Yeah..

If not high heels, then slim line italian shoes.

It´s like.. when you´re at home, you can release a fart without your snakes booing you out or trying to ridicule you. But If you release a fart in the senate, I bet you will be booed out and discredited. again, I hope I´m wrong.

So in senate one has to put on the ultra-responsible hat, and take in consideration all possible negative consequences to a bill. Only thing is, senators normally are not scientists and they are no more qualified to see the rights and wrongs in herpetocultural legislation, than are some newbies in herpetoculture. Fortunately senators often have good advisors to help them and some very few senators may even be responsible herpetoculturists or scientists themselves.

However, I get the feeling that most senators have a hard time making the right choices on our behalf unless the reptile nation goes berzerk HR669-style and sends off 50.000 letters. Then you guys are heard, for a little while, but even then, things quickly go back to normal. Normal for us being, inching steadily towards the wrong direction with no safety net except our moral duty to participate in democracy in order to safe guard our rights, in hope to keep our head above water for a little while longer.

If the government was not trying to close us down, it would invest some resources into solving this problem in a responsible manner, in stead of sponsoring all kinds of new bans with no regard to the potential damage. Also it is not popular to defend the keeping of venomous snakes (on the right premises) and politicians are generally relatively vulnerable towards bad publicity, and that narrows down their freedom to act quite a bit.

Given the option between two evils and one good which is un-obtainable due to lack of support, the politicians will often go for the lesser of two evils, in stead of wasting time and credibility to fight for some good option which fails to gather enough support from within the herpetological community.

However, politicians should have the moral duty to make good decisions, not to simply choose between the lesser of two evils, even I can do that, it´s easy to choose the lesser of two evils. It´s harder to do the right thing.

I think if we want politicians to do the right thing, and make the best choices on our behalf, then we must show them, and let them experience, that they do have strong support for certain politicians and that we will not leave them dangling on the hill all by themselves. In the end, the war against AR activists will be won by the people. The politicians are only the big bazookas who can turn the tide in the few biggest battles. For the most part though.. I think we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst, can´t rely on politicians until our experience proves otherwise. Our experience so far tells us that despite best intentions from the part of politicians and senators, murky bits of AR legislation just keep on sneaking in though our defense and present us with a steady amount of new headaches who pile on top of old ones we have yet to solve permanently.

umz. don´t mean to dis the politicians, just thinking out loud again.

regards

oby

[ Hide Replies ]

• Who wants to run for office - emysbreeder, Fri May 15 12:11:01 2009
• That is just unfair. - obeligz, Sun May 17 06:50:27 2009
• RE: That is just unfair. - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Sun May 17 07:35:44 2009
• RE: That is just unfair. - obeligz, Sun May 17 10:23:22 2009