DCDogVoter.com

Ah, dear dear Jonetta. It’s always good to hear from such a voice of reason.

Can you please explain the phrase “between a tree and a confirmation vote”?

Idioms aside, I didn’t think you hated dogs until you brought it up. You’ve been in politics for a long time, so I’m sure you are aware that when someone says, “For the record: I don’t hate…” they doth protest too much.

Could you please provide some support for your contention that dog owners who want dog parks are lazy? My wife and I walk our dog 1.6 miles twice a day. (I checked the numbers on Google Maps. I like to get my facts straight when I’m arguing with reasonable people.) When we take him to the dog park, it’s halfway through his walk. It’s not a substitute for his walk.

The move to establish dog parks is a responsible move by DPR. It’s the law, for one thing. In your article, you say “Acting DPR Director Clark Ray says he’s trying to implement a 2005 law passed by the D.C. Council. But…”

With your long experience in the political world, you know that “He says” is snotty political language for “and he’s a liar.” Well, the law’s on the books, Jonetta. There are no buts about Director Ray’s actions. You have a beef with the law, so argue about the law.

In fact, I’m impressed with the number of political judo chops you’ve put into such a short article. You even go so far as to cite unnamed “dog walking companies” as if big corporate bad men were behind this law.

Do you think the first round of dog park laws was reasonable? Or are you, like the fellow mentioned in the previous post, just against the idea in any form? If you think they were reasonable, tell me this: are there any rats within five blocks of your house? Is there a single spot in this city where you can stand balanced on one big toe and reasonably ask for a Health Department certification that there are no rats within five blocks of where your toe hits the ground?

The original draft of the laws was designed to prevent dog parks while appearing to comply with the law establishing them. You know this. Any reasonable person can see it.

The current guidelines are parallel to dog park guidelines in other major metropolitan areas. They establish reasonable ground rules yet allow enough flexibility for reasonable neighbors to work out want they want in their neighborhood. You know, using reasonable and civil discussion. So the answer to your question about the triangle parks is this: both. We’re urban dwellers. We’re able to live together because we’re smart, flexible and reasonable.

I agree with you on at least one point: the issue is contentious. We have unreasonable people claiming that dog shit is behind DC’s rat problem and we have unreasonable people claiming Kathy Silva’s sister Madeline Albright is the reason we have a dog park law. So much unreason. So much anger. Wouldn’t it be easier if we complied with the law and established legal places for neighbors to meet and play with their dogs?

It’s hard to pick a favorite political ploy from your article. There are so many old chestnuts of the vicious innuendo school of political writing. Is it a scandal that the chair of the committee is a dog owner? My goodness. Until you told me that, I thought this whole thing was on the up and up, but now I see it’s all a conspiracy.

By the way… are you, as vocal opponent of dog parks, a non-dog owner? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with having a total lack of empathy for those who are different from you. It’s easy to tell when you’ve lost all empathy. When you start making generalizations about people like saying they’re “too lazy” you should sit down with a priest, a counselor or a therapist and work on your empathy.

Or perhaps you could just come hang out in the dog park for awhile. I’ve made many friends there. Since my dog park isn’t legal, I feel like we’re some sort of cool gang of criminal pals. We don’t have a secret handshake, but you can recognize us by the little poop bags we carry in our pockets.

On second thought, it’s not so hard to choose a favorite from your nasty, cynical little article. It’s the moment in the article when your total lack of self-awareness shines brightest. Standing alone, as one weighty little paragraph, is your assertion that, “It’s all politics.”

You should know, Jonetta, professional political analyst. You’ve been in the game a long time. You’ve picked up the moves and you’re not afraid to show them off.

Well, looks like we found one answer from T.A. Uqdah, former candidate for the Ward 4 Council.

Even though he was promoting the use of dog parks and putting dogs and kids in the same level in his campaign for dealing with gentrification, his last email to the Petworth Dogs listserve shows a clear position against dogs.

His hate against dogs is based on childish and outdated views more than real reasons. His words clearly indicate that he is a fanatic and had some bad encounters with dogs back in the 60’s and his early years.

He generalized about dog owners, not realizing that people that take dogs to parks are responsible owners.

He concluded that ‘dog people, canine lovers are annoying and fanatical’.

He continued to say:

‘they are annoying in the sense that they view themselves and their canines as a protected class. They are fanatical in the sense that they think anyone who opposes them is a hostile enemy to them and are annoyed at those of us who don’t understand their fanaticism’.

‘I can’t understand for the life of me, why anyone would move into a land / space challenged urban setting like Washington, DC and expect to have dog parks established for their animals? I want a horse, but you don’t see me asking for a horse park to run them, do you? So where does this sense of entitlement come from?’

I personally do not think about him as an enemy. This not a war. We are civilized people and we should talk and try to solve our differences in a civilized manner and not, do like he did. He came and exposed his hatred for dogs and walked away. He did not try to talk to us nor to understand why dog parks are necessary. They are good for the dogs (dogs that are not socialized in parks are the ones that escape and bite people). They help people to meet other neighbors (that is how I met most of my neighbors).

He was a candidate for the Ward 4 Council. He should know that if he has a horse he has a place to take the horse to be exercised within walking distance from his house.

He says that DC is a space-challenged urban setting, but DC has plenty of unused green areas. NYC does not, but they have 100+ parks.

He explains his hate against dogs towards the end of his email, where he says:

‘… I have trouble reconciling owning an animal that in my genetic experience was used to hunt and track me down for my continued enslavement or lynching, not to mention these were the same mangy animals used by law enforcement and other southern crackers to intimidate, bite and in some instances maim or kill human beings fighting for their civil rights; and I’m expected to embrace offering them a dog park?’

I think that he is confused and living in the past, he should realize that he is in DC in the year 2007. We live in a very diverse city, where no one should try to take any rights from anybody.