Destructve

Recently I had the unprecedented joy of shopping for homeowners insurance.  This involved putting together a size-able list of all the companies offering their services in my area and going to their respective websites and getting quotes and calling others.  Quotes varied by several hundred dollars for basically the same coverage, even from the mainline respectable companies.  There were some things that were a sticking point for one company that the other company hardly cared about such as location of fire hydrants, age of the roof, and material of construction.  One hold up that I didn’t expect however was what type of dog I owned.

No, I don’t own an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), I own a German Shepard Dog, however that dog has been recently finding its name on more and more blacklists.  My current insurance provider only allows me coverage with this dog because of the age of the dog and the lack of bite history, but if it were a new dog with no history I would have to look elsewhere.  Some companies flat-out denied me coverage but then again others didn’t even ask.

I understand that dog bites can account for a notable percentage of insurance claims so I don’t think that this is some egregious profiling, however it makes more sense to me to charge a premium for the service rather than completely denying me coverage.  Reading around on the Internet I see that a lot of insurance companies had a don’t ask don’t tell type of policy.  They didn’t ask about the dog and you didn’t divulge information unless something happened.  This however is going more toward the wayside.

Suffice it to say this will impact my future decisions in getting a dog.  I really enjoy my German Shepard Dog but I’ve always wanted a APBT.  From the ages of 5 to 14 I was raised with a Pit Bull and it was the most loyal and affectionate dog I have ever seen.  Being raised side by side we became inseparable and he loved to play.  At times he would grab the bottom of my pant leg and drag me through the house, definitely a fun memory.

The dog never bit me, got angry at me for any reason, and the only training he had was being at my side.  But, when the time came he could be more than a hand-full.  For one he tore the molding off the front door in efforts to get to the mailman, and if I were sleeping and someone were to enter the room he would rush the door barking until it was closed.  The breed is highly protective. 

The problem is of course that they fight these dogs, and they’re good at fighting.  Because of this there are a lot of violent Pit Bulls out there with the potential to do damage.  I mention the potential because there are so many small dogs out there that are just as violent and ill trained that the owners don’t really care to teach manners to.  If they bite someone the owner just shrugs it off, that’s not the case with a Pit Bull. 

I’m not trying to change anything, just weigh in.  It’s been said over and over again that any dog without training has the potential to be a bad dog and Pit Bulls are no exception.  It’s just that they also have the potential to do grievous damage.  But, the fault isn’t with the animal.  It’s with the owner. 

Because of this breed of dog being blacklisted by so many, my chances of getting one in the furture are slim to none.  But that doesn’t erase the fond memories that I have of this breed and what good dogs they can really be.

Although we have in place a policy of non-interventionism, it’s a weak policy at best.  Personally I’d like to see a few steps more towards isolationism.  Granted, hard-line isolationism comes across as a military state, but I think what this country needs at the moment is just to focus on itself. 

I’m not against war, but we really shouldn’t be busying ourselves with so many little piddly conflicts the world over.  Sometimes we need to just let things be.  Then with our military forces at the ready instead of spread thin, any attacks could be met with a quick decisive show of power.

Two years ago when my workplace was signing up for insurance coverage in the upcoming year, I took notice of the policy regarding domestic partnerships.  My wife was at the time my girlfriend and I was paying for her health insurance out of pocket.  Getting married would have been an obvious solution to eliminating those payments, however those people that get married only for insurance leave a sour taste in my mouth so I didn’t want to consider something like that.

But, we did meet all the criteria listed to be accepted as domestic partners.  With such a generic name as that I figured we were a shoe-in.  We’d lived together for long enough, had things in one another’s name as well as in both of our names.  I put in my information to our HR department and was summarily denied.  Sorry, I was told, but domestic partnerships are not applicable to heterosexual couples.

Certainly it felt like discrimination, but was it?  I’ve learned to respect an individual or groups right to approve or deny a request for their own reasons over the years.  Too many people out there try to force their way into cliques or clubs whatever their guise may be even if they shouldn’t be there simply because they feel left out.  There is still such a thing as exclusivity but it is fading fast.

Anyway, long story short I sucked it up and continued to pay her insurance out of pocket.  The gay and lesbian community has their domestic partnerships and the heterosexual community has their marriage licences.  Why can’t we let it at that?  Why do so many people out there argue that gay and lesbian partners have a right to marry?  Despite being a legal state of being, marriage has come through the ages as a fundamentally religious tradition, that being said how many of the large religions accept gay and lesbian lifestyles?  And that being the case, what makes people want to get married if they are already excluded from the group they want to be in? 

Straight people can have their marriages, gays and lesbians their domestic partnerships.  Why can’t we leave it at that?

Changing gears from everything up to this point, I move onto the topic of illegal immigration.  This can be a hot button for a lot of people, but really my dedication to the topic can be considered blasé.  Actually, the only reason I really care at all about the topic is that people on both sides of the issue are so hard headed. 

I am not saying that I am an expert on the matter by a long shot.  But coming from an area of high levels of illegal immigrants to an area of lower levels is very interesting.  Sometime ago I was watching one of the news channels and the argument was being made that illegal immigrants are a necessary part of the population at this point.  They threw some numbers up on the screen showing that the illegal population of California was incredibly high.  The crux of the argument was that the illegals have assimilated into the population and without them cities would crumble.

Now, the amusing thing for me is that some of the major cities listed had <1% illegal immigrants.  That right there is a nice hole in his argument.  He continued to argue that illegals are only taking jobs that ‘real Americans’ didn’t want.  Again, disproved to some extent by the data he chose to show.  Granted, California is an odd-ball in that the agriculture industry there relies so heavily on cheap labor, but still, comparing that to the cities with almost no illegals at the very least casts the argument in a faltering light.

These are two major arguments for illegals that I have seen put fourth.  What the persons arguing for illegals being assimilated need to understand however is that these are not iron clad.  There are plenty of places that get by without an illegal workforce.  These arguments cannot be presented as fact.  The fact is that illegals are present in our economy to varying extents.  Some states rely on them more than others, that’s it.  They are not the bedrock upon which this country is built.  Yes, we were all immigrants at one time except for the Native American population, but we were not illegal immigrants.   

I have known people from other countries in Europe and elsewhere where I went to school that were applying and turned down for citizenship.  You want to talk about someone justified at being frustrated with the state of things, they have every right to pull their hair out.  To them it’s like being in a line at the amusement park and having someone  cut in line, then having their friend cut in line.  Pretty soon you find yourself at the back of the line and the ride is closing.

On the other side of things are the peoople that think all illegals should be deported immediately.  They tend to ignore little things such as the multi billion dollar figures thrown around to excise them.  They also have no shortcomings about breaking up families or throwing these people out on the streets.  Again, although the law should be followed we’re too far in a hole to do much about it.  Additionally they are a vital part to some localized regions. 

Fact of the matter, if you have strong feelings about anything you’re not in a position to make a fair decision.  And again, it’s my anger at people on both sides of this issue that won’t budge or concede to even minor points that irk me to the point of writing this. 

So, what are the options here?  One side wants to let everyone in, or at least let everyone stay.  The other side wants to kick everyone out, or at least most people out.  Neither is right.  We have a system in place for a reason, it should be enforced but it’s not right morally to just remove these people that live here and honestly appreciate it more than most real Americans.  Despite the distancing of church and state, America still prides itself on being a moral country, even if those morals are degrading with each successive generation.

So, what will work?  The heck if I know.  But I know what I think would work.  Let me take a moment to climb a step higher on my soap box.  First off, citizenship for all persons currently living in America providing they can provide proof that they have been living here for at least a year.  Give them a year to get their citizenship then the window closes to eliminate all the fraudulent claims that the government would see every year thereafter.

That would get the nod from all the supporters of illegal immigrants.  Then the second part of things would be to greatly increase the punishments for illegal immigrants.  Basically set things back to zero and start over kind of philosphy.  Everyone already here, all the families and industires would be in the clear, and we could put a stopper on the problem as it stands rather than put bandaids on it.

Taking a step back down I realize it’s simplistic, but what we need right now is something simple.  Everyone already here becomes a citizen, no more going around the system, identity theft, under the table paying, wages become more competitive, and we don’t kick anyone out.  Then we stop people from coming in, the populations already here disseminate over the years and everything works out very Zen-like.  Not that any of the higher ups would be willing to try such drastic actions.

Once upon a time there was an expression called religious tolerance.  If you were say, Catholic, and your neighbor was Buddhist, you were called upon to tolerate that fact.  It was a system of respect in a way, people were to respect that others had differing views on things.  Even if it was something you did not agree with you respected that they had a right to think what they wanted. 

Now though more and more it’s become a game of eliminating opposing opinions.  Rather than argue why a given opinion is correct, the new method of winning an argument is to reason that the opposing argument is somehow something that should not be discussed.  Case in point, my own crusade to purchase products made in the USA.  I have had instances where I have asked a sales person what country something was manufactured in, rather than find out for me they say there is nothing wrong with something made in a different country.  That their product is just as good as it would be if it were made in America.

Woah, woah, woah, that’s not what I was asking at all.  If I want to know the country of origin they should just find out and tell me.  I’ve been asked what I have against Chinese goods, but no one who asks wants an answer, it’s just a lead-in for them to say I have a prejudice against China.  Well, I do, more or less they are on probation from my spending and I evaluate each item on an item to item basis.  But instead of debating with me given traits, they try to null my viewpoint by saying I have no right to be prejudiced against Chinese goods.  Well, I do have the right to pick and choose which country my goods come from. 

And the worst part is I feel bad to say that.  I am so conditioned to not discriminate for any reason that I have a hard time justifying blacklisting a country.  But again, it’s that argument that argument A is right because it’s wrong for some reason to support argument B, even if this reason for argument B being wrong is only an opinion.  Mostly I think it comes down to people not being able to defend their own beliefs, it’s a good catch-all counter argument.  But it makes me so frustrated sometime.

Another instance is the pledge of allegiance and of course, “In God we Trust”.  I have nothing against this.  But hard-line critics argue that the separation of church and state forebays this.  Atheists also say they are offended.  Let me point to the opening line of the article, tolerance.  It’s not hurting someone, actually, it’s part of our heritage.  It’s been grandfathered in.  If a new pledge were to be written it probably wouldn’t be in there, just like if smoking and drinking had never been legal, do you think they would become legal in present day?  Heck no with what we know about them and how obsessed people are with health, but they’ve stuck with us thus far.

Again, to the point of things.  People have every right to believe what they want to believe.  But, conversely they have to accept that others may not agree with them.  There is nothing wrong with defending your beliefs, or engaging with someone else in conversation about them, but to attack another’s beliefs, even underhandedly by saying they are fundamentally flawed, that’s something that really shouldn’t be tolerated.