“Come Monday…” is a weekly series that will involve a review of, or commentary about, websites, movies, documentaries, television shows, sports, music, and whatever else may tickle my fancy at the time. Be assured that these reviews will be generally positive, as in accordance to the Jimmy Buffett song “Come Monday.” This is subject to change, however. In fact, I would be most derelict in my duties to neglect going on a rant every once in a while. For rants promote change, and change can be good—right? Therefore, since good is generally considered as being a positive force in 99.3% of the parallel universes that I am aware of, even a rant could be considered as being something positive, and a genuine hissy-fit would be even better (so I’m told).
No, this has nothing to do with unwelcomed sexual advances. Although, it could be argued otherwise with the way measures are so often worded on a typical ballot.
Case in point:
[Missouri Proposition A]. For as it is proposed on the ballot, one must vote no in order to be in favor of the measure.
Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, when someone is against something, they should vote no. So, with making it be just the opposite, will this lead to many voting just the opposite of the way they wanted to?
It is the same way with
[Missouri Amendment 3]. For I do not want to have to pay an extra tax on real estate transactions, but I will have to vote yes on this measure in order to vote against it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, what it takes is an educated voter, but considering the level of education these days… Alas, woe be it unto us all.
As a side-note, there is another measure on the 2010 Missouri ballot that is much more straightforward. It is
[Proposition B], and it says,
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
*require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
*prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
*create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?
Yes, I am in favor of enacting all of this. Therefore, I should vote yes.
Unbelievably, there are actually commercials against
MO Proposition B out there. Here are a couple of examples:
Okay, this really digs at my conservative roots. For I can see where this well-meaning measure could grow into another bureaucratic nightmare.
On the other hand, I am against any sort of large-scale commercial dog-breeding. For dogs are generally very personable animals, and there is no way that they can receive the amount of attention that they deserve when more than 10 (at the extreme!) are involved.
Yes, I suppose a really good large-scale operation could have 10 or less dogs assigned to individual employees, but that is going to cost them a lot more money. Besides, a kennel is just not the same as a home.
