Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7408451.stm
This article discusses an attack by the press on Princess Beatrice, the daughter of the Dutchess of York. This includes a barrage of criticism following the release of a photograph of Beatrice wearing a bikini while on holiday. According to the article, Beatrice has been called "horrible names" and been made fun of for her size 10 figure. The article also discusses the involvement of the Duchess of York with fighting obesity.
In particular, what really stood out to me in this article was a question posed by the Dutchess herself "I understand freedom of the press but what I don't understand is when it takes a regular, very healthy girl and tries to completely obliterate her confidence."
So how much "freedom" should the press really have? Public figures can expect criticism of their every move and feature, everyone from Brittany Spears to George W. Bush to Queen Elizabeth II are constantly under scrutiny, their every flaw or mistake publicized and often played up. But this fact doesn't make it right. It is definately unfair that public figures, particularly those born into the role, have next to near no privacy. And though I know that the press will always be searching for flaws in their subjects (and that the public will always want to know about them) I do think it is the responsability of journalists and the like, despite the freedoms given to them, to act responsibly and be concious of the feelings of their subjects. So what if Beatrice is a size 10? Isn't that her own business? Something like that has no real public importance and it really isn't the business of the press to take pictures and obsess over something personal like that. Though I agree with freedom of the press, I think they should be a little more careful in how they interpret and use that freedom. Save it for something important, a scenario where the public really and truly needs to know all the details.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Presidential Canine Debate
link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/obama.puppy.poll/index.html
I have read many different articles in regards to what kind of dog future President Obama should bring with him to the White House and have finally decided that I have to comment on one of them. First of all, despite all the polls and debates sparked by the question I think that it should really be the Obama family's decision on what kind of dog they get. I know many agree with me. A part from anything, a dog's personality etc. cannot be determined fully from its breed. Though the breed of the dog can be an indicator of certain characteristics and needs every dog should be evaluated as an individual. Not to say that having a "type" of dog in mind isn't valuable before you go looking. Particularly as the Obama's need a hypoallergenic (or as close to as possible, many argue there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog-dander comes from dogs' saliva and skin) canine. Some breeds are better suited to those with allergies than others. So yes, the Obama's need to keep that in mind.
As far as whether they should get the dog from a shelter, breeder or a petstore I say ABSOLUTELY NOT a petstore. Not with all the puppy mills out there. There are plenty of dogs available from other sources that don't potentially support a cruel and barbaric industry. And I'd hope that the Obama's would set a concious and animal friendly example by adopting a pet in need of a home from a shelter. So many millions of dogs are in shelters across the U.S. (see article) surely the Obama's could find one suitable for their family and give it a better home. Also, having a former shelter dog in the White House would bring attention to the plights of shelter animals, hey-the Obama's pet could even be an abassador of sorts. It would certaintly send a humane and conscientious message if the Obama's were able to adopt. Or at least considered adoption as their first option, even if they are set on a particular breed. It is a common misconception that "purebred" dogs rarely show up in pounds. They do. And there are plenty of breed specific resque groups out there. Of course, the Obama's need to do what's right for their family. I just hope they will consider adoption and save a dog from a potentially unhappy fate. More and more dogs are bred every year and more and more shelter dogs are "humanely euthanized" because there is no room for them in the shelters. And as I previously mentioned, pet stores are not exactly in a good light at the moment, not with all the issues of recieving animals from puppy mills.
Obama has a responsibility to his family to make sure that he gets the right dog. He has a responsibilty to the dog to make sure he can care for it and give it it's forever home. But he also has a responsibility to avoid supporting a cruel industry by not choosing the route of buying a puppy from a petstore.
In regards to the poll mentioned in the article, I found it rather silly that such breeds as golden retrievers and german shepards were included in the selections of the vote, particularly as the article highlights at the top that the Obama's need a HYPOALLERGENIC dog. Um, golden retrievers and german shepards hypoallergenic-uh, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful dogs. But they are definately not a good choice for someone with allergies to dogs. To be honest, I really don't see what the point was in including them in the poll.
And finally, I find it very interesting to see how much interest the "election" of Presidential Best-Friend has generated. It just goes to show people are interested in the more personal things AND Americans consider pets important. :) Still, I hope that in the end the Obama family ignores the polls and chooses the newest member of their family with the best interests of their family, and the dog, in mind.
I have read many different articles in regards to what kind of dog future President Obama should bring with him to the White House and have finally decided that I have to comment on one of them. First of all, despite all the polls and debates sparked by the question I think that it should really be the Obama family's decision on what kind of dog they get. I know many agree with me. A part from anything, a dog's personality etc. cannot be determined fully from its breed. Though the breed of the dog can be an indicator of certain characteristics and needs every dog should be evaluated as an individual. Not to say that having a "type" of dog in mind isn't valuable before you go looking. Particularly as the Obama's need a hypoallergenic (or as close to as possible, many argue there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog-dander comes from dogs' saliva and skin) canine. Some breeds are better suited to those with allergies than others. So yes, the Obama's need to keep that in mind.
As far as whether they should get the dog from a shelter, breeder or a petstore I say ABSOLUTELY NOT a petstore. Not with all the puppy mills out there. There are plenty of dogs available from other sources that don't potentially support a cruel and barbaric industry. And I'd hope that the Obama's would set a concious and animal friendly example by adopting a pet in need of a home from a shelter. So many millions of dogs are in shelters across the U.S. (see article) surely the Obama's could find one suitable for their family and give it a better home. Also, having a former shelter dog in the White House would bring attention to the plights of shelter animals, hey-the Obama's pet could even be an abassador of sorts. It would certaintly send a humane and conscientious message if the Obama's were able to adopt. Or at least considered adoption as their first option, even if they are set on a particular breed. It is a common misconception that "purebred" dogs rarely show up in pounds. They do. And there are plenty of breed specific resque groups out there. Of course, the Obama's need to do what's right for their family. I just hope they will consider adoption and save a dog from a potentially unhappy fate. More and more dogs are bred every year and more and more shelter dogs are "humanely euthanized" because there is no room for them in the shelters. And as I previously mentioned, pet stores are not exactly in a good light at the moment, not with all the issues of recieving animals from puppy mills.
Obama has a responsibility to his family to make sure that he gets the right dog. He has a responsibilty to the dog to make sure he can care for it and give it it's forever home. But he also has a responsibility to avoid supporting a cruel industry by not choosing the route of buying a puppy from a petstore.
In regards to the poll mentioned in the article, I found it rather silly that such breeds as golden retrievers and german shepards were included in the selections of the vote, particularly as the article highlights at the top that the Obama's need a HYPOALLERGENIC dog. Um, golden retrievers and german shepards hypoallergenic-uh, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful dogs. But they are definately not a good choice for someone with allergies to dogs. To be honest, I really don't see what the point was in including them in the poll.
And finally, I find it very interesting to see how much interest the "election" of Presidential Best-Friend has generated. It just goes to show people are interested in the more personal things AND Americans consider pets important. :) Still, I hope that in the end the Obama family ignores the polls and chooses the newest member of their family with the best interests of their family, and the dog, in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
