The Mitt Romney dog incident has been traveling about the airwaves for a couple months now, I believe. It's been reported that upon taking a family vacation in 1983 I want to say (for a change, I'm too lazy to fact check this) and took their dog Seamus for a ride...on the roof of the car. Many dog groups were not happy upon hearing this news. So just the other day, the Romney camp let the world know that in President Obama's book "Dreams From My Father," he admitted to eating dog meat. He was 9-10 years old, living in Indonesia and this meat had been prepared for him by his superiors. So, there we have it. It's all about the dogs.
Romney: 36-year old man who strapped the family dog to the hood of the car on a family trip.
Obama: 9-10-year old boy who had dog meat prepared for him while living in Indonesia.
Yeah, those two stories are comparable...not really. The thing is, America is a dog-loving country. We typically see these animals as pets, as friends, as family. So I'm sure to the majority of Americans (including myself), the thought of eating dog meat is pretty gross. However, it's not rare in the country of Indonesia for dog meat to be consumed. They view the animal differently there than they do here. It'd be like if an Indian traveled to the United States, was feed beef as a child and then ventured back to India. Upon hearing the news, I'm sure many of the country's residents would be disgusted, perhaps even offended, because cows are seen very differently in the two country's. They're seen as sacred in the country of India and are seen as food in the United States. Would I myself ever eat dog meat? Unless my life depended on it, no. But this is more due to with where I was born and raised than about morality. Who am I to judge what is or is not moral when it comes to the consumption of meat (or the refusal of eating it)?
So, sure, I can understand what the Romney camp was attempting to do with this story, but I think it's a fail. They're just looking at things too simply (go figure, right?). Both stories deal with dogs and the two candidates not really treating them as the friends, the family members most Americans see them as. However, one deals with a 36-year old man whom likely had (along with his wife perhaps) the final say on the matter and a 9-10-year old boy who really had no say in the matter. For the Romney camp to pick on a 9-10-year old boy like that is pretty low in my opinion. That'd be like a person whom has had his or her problems with alcohol and bar fights due to it trying to divert attention away from themselves by poking fun of a person because he/she found their father's bottle of whiskey when they were 9 years old and got drunk off it, not knowing any better. Yup, since both scenarios deal with alcohol, they're automatically the same! NOT! FAIL! Try again, Mitt! ...but this time, go after Barack when he was still an infant. That's not beneath you, right? ::rolls eyes::
Romney: 36-year old man who strapped the family dog to the hood of the car on a family trip.
Obama: 9-10-year old boy who had dog meat prepared for him while living in Indonesia.
Yeah, those two stories are comparable...not really. The thing is, America is a dog-loving country. We typically see these animals as pets, as friends, as family. So I'm sure to the majority of Americans (including myself), the thought of eating dog meat is pretty gross. However, it's not rare in the country of Indonesia for dog meat to be consumed. They view the animal differently there than they do here. It'd be like if an Indian traveled to the United States, was feed beef as a child and then ventured back to India. Upon hearing the news, I'm sure many of the country's residents would be disgusted, perhaps even offended, because cows are seen very differently in the two country's. They're seen as sacred in the country of India and are seen as food in the United States. Would I myself ever eat dog meat? Unless my life depended on it, no. But this is more due to with where I was born and raised than about morality. Who am I to judge what is or is not moral when it comes to the consumption of meat (or the refusal of eating it)?
So, sure, I can understand what the Romney camp was attempting to do with this story, but I think it's a fail. They're just looking at things too simply (go figure, right?). Both stories deal with dogs and the two candidates not really treating them as the friends, the family members most Americans see them as. However, one deals with a 36-year old man whom likely had (along with his wife perhaps) the final say on the matter and a 9-10-year old boy who really had no say in the matter. For the Romney camp to pick on a 9-10-year old boy like that is pretty low in my opinion. That'd be like a person whom has had his or her problems with alcohol and bar fights due to it trying to divert attention away from themselves by poking fun of a person because he/she found their father's bottle of whiskey when they were 9 years old and got drunk off it, not knowing any better. Yup, since both scenarios deal with alcohol, they're automatically the same! NOT! FAIL! Try again, Mitt! ...but this time, go after Barack when he was still an infant. That's not beneath you, right? ::rolls eyes::
Comments
Post a Comment