September 9, 2006


Saudi religious police outlaw cat, dog sales (Donna Abu-Nasr, September 9, 2006, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Saudi Arabia's religious police, normally tasked with chiding women to cover themselves and ensuring men attend mosque prayers, are turning to a new target: cats and dogs.

The police have issued a decree banning the sale of the pets, seen as a sign of Western influence.

Animals should be herd, not seen.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2006 10:07 AM

More good news. The pre-reformation Shintoists used to do things like this. This is what we wanted see: ossification. It would never do to have them become just modern enough to have to be taken seriously. The goal is to have the inmates of the jailhouse wake up one morning and say, as those of THE FORMER SOVIET UNION did, "F**k this s**t!."

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 9, 2006 10:38 AM

The Europeans are pet happy--they're child substitutes.

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2006 11:07 AM

What's your beef with dogs and cats?

Posted by: Bryan at September 9, 2006 11:08 AM

You can eat beef.

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2006 11:19 AM

A man who doesn't like pets is a man without a soul. This also explains oj's love for trains.

Posted by: Gary at September 9, 2006 11:41 AM

So futures on Camel trading took a dive, no?

Posted by: KRS at September 9, 2006 11:58 AM

How is owning pets not conservative? Even Reagan owned a dog.

Posted by: Bryan at September 9, 2006 12:04 PM

Reagan may have owned a dog--he loved horses.

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2006 2:08 PM

Two, at least. Probably more. So, how is owning pets anti-human?

Posted by: Bryan at September 9, 2006 2:46 PM

As you point out, Nancy had dogs, not Reagan.

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2006 2:53 PM

This is great. This post has an animated Petmeds ad to the side with a dog and cat sticking their heads in for a look.

Posted by: RC at September 10, 2006 4:06 AM

Like most liberals, you ignore the point and focus on irrelevent aspects. Answer this one small question, OK?
"So, how is owning pets anti-human?"

Posted by: Bryan at September 10, 2006 8:11 AM

They're substitutes for humans.

Posted by: oj at September 10, 2006 8:51 AM

The unconditional love and affection exhibited by family dogs and horses move all but the most hard hearted. Folks who treat their pets like children are the same who would treat their children like pets.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. at September 10, 2006 1:19 PM


That's why it's anti-human--the pretense that an animal can love in any meaningful sense diminishes the very concept.

Posted by: oj at September 10, 2006 1:26 PM


You wouldn't be so glib and hard-hearted if you met Spark, our gecko lizard. Talk about unconditional love!

Posted by: Peter B at September 10, 2006 3:19 PM

Our dogs quite obviously love us. As well as any other person who will bend over and pet them. ;-)

But you know what? Our three boys insisted on growing up and moving out of our house and starting their own families.

It's only people like you (and the Arabs) who think dogs are substitute humans. We---along with most pet owners---know quite well that they are only dogs.

Posted by: ray at September 10, 2006 4:08 PM

Well. For someone who likes to make fun of the Democrats for weighing in on "the 30% side" of an issue, you certainly jumped in on this one with both feet.

I suggest you make yourself a Venn Diagram, with circles representing, respectively, "Dog Lovers", "Conservatives", and "Second Amendment Absolutists". And then consider how many of your core constituents you have managed to alienate with this post/thread.

Posted by: HT at September 11, 2006 12:30 AM



Posted by: oj at September 11, 2006 9:32 AM

Yep, that's my point. Since almost everyone on the face of the Earth likes having some sort of pet, Orrin's hatred of people who own pets makes him the anti-human witch, not people who own pets.

This is also a fine example of Orrin's inability to divorce his mere opinion from his political beliefs, be it pets, cell phones, soccer, cars, and on and on. If Orrin doesn't like something, it's not just good enough that he hold onto his opinion and recognize that other people have different opinions. No, he has to villify all others who have an opinion on the subject that differs in the slightest from his own. Own a dog or cat like 90% of the population of the US? Then Orrin says you're EVIL! Orrin acts like a pimply teenager on a Star Trek board going on and on about how "People who like Voyager are teh suxor!" except that the pimply teenager would be more eloquent in his responses.

I would be fine if Orrin hated animals. Heck, my own saintly mother can't stand them. It's the fact that Orrin thinks that his hatred of animals (and anyone who owns them, let's not forget that little bit of anti-humanism) should be codified into law that strikes me as being particulary offensive. Society would soundly reject such laws and yet Orrin (who feels that we are all slaves to our society) would reject his society's dictates merely on the basis of his own opinion. Who's the witch now?

I know that I'm only feeding into Orrin's pathetic trolling of his own blog (if that's not a cry for help, I don't know what is) but his whole attitude of "I'm right because I say I'm right and if you disagree with me then you're an anti-human monster" really steams my brisket.

Posted by: Bryan at September 11, 2006 2:14 PM

Single people and those without children like having pets--they substitute for human companionship, inadequately.

Posted by: oj at September 11, 2006 2:46 PM