A note by Maynard
The Ellen DeGeneres story has pretty much been beaten to death, but Tammy offered some insights on her show that bear repeating. The tension between Ellen and the puppy rescuer exemplifies a greater struggle in our culture (or, for that matter, in any culture): The individual versus the busybody.
I’m going to paraphrase the essence of Tammy’s comments (and I hope she’ll correct me if I misrepresent her), and carry on with my own editorializing:
A puppy rescuer must be an obsessed person. It’s not a task to be picked up lightly. You’ve got to go to the shelters again and again, and you’re going to see a lot of doomed dogs who you’ll have to abandon to their fates. If you don’t love dogs, you wouldn’t do it. If you do love dogs, you’ll be tearing your hair out and crying yourself to sleep.
So the people who embark upon these charitable missions are going to be a bit unusual. They’re driven to do something that the rest of us wouldn’t or couldn’t do. And if we want to work with them, we need to start by understanding their needs. This is the tolerance thing that we hear so much of these days.
And then there are the Ellens of the world.
Ellen thinks she’s being reasonable. Sure, she contracted with a puppy rescuer who insisted on placing dogs into families without young kids. But Ellen thought that was a silly stipulation, just a piece of paper she signed, so she didn’t consider herself bound by it. Ellen thinks the puppy rescuer acted wrongfully in enforcing that provision. Ellen acknowledges the rash of death threats are “not okay”, but she understands the passions that prompted those threats.
If the puppy rescuer were to throw up her hands and quit the business, Ellen would just shrug and figure the job will be picked up by somebody else. Somebody more reasonable.
What Ellen can’t fathom is that a reasonable person would never take up the job in the first place. Only a special person would do this. So Ellen, who considers herself a reasonable person, uses her media power to neutralize the vital energy that saves puppies.
This is the sort of intrusiveness that brings us down. It manifests in, for example, the war against the Boy Scouts, which has been picked up by the ACLU and many municipal governments and the Clintons, among others. Oh, if only the Boy Scouts would be reasonable, and promote the approved attitude about God or homosexuality or whatever. If only firemen would be reasonable and stop pulling pranks on each other. If only the businesses would be reasonable and build transgender restrooms and janitors’ closets big enough for wheelchairs. If only rich people would be reasonable and pay more taxes. If only everybody would be reasonable and do things my way!
I don’t want to oversimplify the boundaries of this ongoing struggle. I’m not advocating anarchy, and I understand the need for taxes and regulations, when applied in moderation. Yes, we need some reasonable external restraints. But we sense that our modern cultural expectations are shifting the burden in the wrong direction. We bash our benefactors while enabling our miscreants.
The clearest example of institutionalized moral inversion is always provided by our favorite whipping boys and girls at the ACLU, who spearhead legal attacks against Boy Scouts, while at the same time working to thwart restrictions imposed upon criminal gangs or NAMBLA.
But the ACLU doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Bill Clinton’s Supreme Court appointee, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was an ACLU in-house counsel before her canonization.
So our problem isn’t a few kooks. There have always been kooks. The problem is the kooks have gone mainstream. Kookery has become respectable. The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Wow, I seem to have connected Ellen’s mad rant to the decline of Western civilization. Do you think that’s a bit of a stretch, perhaps? Well, I stand upon my assertion that Ellen, for all her self-proclaimed good intent, is a puppykiller. And I wish the confused busybodies of the world would start thinking about the practical effects of their misguided crusades.
I think you’re over-thinking this.
To me, it’s clearly a case of Ellen DeGeneres substituting her ‘feelings’ for the contractual stipulations set out by the puppy adoption agency.
It’s straight up situational ethics. Ellen wants a certain outcome; she regards herself as a good person; therefore, the outcome she wants is also good.
And there’s the narcissism and conceit that tells Ellen she is ‘special’ and not bound by rules when those rules interfere with her desired outcome.
I see this in people around me all the time. They want what they want, and can always rationalize why they should have it.
Along the same line of thinking is the overuse of compassion by politicians, most egregiously by Democrats. We’re being clubbed into numbness by associating every piece of legislation with a scene from Dickens. We should let the country be invaded by millions of poor people because we’re uncaring if we don’t. Billions of dollars must be spent in overlapping, ineffective and wasteful programs because the intent is well-meaning. If the Constitution didn’t have an age requirement for Vice President, Hillary would pick a child as her running mate, preferably one with a horrible disease.
Public weeping has become a commonplace form of communication thanks to the MalNars. Our compassion isn’t finite but it can be overburdened. When we start tuning out or assuming someone else will take care of it, civilization is indeed in trouble. People like Degeneres and manipulative politicians are the equivalent of thieves. They take what is most valuable from others. They take what can certainly be called the heart of humanity for their own purposes which are grounded in egotism and power-seeking, not altruism.
When integrity, respect, dignity and honor are gone, that will be the time for tears.
I have to agree with Maynard on this, whole heartedly. I think what makes me annoyed with this whole situation is Ellen D. made it into a media spectacle. She signed a document without reading it?!?!? No, she assumed that because it’s her, she’s above any contractual obligation.
Shame on her for this. She’s completely Hollywood. These individuals think they’re above any and everything. What would it have taken her to call the agency and explain the situation to them? Couldn’t she have sent the family to the adoption agency and filled out the necessary paperwork? I’ve lost a lot of respect for DeGeneres after this fiasco.
I agree with Maynard and the above comments. Being a long time dog lover, I can identify with those who would rescue animals. We’ve not had a dog since our aging Husky succumbed to old age strokes in ’93 and had to be put down. One of the hardest days of my life. Don’t go to kennels. Would come home with the whole kennel. Soft hearted sucker, me. Have two cats due to rescuing efforts in a mobile home park residence a few (not long enough ago…)years ago. But, when someone signs a document without reading it and assumes it doesn’t apply to them, well. Duh!? Yes, seems Ellen expects special treatment/outcome because of who she is. She broke the agreement, simple result. I have no sympathy for blubbering on camera in that kind of a situation. She screwed up and has to live with her screw up. It’s called responsibility, accountability for our actions, is it not? Or are we being too harsh on her? Don’t think so.