Dog Reflections

I have witnessed that pet dogs often reflect the characteristics of their owners.

A neighborhood where I lived is tightly constructed around a green upon which dogs and owners move about in high visibility. The percentage of dog owners to non-owners here is typical, as is the percentage of those who own only cats (or is it the other way around?), although no census taker would ever dare to attempt to quantify the latter. But cats are never an issue, because avoiding controversy goes to the very heart of that creature. Nor are they likely to take on any characteristics other than their own.

Not so dogs.  When you consider the wholesomeness of dogs, the guilelessness, loyalty, and cheerful obedience that is at the core of this animal, it seems strange that these pets are more often the center of controversy than are selfish, skittish, disobedient, untrainable, unleashable cats, but so it is.
A concern in our tight little neighborhood at the moment is the poo habits of some of the neighborhood dogs, of particular concern the neighbor who leaves the front door open to allow the dog to take itself out to poo at will where and when it pleases. To the regulated dog owner, who keeps the dog tight on the leash, then directs the placement of poo, bags it while still warm, and places it carefully in the proper receptacle, the unconcerned behavior of the freedom owner is a pure horror. Dogs reflect the feelings of their owners, and dogs on lead take exception to dogs cruising by unfettered and so animosity has a tendency to build, dog to dog, owner to owner.
 
I am convinced that the tendency to mirror the traits of the alpha dog is in the dogs' gene pool. The mimicry can be uncanny. One close neighbor was owned by cats (and children). These neighbors were warm, friendly people, and the entire family lived their lives happily and openly with a kind of barefoot exuberant freedom. When they wanted a dog to join the family they adopted one from a shelter. Within days, the dog had become indistinguishable from any other member of that family, trotting freely with head high, tail erect, ambling happily around the neighborhood, unleashable and irrepressible. I could have picked it out of a lineup as part of that family.

I provide this particular example because the dog was adopted as an adult, not raised within the family from puppyhood. What can explain the immediate, comprehensive manifestation of family traits by this dog?    

Dogs appear to approach strangers and strange environments in ways similar to their owners - timid dogs reflect timid owners, blustery dogs blustery owners, sneaky dogs sneaky owners, untrustworthy dogs untrustworthy owners, and so on. And dogs seem also to reflect the anxiety levels of their owners. One seldom sees a patient dog with an impatient owner, a calm dog with a restless owner, or a courageous dog with a fearful owner. The ultimate restless spirit is the dog whose owner is away from home days at a time, leaving the dog to its own devices. This canine, like its owner, is the dog about town, roaming the streets and exploring the scents of far reaching neighborhoods, streetwise, confident.

Taking this tendency to another level, I have observed that entire towns, like individual owners, may have characteristics that are illustrated by its citizen dogs. There are plenty of exceptions to the rule, of course, but the dog of choice in my town is the small dog. The human population in my town, like many American communities, is mixed, in this case divided generally between Caucasian and Hispanic families. A walk through the town reveals that some of these small dogs are a Chihuahua type, brown or black, generally off-lead, and others are a white or light colored dog, almost always on-lead. Thus the cultural composition of my town is evident to any observant stranger through its canine inhabitants.

Dogs and children have in common this tendency toward mimicry. Children, like dogs, tend to reflect the characteristic attitudes and behaviors of their parents. But dogs and children are guileless and will display these traits openly, while  parent/owners may conceal them beneath the surface. Thus dogs and children can be a window to the true nature of family culture and behavior.

It has occurred to me that these observations might be taken to yet another level, on a much larger scale, perhaps even to countries. It's not difficult to link certain dogs to certain nations. I automatically link the St. Bernard to Switzerland, for example, the English Bulldog with Great Britain, the Chihuahua to Mexico, and the Doberman Pinscher to Germany. And there are those breeds whose heritage is revealed by their breed name, such as the Russian Wolfhound, the Siberian Husky, the Rhodesian Ridgeback, the German Shepherd, and so on.

Can we use this insight on such a large scale? Might inference from predominant dog attitudes owned by certain nations lead to better understanding within the global community? Might the attitude and intent of nations be revealed by their dogs, despite a desire to conceal them? Could World War Two have been avoided by close observation of the attitudes of German dogs? Do the characteristics of the Russian Wolfhound offer insight into the true nature of the Russian people? What do the Bichon Frise or the Poodle suggest about France? In the wide spectrum of how nations treat their dogs all the way to the nations that eat their dogs, the nature of the master is revealed in his canine mirror, his dog, which, after all, desires nothing more than to please its master, enjoy a square meal, wag its tail, and live in peace.

Let's Take the Dollars out of Democracy

I am writing this on the Fourth of July, just before a lunch of grilled hot dogs followed by fireworks at the Embarcadero, and my thoughts turn to my good fortune that the founding fathers of this country decided that individual liberty should be the hallmark of the nation they intended to build, that the opportunity to express oneself freely should be safeguarded, that a construct  for a fair and representative election process for the leadership of the nation should be created along with a means for its preservation. I am thankful I do not live in Syria or Iran or North Korea. And so on this day when we as Americans celebrate our good fortune it seems a propitious time to talk about money in politics, about how its accepted role is leading us toward an erosion of these aforementioned liberties and rights, particularly now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporate entities should have the right to express themselves with financial politics, that we should consider them as we do individual American citizens in terms of First Amendment rights. We have seen how the huge resources of large companies can sway the outcome of a proposition or an election, crossing state borders to do so. Is that what our forefathers had in mind? Is that fair and equal?
It appears to me that fewer and fewer large corporations (the ones with the money to spend on political contributions and beneficial legislation) see patriotism as a first priority. Some have moved their corporate offices to Ireland and other countries with forgiving tax structures to avoid paying the taxes to this nation that pay for the systems that secure our liberties. Others have deliberately victimized the American public with high risk investments for corporate and personal profit and when they failed then sought and accepted bail-outs from the very same taxes they attempted to avoid but which were dutifully payed by individual Americans - and then used that money to reward their CEOs and to pay lobbyists to influence politicians already indebted to them because of political contributions and other, less obvious, support.
But to me the real point, the underlying point, is that money should not be the grease for the wheels of democracy. Yes, yes, I know, it has always been that, to one degree or another. But should we accept crime, for instance, just because its always been done? There's nothing in the constitution that says we must accept dollar democracy, it is simply the will of a wealthy minority. Such as those who lead the aforementioned corporations. Nor do I believe this was the intention of our forefathers whose efforts we celebrate today, who rather than suffer similar injustices took the initiative to declared independence and throw off the mantle of fiscal and political oppression. They recognized that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"*, and determined that this not be their fate. To me, dollar democracy is an issue about which the silent majority has remained silent, trudging stoically onward rather than calling it into question.
My point is money has no place in politics, it is not needed. Particularly in the age of the internet. For arguably the first time in our nation's history direct communication with each and every individual citizen is no longer at issue. We should use what we have been given.
This election year, both political parties are poised to spend a combined 2.5 to 3 billion dollars on the presidential campaign. And the current national debt is $15,724,907,364,995 and growing. And yes, there are still Americans living in poverty. Why not spend those large amounts of money to help the less fortunate or to pay down the national debt rather than throw it away on a political campaign that could be resolved without it? (Unless, of course, one is more interested in personal gain than the will of the people.)
The purpose of big money in political campaigns today is not to support but to overwhelm and overpower the opposition, to bludgeon the voters by innuendo and half truths into subscribing to one side over the other. To influence blocs of voters and those in a position to effect the votes of others. The American ideals of truth, the addressing of real needs, the desire to improve lives; little of this is on the table with big money politics. And ultimately the power money wields serves to create a ruling class within a democracy.
        Few can afford to run for national office except the wealthy or those candidates supported by the wealthy. The median wealth of the United States Congress is $2.63 million. There are 250 millionaires in Congress. On the other hand, the median American income is $26,364. That particular American is seldom found in Congress.
But what if? What if the American people set about changing the system? Just as our forefathers did on this day that we now celebrate? If we used the tool of democracy that is available to us, if we used the internet and social media, and through this medium orchestrated change?
What if political campaigns were to become completely and solely virtual? No television blitzes, no billboards, no expensive road trips? No big money? What if all the candidates were limited to a virtual representation of themselves and their qualifications on a blog or website? No more dirty tricks, no unseemly name calling or slander? What if the incumbent president was no longer taken away from the country's business for months at a time in order to campaign? What if there were no more intrusions into people's lives? What if every citizen was expected to be a responsible voter, to hold themselves accountable for learning the issues, expected to visit each candidate's web site, expected to learn about each of the candidates, to form their own opinions without assistance from big money politics? Let each candidate construct their web or blog site to reveal their plans, their views, their solutions, to show their family pictures, to show their videos, to present themselves in their own way, to help us learn all about them. No negativity, no name calling, no slander.
Perhaps this kind of campaigning would return responsibility for choice to the American people and compel us to take a more active role in our government instead of a passive one? And along the way ensure a government of the people that truly derives "their just powers from the consent of the governed"*.

* The United States Declaration of Independence.