See What You're Missing

I've recently stumbled upon a very disturbing scene that I just can't get out of my head. No, I didn't surprise my parents in a romantic moment or see my boss on the toilet, although I'm sure both would be extremely traumatic.

On occasion, I take an alternate route home & was horrified to learn that there's a monster in my neighborhood. When the weather is nice & folks are hanging out on the porch or the deck or the stoop, she's always there.

At first glance, she's an unassuming middle-aged woman enjoying her property. Often chatting with friends or neighbors, it's not an usual scene in any way. Until you look more closely and see the caged bird at her side.

Nothing says "I love you" like putting a bird in a cage & then taking it outside to see what's it's missing, right?

I believe that one should only have a pet if the animal's natural traits can be celebrated instead of quashed. You don't have to be an animal-lover or environmentalist to know that all life deserves respect.

If you feel it needs to be de-musked or de-clawed, than it doesn't belong in your home. If it's not allowed to enter your home under most circumstances, don't get one (whatever "it" may be). Most animals don't need us & we don't need them so don't get a pet if you can't properly care for one.

I have another neighbor that keeps a rabbit on the patio all year long, no matter the weather. There's no shelter from the elements & very little interaction with the people. Certainly, this is not a good pet for this family, nor are the parents teaching responsibility, compassion or any other useful skill to the children.

Dogs need a yard, big dogs need sizable yards & multiple dogs need a pretty generous yard. But if any yard is going to be a dog's home, you shouldn't have one. Dogs need your companionship to thrive, which requires letting them into the house, the family & your life.

Cats shouldn't be walking around the neighborhood, as they can catch fatal diseases like leukemia & feline AIDS the way we catch colds.

And birds need to fly. It's what they do, it's who they are. There are plenty of injured birds incapable of flight. If you take one in & care for it, that's great. But why would you take a healthy bird out of flight?

What could be more synonymous with "bird" than "fly"? Nothing comes to mind. I don't know what kind of selfish person would be so horrible as to cage a healthy bird. But it takes a special kind of narcissism & cruelty to do so. Why compound it by teasing the animal?

Just the Tip of the Melting Iceburg

Anyone reading the local paper is familiar with the recent back-and-forth between SUV drivers & holier-than-thou-critics that's waged intermittently in recent weeks.

It began with one couple proclaiming love & unabashed pride in their choice to own an SUV. A barrage of criticism followed, interspersed with SUV-drivers attempting to justify their choices to the PC judges. It capped with a letter entitled "Earth's Caretakers", a tongue-in-cheek jab at those seeking validation.

The problem here is that nobody needs society's approval or forgiveness for the type of vehicle they choose to drive, regardless of the reason they drive it.

Of course, I don't advocate running errands in a Hummer when you could just as easily walk to the corner store (or anything like that). But the idea that any person owes the rest of us an explanation is deplorable. Last time I checked, this was still a mostly free country & these vehicles are legal to own & operate.

The letter criticizes a man with 5 children for buying American when clearly the author feels a foreign model would be the better choice. He also says that a single-occupant SUV driver "might reasonably be called 'socially irresponsible', 'shallow' and 'self-centered'."

I beg to differ. Shallow & self-centered are more accurate descriptions for a person that deigns to judge a stranger solely based on the type of vehicle that person is operating. And social responsibility is defined by far more than choice of vehicle.

I know SUV drivers that make it a point to refuse to commute. They choose to live & work in close proximity (3 mile maximums), moving for new positions or finding jobs close to home in areas that offer nearby shopping so that they never travel far on a daily basis.

That's a more socially responsible choice than owning any vehicle, no matter how PC a certain model might be. One person doing that in a Hummer is still more socially responsible than a hybrid driver with an hour-long daily commute, or 10 people that bike to work but cause traffic snarls for thousands of motorists along the way.

Those SUV drivers may choose to live in areas that allow them to bike or walk frequently, while the hybrid drivers are guiltlessly hopping into their cars for a quick trip to the convenience store. Perhaps the SUV driver puts very little mileage on each year (half the norm or less), while the hybrid drivers rack up twice the norm, who knows?

But speaking to vehicle owners of all types, it seems to me that most SUV drivers have a reason for making the choice they've made & that they balance their vehicle emissions by making other environmentally responsible choice. On the other hand, I know hybrid drivers that shamelessly drive about 3 times the normal (12,000) miles per year. There's no way that 36,000 miles in a "good" car is better for the environment than 5,000 miles in a "bad" vehicle.

If you've ever been trapped on a busy highway behind a few "socially responsible" drivers that can't or won't even approach the speed limit, you know that they're not saving the environment so much as saving themselves gas money at everyone else's expense.

Yes, the stop & go, gently chugging motion of a car (or driver) that drives timidly -- whether in an effort to conserve fuel or for some other reason -- simply burns up the fuel of everyone stuck behind them. Just as the constant stop & go of buses that refuse to pull over or cyclists on a high-speed road waste fuel & cause gridlock, passive driving & vehicles lacking power greatly contribute to the very problem they claim to "solve".

One diligent reader has pointed out that many hybrid vehicles require batteries -- sometimes as many as 15 or 20. While the hybrid might be the better choice for fuel conservation, the battery waste is polluting the earth just as much, if not more, than vehicle emissions.

The point is that choice of vehicle just one way to be socially responsible. While the author cites a few basic recycling suggestions & mentions public transportation, he spends 4 looooong paragraphs criticizing others & only 2 1/2 sentences offering suggestions on how to be socially responsible.

Sounds to me like someone just wants to judge others instead of looking at the whole picture. That's certainly not socially responsible, as people are just as valuable as our environment & should be shown respect accordingly.

Call for Diversity Suspiciously Silent

Manufactured controversy surrounds the upcoming movie "A Mighty Heart", the memoir of Mariane Pearl. Pearl's husband, Daniel, a journalist, was kidnapped by terrorists who later released a tape of his merciless execution.

The pointless outcry here is that Mariane is biracial (Afro-Cuban & Dutch, according to the article) but she has chosen Angelina Jolie to portray her in the film. BET.com reports message board posters are outraged that Pearl will be portrayed by a white woman, which some consider to be the modern blackface in Hollywood.

There are two very distinct issues that arise here. Foremost, Dutch heritage is Caucasian, last I checked. That means that Pearl is just as "white" as she is "of color".

A black actress portraying her would be right but a white actress is racist, according to the posters. How can that be justified? If the woman has both races in her, then an actress of either descent is perfectly appropriate insomuch as accurately representing her genealogical make-up. Common sense tells you that much.

These people apparently can't grasp the notion that Pearl views herself as a human, not a color. Ignorance once again rears its head, as it so commonly does.

The armchair sociologist could make some guesses about her choice: It may indicate that Pearl is an intelligent, educated, self-confident woman who refuses to be bogged down by society's stereotypes. She doesn't categorize herself or allow others to do so.

Isn't that what we are all supposed to do? I thought we were supposed to be colorblind because we're all the same on the inside. We're all equals in every possible capacity. Every race, ethnicity or heritage is just as good as the next and there are no inferiors.

I'll bet that if you asked any one of the outraged posters those questions, they would answer with a resounding "Yes". But if so, they clearly don't practice what they preach or they wouldn't be angered at the thought of a white woman portraying a partially white woman in a movie.

There is such a disgusting double-standard in America today. On one hand, we are all expected to be colorblind & act accordingly. But at the same time, those who preach equality are constantly & relentlessly demanding recognition above & beyond what their neighbor receives.

If you believe that everyone is equal & that skin color is irrelevant, then it is just that - irrelevant. It's not irrelevant when it suits you but an advantage when you want it to be. If it's something that shouldn't be used against you, then it also shouldn't give you an advantage.

The message our society sends seems to be that we want "diversity" but only if it gives undeserving people opportunities that they haven't earned. The diversity mongers demand complete diversity at any cost. No matter what type of affirmative action it requires or how society might suffer because of underqualified peoples in a particular position, it's required.

But those same people rail against diversity when it's used to diversify a movies box office $$$ potential. Interesting double-standard, indeed.

The less weighty but still important second issue here is, who has the right to tell Mariane Pearl who should portray her? Nobody.

There are a myriad of reasons why Pearl might want Jolie. Foremost, Jolie sells tickets. She's one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood & she commands a crowd. Such a name could mean the difference between a so-so movie and a blockbuster.

On a more selfish level, many women would be ecstatic at the prospect of one of Hollywood's most celebrated beauties portraying her on film.

Jolie isn't just a pretty face or lithe body that brings in money, however. She is a celebrated actress that will generate attention in this project.

Since she's telling the tragic story of her brave husband, the father her son will never have the chance to know, she has an important message and hopes to share it with the widest possible audience.

Or perhaps it's Jolie's altruistic spirit and myriad of international goodwill that found it's way into Pearl's heart. In light of her experiences offscreen, Jolie is in a unique position to understand Daniel's life in a way that most people never could: the danger of traveling to unstable foreign lands in an effort to do good in this crazy world of ours.

Maybe Jolie's dedication to helping those in need and giving back to the world allowed her to outshine competitors for the role. Weighing it from a moral standpoint, would you rather be represented by a woman who adopts third-world orphans or by a woman that drives drunk, causes bodily harm to innocent drivers, then flees the scene, such as Halle Berry?

Incidentally, the critics have floated names of black actresses (such as Berry) but apparently their demands for racial representation are self-serving, as usual. The article mentions no outrage whatsoever as to the lack of Cuban representation. How about a fantastic actress such as Salma Hayak or Eva Mendes if you prefer a woman of color? But no, color apparently only means black to these critics.

Of course, Jolie's no innocent, considering how she hooked her man, but she has done more good for the world than most in Hollywood could ever hope to boast.

Maybe in Hollywood it's no big deal to break the law or hurt people. After all, Kate Moss' career has blossomed quite nicely since she was photographed snorting coke. I suppose reputation has a whole different meaning there. But to everyday people like Mariane Pearl, morals might still mean something.