This past Sunday, during some rare 'down time' I watched a program on PBS 'Nature' series about the rescue volunteers who assisted with saving the pets of evacuees in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. To say I was moved would be an understatement; I would be happy to report that I must be much less hormonal these days as I did not weep. Which is not to say that this program wasn't heart wrenching. We've all heard about the work being done independently by veterinarians and humane societies in NOLA. But to actually understand why the animal tragedy occurred and then to see how some very dedicated and passionately moved people responded was enough for a relief weary human to dig deep into the wallet and send cash to help.
Since our recent move to another state, my spouse and I have found that we are without the network which we had built over 15 years in our last state of residency. When it came time for the long awaited (and desperately needed) November vacation,
we found ourselves canceling due to the lack of a parrot sitter. Since we love our parrot, even in his extreme bad moods, we could not with clear conscious subject him to some of the paranoia currently sweeping the USA about Avian Flu. And if that were not enough, there are numerous other disease and transportation issues surrounding companion birds that we found too risky to chance.
Given this circumstance, to learn that the people of New Orleans who were under evacuation orders were told they could not take their pets with them has again made me feel lucky that I live with choices about how to deal with lack of boarding opportunities.
My father and his wife, who live in Punta Gorda Florida lived through hurricane Charley in August 2004. The towns of Port Charlotte and Punta Gorda were close to being wiped off the map from the fury of Charley. But even under evacuation orders, many residents chose to stay in their homes rather than to trust that their pets would be OK. Some of those same people lost their lives while trying to save their pets.
Animals are funny creatures. We know that animals have ways of knowing when 'bad weather' is approaching. Yet, I will admit, I am not sure I would want to be locked up in a shelter with numerous frightened and smelly animals. But then, I would resent that anyone would doubt that my parrot is as much a member of this family as say, Grandma or grandpa is to yours.
When our governments, local and national, reject the need of humans for their companion animals, they also make a statement about what is important to a good life. Even though I wouldn't want to share shelter space with pitbulls, I now understand that the value of companion animals can not be measured in fur, fins or feathers.
The 'Nature' Program also talked about the effects of Katrina on the New Orleans Zoo, which luckily was spared the brunt of Katrina's damage. But the animals in their wisdom began to have behavior issues shortly after the storm. The zookeepers invited some of the National Guard members who were on post to do zoo walk throughs and immediately the animals began to show signs of returning to normal. The daily give and take of animals at the zoo and the people who visit them was restored and when that happened the animals normalcy was also restored.
During two of my visits to NOLA, I have visited the Aquarium of the Americas. The Aquarium is quite a special place. The number of animals and the exhibits there were not to be found any place else in the USA. The jellyfish exhibits were possibly the best in the world. During and after Katrina, the staff at the aquarium were also evacuated because the National Guard could not guarantee their safety. When the staff were allowed to return, they found utter devastation of life. The power could not be maintained so the animals in salt water tanks died due to extreme heat, lack of food and water filtration/aeration. The few creatures that did survive, the penguins, parrots and otters were emergency airlifted to other zoos in the USA. Were it not for the dedication, passion and empathy of a few individuals, it is certain that none of the animals would have survived. In particular a NOLA cop who was assigned to duty at the aquarium managed to be most instrumental in saving the penguins. The cop's name is John and if John should ever read this, I would want him to know that his actions will remain with me for the rest of my life.
After months of watching the sadness and feeling the loss of what was NOLA, I have pretty much been tapped out for donations. But if anyone who reads this and cares about animals can still do so, please pick an organization that is instrumental in helping either the Zoo, the Aquarium or the Humane Society to send money to. These are the unsung hero's of the animals of NOLA. And too, these same people are often the ones who lost their homes, have had their families scattered and will probably not be sharing Thanksgiving dinner with the same cozy warmth as the rest of us will.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Trade in that Dirty Mind for an Open Mind - Part 2
Recently this year, the PBS children program "Postcards from Buster"” featured a visit with two families which were producers of Maple Syrup. The families in question were non-traditional families. Not having seen the program, and at the time of this article, not having received a reply from my inquiries to PBS, I can only paraphrase the situation as I have heard it. In reality, the familys’ that were featured were gay, One household consisted of two men with their children. The second family consisted of two women and their children. During the program, the word "“gay"” or "“homosexual"” or "“lesbian" was never mentioned. Nor was mention made of the arrangements between any of the people involved. The families were presenting their jobs: making maple syrup and taking care of their maple trees.
Margaret Spellings, Bush administration Secretary of Education, requested that this program be axed from the PBS lineup as it presented views contrary with the Bush administration policies. Since our federal government is still contributing funds to PBS through tax payer funding, the censorship agenda is still followed. The Bush administration’s view was such that PBS, in presenting such family arrangements, was instilling in children the belief that homosexuality in any form was acceptable and normal, and therefore, the program should not be shown or aired as childrens programming.
While most would deny it, many people have dirty minds. Their imaginations conjure imagaes which are salubrious in nature. While asking that ‘dirty minds be kept in check is simply another form of censorship, one must wonder if people don'’t have enough to keep their minds occupied by something other than sexual innuendo.
When I hear about a couple who has been married for 60 years, I certainly don'’t entertain notions of their sex lives. And when hearing that there are 30 plus members of a mixed gender commune living in Colorado, I don'’t waste my time thinking about who has sex with whom.
It is a limiting way of life to imagine what one can not know. Or to impose upon others an individual's own morals.
How can we evolve our species and human necessities when our very steps are dogged by small minded - and dirty minded questions?
What do neo-conservatives make of the new ‘communes’ of senior citizen Florida, in which retired middle income women will contract the purchase of a home for shared living? Will the Neo-cons call them lesbians and condemn their choices? And what of young people who struggle for years to pay off college loans and need the shelter of shared living arrangements to afford to live on their own?
As a society we need to become more accepting of others and not live to question the choices of those who walk in ‘other shoes’. We need to realize that while we might live in a traditional family unit, there may be a point in time where this can change and we too might have to move in with someone who is neither lover, blood relative or same gender.
For more on PBS Progarm, “Postcards from Buster”, program #39, and an interview with Margaret Spellings, visit:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/spellings_4-7.html
Margaret Spellings, Bush administration Secretary of Education, requested that this program be axed from the PBS lineup as it presented views contrary with the Bush administration policies. Since our federal government is still contributing funds to PBS through tax payer funding, the censorship agenda is still followed. The Bush administration’s view was such that PBS, in presenting such family arrangements, was instilling in children the belief that homosexuality in any form was acceptable and normal, and therefore, the program should not be shown or aired as childrens programming.
While most would deny it, many people have dirty minds. Their imaginations conjure imagaes which are salubrious in nature. While asking that ‘dirty minds be kept in check is simply another form of censorship, one must wonder if people don'’t have enough to keep their minds occupied by something other than sexual innuendo.
When I hear about a couple who has been married for 60 years, I certainly don'’t entertain notions of their sex lives. And when hearing that there are 30 plus members of a mixed gender commune living in Colorado, I don'’t waste my time thinking about who has sex with whom.
It is a limiting way of life to imagine what one can not know. Or to impose upon others an individual's own morals.
How can we evolve our species and human necessities when our very steps are dogged by small minded - and dirty minded questions?
What do neo-conservatives make of the new ‘communes’ of senior citizen Florida, in which retired middle income women will contract the purchase of a home for shared living? Will the Neo-cons call them lesbians and condemn their choices? And what of young people who struggle for years to pay off college loans and need the shelter of shared living arrangements to afford to live on their own?
As a society we need to become more accepting of others and not live to question the choices of those who walk in ‘other shoes’. We need to realize that while we might live in a traditional family unit, there may be a point in time where this can change and we too might have to move in with someone who is neither lover, blood relative or same gender.
For more on PBS Progarm, “Postcards from Buster”, program #39, and an interview with Margaret Spellings, visit:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/spellings_4-7.html
Trade in that "Dirty Mind" for a more Open Mind
When I was in my thirties, a series of unfortunate events led me to the conclusion that financially, it was near to impossible for me to continue to live alone in a rented apartment. It was time to find a room mate.
While attending university, I lived in a room mate environment; I rented a room at a less than full fraternity house on campus. As a single female, I found this to be a very interesting arrangement, a house full of single men and I the only woman. It did not take long for me to realize that yes, men tend to live like bears in caves, and the shortsighted female can on occasion ignore this fact. But in my thirties, a frat house was not an option. I surveyed my personal landscape for likely room mates.
Eventually, I chose to move into a larger apartment with a single man who worked second shift. This seemed ideal as my job hours were typical 9 to 5.
We began this room mate relationship with the clear understanding that we would not be seeing much of each other because of our different schedules; this was very acceptable as I was happily dating a number of men while maintaining a serious sexual relationship with another.
It never crossed my mind to explore any more of a relationship with my room mate other than, well, room mate. As convenient as this situation was for me, it definitely had it's retractors. My father, who I did not allow to influence my decisions, looked upon this arrangement as "questionable", while other people, mostly family members, snickered behind their collective hands. Friends, who I thought might understand the situation as well as understand me, were the worst of all. They did not mince words with their forecast as they asked again and again if I and the room mate were "sleeping together". Since the apartment had two bedrooms, one of which was occupied by my furniture, it would seem that this question was moot. When I told everyone an emphatic "No" to the questions, they hypothesized that it would "only be a matter of time" before the room mate and I started a sexual relationship.
For me, this was highly offensive. I had a sex partner, a darned good one. One that did not share my bed, require his clothes to be washed or dinners cooked. Why would I consider messing up a nice, tidy arrangement like that with a live in lover? And if I was moving in with a sex partner or boyfriend, why, I'd just have said that. The consensus of friends and family was doubly bothersome as it seemed that while voicing their own thoughts, they were commenting on my morality, which I might add, was no ones business but my own.
The arrangement ran its course; in less than two years, the room mate went his way and I went mine. But in the span of time we shared space, things went as I predicted: we did not become lovers, we did not part as enemies, the time we spent in each others company served to keep us, and our future lovers and spouses as friends which we remain to this day.
When I look back to that time, I realize that the things that were said to me, the fears expressed by my family, were not necessarily a judgment on my morality, but perhaps only a reflection of the choices of those same individuals. What worked for me, may not have worked for them. They might have seen a close member of the opposite sex as a handy bed warmer on a cold or lonely night. They may have walked down that road themselves before and were revealing their own past choices or regrets.
I also come to wonder at an age that does not allow platonic relationships without passing judgment, and I wonder if those who do point condemning fingers aren't guilty of more than negativity - perhaps they are the owner of a "dirty mind".
A "dirty mind" is a funny thing. We can all laugh at an off color joke, yet many people are quick to judge anyone who they think is living in a sexually gratuitous manner. When did the behavior of unrelated adults begin to absorb so much of our attention? And how many people find that a clear option for them may be unavailable because of familial pressures and opinions?
The 1950s were considered to be a repressive time in the history of North America. Times were good for the returning WWII veterans and they were welcomed home with full understanding that all they did was good and well intentioned. Veterans enjoyed many benefits provided through their service to their country, such as education bills, housing grants and job placement. The 1950s saw the largest housing boom in the history of this country; could that have been the source of the belief that traditional family was the only life and that each American should be able to buy a home of their own?
Even in today's climate of in your face reality, it is difficult for some segments of society to accept that lifestyle is different for each person.
In many ways our culture demands that we all live within the narrow boundaries of what is correct and right in the eyes of the majority. It is not uncommon for the basic liberties of our constitution to be denied to anyone living outside of the accepted norm.
While attending university, I lived in a room mate environment; I rented a room at a less than full fraternity house on campus. As a single female, I found this to be a very interesting arrangement, a house full of single men and I the only woman. It did not take long for me to realize that yes, men tend to live like bears in caves, and the shortsighted female can on occasion ignore this fact. But in my thirties, a frat house was not an option. I surveyed my personal landscape for likely room mates.
Eventually, I chose to move into a larger apartment with a single man who worked second shift. This seemed ideal as my job hours were typical 9 to 5.
We began this room mate relationship with the clear understanding that we would not be seeing much of each other because of our different schedules; this was very acceptable as I was happily dating a number of men while maintaining a serious sexual relationship with another.
It never crossed my mind to explore any more of a relationship with my room mate other than, well, room mate. As convenient as this situation was for me, it definitely had it's retractors. My father, who I did not allow to influence my decisions, looked upon this arrangement as "questionable", while other people, mostly family members, snickered behind their collective hands. Friends, who I thought might understand the situation as well as understand me, were the worst of all. They did not mince words with their forecast as they asked again and again if I and the room mate were "sleeping together". Since the apartment had two bedrooms, one of which was occupied by my furniture, it would seem that this question was moot. When I told everyone an emphatic "No" to the questions, they hypothesized that it would "only be a matter of time" before the room mate and I started a sexual relationship.
For me, this was highly offensive. I had a sex partner, a darned good one. One that did not share my bed, require his clothes to be washed or dinners cooked. Why would I consider messing up a nice, tidy arrangement like that with a live in lover? And if I was moving in with a sex partner or boyfriend, why, I'd just have said that. The consensus of friends and family was doubly bothersome as it seemed that while voicing their own thoughts, they were commenting on my morality, which I might add, was no ones business but my own.
The arrangement ran its course; in less than two years, the room mate went his way and I went mine. But in the span of time we shared space, things went as I predicted: we did not become lovers, we did not part as enemies, the time we spent in each others company served to keep us, and our future lovers and spouses as friends which we remain to this day.
When I look back to that time, I realize that the things that were said to me, the fears expressed by my family, were not necessarily a judgment on my morality, but perhaps only a reflection of the choices of those same individuals. What worked for me, may not have worked for them. They might have seen a close member of the opposite sex as a handy bed warmer on a cold or lonely night. They may have walked down that road themselves before and were revealing their own past choices or regrets.
I also come to wonder at an age that does not allow platonic relationships without passing judgment, and I wonder if those who do point condemning fingers aren't guilty of more than negativity - perhaps they are the owner of a "dirty mind".
A "dirty mind" is a funny thing. We can all laugh at an off color joke, yet many people are quick to judge anyone who they think is living in a sexually gratuitous manner. When did the behavior of unrelated adults begin to absorb so much of our attention? And how many people find that a clear option for them may be unavailable because of familial pressures and opinions?
The 1950s were considered to be a repressive time in the history of North America. Times were good for the returning WWII veterans and they were welcomed home with full understanding that all they did was good and well intentioned. Veterans enjoyed many benefits provided through their service to their country, such as education bills, housing grants and job placement. The 1950s saw the largest housing boom in the history of this country; could that have been the source of the belief that traditional family was the only life and that each American should be able to buy a home of their own?
Even in today's climate of in your face reality, it is difficult for some segments of society to accept that lifestyle is different for each person.
In many ways our culture demands that we all live within the narrow boundaries of what is correct and right in the eyes of the majority. It is not uncommon for the basic liberties of our constitution to be denied to anyone living outside of the accepted norm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
