This morning as I was looking at The Seattle Times’ editorials, hoping for something to write about when I came across this editorial on the special session. It’s so Seattle Times, that you know the jokes I’d have made. They’d go like this:
- Stop obsessing about process over results, assholes
- You can’t complain about what the legislature cut if you don’t propose other cuts, or more taxes, assholes
- That’s not really a fair characterization of Inslee’s vetoes, assholes
Etc.
But what I want to focus on here is much more specific:
This time, the gimmicks included taking $227 million over coming years from a fund that pays for municipal bridges and sewer projects. It also wrongly wiped away $10 million to pay for performance audits of government agencies. Taxpayers want more efficiency, not a neutered watchdog.
That’s not how neutering works. Seriously, unless you’re breeding a dog, get it neutered. Here’s what the Humane Society has to say if you’re interested:
Myth: Neutering will take away the “guard dog” instincts.
Not true: Neutering a dog does not reduce its ability as a guard dog or watch dog. He will still be as protective of his territory as he was before the surgery.
So, what is it that a neutered watchdog would actually mean about performance audits? They’ll be fine, but the performance audits won’t have kids? They’ll hump fewer legs? They’ll be less likely to run away looking for sex? I mean I know metaphors are often imperfect, but the fuck are we even talking about?
And this is a dangerous myth to spread. We don’t need more unwanted puppies out and about. And as the Humane Society post I linked to earlier mentioned, not neutering a pet can make them go free-roaming. So dogs are more likely to get lost or get hit by a car. This throw away line is so bad, it may be the second worst thing someone at The Seattle Times has ever done for dogs.
In a separate editorial on the Auditor’s office reductions (boo hoo, not the only agency to get cut), the Times complains about the lack of reporters available to ask questions. Not sure why they don’t hire fucking reporters for the Capital beat.
They probably meant “neutralized.” This generation of journalists is illiterate. That’s what happens when newspapers pay their editorial staff minimum wage, except if the editorial writer is the publisher’s son he doesn’t get paid at all, because he’s expected to work off the rent on the basement room in daddy’s and mommy’s house.
@2,
I wondered about that, but that would be an odd phrase too. My assumption is they meant “shot by a publisher” but that would be too on the nose.
The problem is that reporters are human centric or have issues of appearing reasonable and politically sensitive. The guard or guards in reality are human beings that need resources to do their jobs. It may be reasonable to ask if we get a better guard if the human beings are neutered or if eunuchs do a better job in this line of work. It’s a simple procedure, and these days a lot of people are snipped. Still it would be unreasonable to use the term neutered and unable to do their job. Now the proper term may be starved of resources. That gives us a more accurate picture of a human guard becoming more gaunt over time and perhaps eventually unable to do their function. If we don’t notice perhaps the function was not necessary or we won’t notice until the big earthquake hits and we realize the guards have not done their jobs and we will be upset. This is in part what happened in Flint.
I can’t wait for RR dog comments though. After all the world should be run by rabbits. I do hope the rabbit mother notices my attempt to gain favor. Still I’m simply a man. Perhaps humanizing rather than going for spiffy and time accepted metaphors would be helpful. Of course this would mean politicians would have to be a bit more truthful.
The Donald goofed the other day and spoke the truth about the lifers real position when it comes to women getting abortions. Those who do are criminals, but stating their true position is just not to be done. Still Democratic leaders have not hit the lifers hard enough and are allowing them to hide their true intentions. Exactly how are they going to enforce a woman not having a right to choose?
You’d think by now they’d have implemented some kind of text filter to simply flag mentions of dogs, shooting dogs, killing dogs, etc. in order to avoid this kind of embarrassment.
New masthead?