts had been removed and mine was just hanging in the context-free breeze. (And with an embedded video to boot. Damn I hate it when that happens.)

      Sorry, but it’s one of those “instinctual” things. It angers me when I see the elderly/weak/underdog/mild mannered/take-your-pick being bullied by some delusional douche pushing an agenda that would further promote the interests of the strong over the interests of the weak.

      Next time I see that kind of crap and want to respond, I promise I’ll try to count to 10 first and then hit the browser “refresh” button before posting to ensure my target is still there.

      • “Unfortunately, by the time I cranked out my rant, the entire series of posts had been removed and mine was just hanging in the context-free breeze.”

        It’s kinda my fault too Sedate for pulling the comment by Barron. It didn’t dawn on me either that I might catch someone like you responding to his comments before pulling them. Hope that doesn’t keep you from coming back in the future and making comments on other topics.

        “Sorry, but it’s one of those “instinctual” things. It angers me when I see the elderly/weak/underdog/mild mannered/take-your-pick being bullied by some delusional douche ..”

        Trust me, none of these considerations really fit me. And please don’t think by saying this that I thought you were being insensitive. I don’t.

        Even at 63, being elderly isn’t something that prevents me from standing up to some zealot like Barron. In fact I am guilty in the past of responding just as you did. But time has been instructive and I have come to realize that this tact doesn’t gain anything other than feeling good after letting off steam. I have done nothing to really get people like Barron to appreciate an opposing view from their own. It simply deepens their convictions about people like me and to some degree even gives them some gratification from ruffling their adversaries feathers.

        I would have been glad to have an open honest debate with Barron on this if he had approached the topic in a civil fashion and not began by taking the extreme view he did. But I recognize this form of attack and having seen Barron’s “sentiments” expressed on another blog, I realized instantly that he was someone who wasn’t willing to listen to a rational approach on this.

        My original posts was not a rational post but then it wasn’t intended to be. Most rational people would have recognized it as the satire it was and, if they held views like Barron does, would have simply taken some internal offense then moved along without feeling the urge to respond.

        But people like Barron, who make up their minds about an issue and are locked into them, are always on the edge, looking for a fight and are never ready to concede that some of what they hold as “truth” may not fit all situations. Nor are they willing to own up to a bit of hyperbole on their own part. Being wrong is something they can’t tolerate either, especially when confronted with someone at the polar opposite of their belief system.

        For the record, I welcome any and all opposing views to my posts. I fully understand they are predisposed to a set of views that many would take issue to. But I will not tolerate such attacks that clearly indicate they are not in tune with reality and who have no intention of engaging in civil discourse to confront someone who they don’t agree with. Age has also shown me that dealing with such people at all is usually a total waste of time, which is something I have no intention of doing anymore.

        Take care Sedate and I hope to see you around again. I do catch your comments on other blogs that we seem to both appreciate so if not here, then perhaps on one of those blogs.

        BTW, your spelling of “favour” indicates you’re British or Canadian or a derivative of the Great Britain heritage. Am I wrong and if not, do you mind sharing where you’re from? Or not.

      • 1) Am I Canadian??? I used a hockey analogy (3rd Man In) for cryin’ out loud!!! 🙂 As a little twerp, I watched the ultimate team, The Broad Street Bullies (aka 1970’s Philadelphia Flyers) Everybody from the highest paid star to the bench warmers fought unselfishly for the common good, literally. Third Man In was a common occurrence designed to protect a teammate in trouble. NOBODY, rich or poor, was above taking one for the good of the team….very unlike the rich of today.

        Here’s an example of their work. (Hopefully the video won’t embed.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRkwpMVOUs The initial fight is between their high scoring Captain, Bobby Clarke. Watch how the team responds to protect their star and how the star later tries to protect his teammates. Also note that the guy flipping the Atlanta player into the bench is their highest scorer, Reggie Leach. Later on, infamous goon, Dave “The Hammer” Schultz clobbers the guy who came after his coaching staff. The Hammer actually wound up scoring the winning goal of that playoff series.

        The 70’s Flyers was all about everyone contributing and sacrificing for the good of the team. Ain’t no high paid prima-donnas looking for tax cuts or standing by as the lower ranked players get their asses kicked.

        I better stop the 70’s hockey talk before I tear up out of nostalgia.

        2) From what I checked out on his blog, Barron seems to be a classic little Libertarian twit. They all have blind, unquestioning, faith in the Holy Free Market. It’s a straight up religious cult built on pure faith. Changing their minds requires a de-programmer and is almost impossible, but they still need to be countered only because their illness may infect somebody else’s mind.

        Mental illness is a communicable disease.

        3) Sorry if I implied you’re old & weak.

        4) Despite blowing a couple hours on my rant I’m not remotely upset you nixed it. Leaving it sit there alone just made no sense.

        5) I’ll continue to occasionally drop by. However, I used to do all my postings at work and my job went MIA. I don’t have a home Internet account, so my comments will be sporadic at best. I’m currently reduced to exchanging sex for Internet access. (Which also explains why my comments will be a little less coherent and less brilliant than usual. No time for proof reading.)

        6) Satire is a lost & unappreciated art in the Internet era. Everything is blunt, literal and deep thought is discouraged. But try to keep it up anyway. Literacy (and 70’s hockey) makes me nostalgic.

  2. But, I would love to talk about this issue, I really would. But you have proven that you will delete comments that don’t merely parrot back your political ideals. So any effort I might put into responding with substance will not last and you will just misrepresent what I write, just like you did last time. (remember, I took screen shots proving you took me out of context). So until I have your word that all comments remain posted, there is no use talking to you.

    However, you do prove the recent study that shows liberals are more intolerant of dissenting views.

    • Believe what you will John. Let’s get past your perceptions here and proceed to answer how your initial response was an attempt at “engaging ideas”.

      The floor is yours. Are you going to waste it about what you think I will do or try to make a valid point?

      People are waiting.

  3. Sedate Me has qualified for the Extreme Douchebaggery award. He’s so unsure of himself, he offers no real arguments.

    Wonderful.

    He should come back with a lot of transparent, inane nonsense that will fulfill his pathetic desire to appear learned and intelligent. This nonsense, mind you, will answer no real question or support any objection, but it’ll be riveted with all sorts of utter liberal bullshit.

    I can’t wait, John.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s