Gov. Palin, pit bulls and hockey moms
By Gina Spadafori
September 5, 2008
Here’s the “joke,” for those who didn’t hear it, from Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention:
“What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Lipstick.”
It annoyed me when she said it, and it continued to annoy me as it kept being repeated as one of the “highlights” of her speech. Why? Because it just continues to reinforce the stereotype of pit bulls as crazed and aggressive.
Of course, I wasn’t the only person who found the humor off. Jon Stewart did, too, and it’s not the first time he has gone to bat for pit bulls. (He owns a pair of them, by the way.) As noted on the KC Dog Blog (because I haven’t seen my TiVo’d recording of this particular “Daily Show” yet):
Jon Stewart had a take last night on the difference between a Hockey Mom and a “Pit bull.” “One is unfairly maligned in spite of evidence that it is no worse than any other dog, and one is an artificial demographic that is no better or worse than any other mom.” Gotta love that man (and his show).
You can catch the video here — it occurs at about the 3:30 mark.
Jon, we love ya. We really love ya.
Update: Brent Toellner, who writes the KC Dog Blog, gets the profile treatment by Nathan Winograd. Nifty!
Stewart’s a great guy. I’m glad he finally said something about ‘pit bulls’. We need some help out here.
My guess at the answer?
Those hockey moms can be downright vicious.
Comment by Caveat — September 5, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I’m not surprised about the pit bull joke. From what I am reading, Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to be an animal lover.
Michael Markarian from the Humane Society Legislative Fund has a blog at http://hslf.typepad.com/ In his Sept. 4th and Aug. 29th blog entries he mentions how Sarah Palin is concerning animal welfare.
Comment by BeckyH — September 5, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Palin prolly doesn’t know what it is your average pet pitbull does every day, either.
Comment by slt — September 5, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
The Polar Bears will be knocked off the endangered species list, if Sarah Palin gets her way.
Of course, drilling will be okay in Alaska, according to Sarah. I am sure she could care less about the animals that live there.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — September 5, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
You think the pit bull thing was bad, you should see how the “community organizer” comment is being taken. I haven’t seen so many collegues so ticked off in a long time!
Comment by Dorene — September 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Yeah, I attacked this issue yesterday. However you feel about McCain, Palin’s given his campaign ten steps backwards on the issue of animal welfare.
Comment by Dr Patty Khuly — September 6, 2008 @ 4:34 am
Of course, that only matters for people who actually give a rip about animal welfare. Which I wouldn’t bet money on when it comes to Palin’s most ardent constituency . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2008 @ 6:30 am
I find nothing funny about pit bulls. Once you’ve experienced a pit bull attack personally your perspective is totally changed.
Comment by Al Hunter — September 6, 2008 @ 8:20 am
I wonder how her speechwriter, Matthew Scully, is sleeping these nights. He’s a vegetarian and ardent animal welfare supporter, who lambasted factory farming and canned hunts in his book, Dominion. I wonder if the “pit bull” reference was his idea.
The wolf killing (aerial shooting, bounties, and going after pups in the den) is pretty nasty too.
Comment by redstarcafe — September 6, 2008 @ 8:31 am
“Dominion” is one heckuva thoughtful read. What an interesting ethical dilemma for Mr. Scully, to believe one thing and advance another.
And Mr. Hunter: Any dog attack will certainly change one’s perspectives on “man’s best friend.” The breed or mix of the dog attached to those teeth has nothing to do with it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 6, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Gina, different breeds were selected for different characteristics. Pit bulls were bred to fight. Those teeth are attached to massive jaws. I understand your position and also agree that any dog can attack, but pit bulls are by nature more dangerous and need extra human care to keep them controlled. Luckily I still have ‘my best friend’ but only after she endured months of surgery, recovery, therapy, and tens of thousands of dollars in costs, all due to a negligent owner and a dog breed that was designed to maim.
Comment by Al Hunter — September 6, 2008 @ 11:02 am
I have to put in my two cents worth here. My mother was walking her little dog on a leash the other day and had a dog come up on her and grab her dog by the neck without any warning. The dog was by itself, no owner around, no leash, etc. The dog was not a pit bull. So I really disagree that the breed is being blamed here. Any dog that is not properly trained, cared for, can attack and I think the blame goes to negligent owners, not the dog.
Comment by Sandi K — September 7, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Yup! “Blame the deed, not the breed”!
I’m sorry about your mother’s dog. How badly was she injured, and did she survive?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Pat, thanks for asking, yes, she is OK, the bites didnt break the skin thank goodness although she is really bruised badly. Her dog had just finished chemo for lymphoma so its the last thing that is needed as she has not had vaccinations and wont be having them.
Comment by Sandi K — September 7, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
I won’t belabor the point after this. Sandi, I’m glad your mother’s dog is ok and that the bites didn’t break the skin. You were lucky that it wasn’t a pit bull on the loose. They will break the skin and then shake and rip. My dog had it’s entire front leg degloved. Sure the owners are irresponsible, but it’s the dog that does the damage. I see nothing wrong with mandatory muzzles when the breed is in public.
Comment by Al Hunter — September 7, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Some of the calmest dogs I’ve introduced my sometimes nervous and over-excitable Addy to have been pits. These are the dogs that, within my lifetime, were the generic, unexceptionable American pet dog, for people who didn’t need a hunting or herding dog, just a dog to be a companion and protector for the kids.
What has changed is not the dogs; it’s how people regard them, because they’ve become fashinonable with the wrong people. Also within my lifetime, the position of Insanely Aggressive Killer Breed has been held by German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and Rottweilers.
Right now it’s the pit bull. My personal prediction is that the next victim will be the Akita, but it might be the English Mastiff or any other big, scary-looking dog.
It’s not the breed.
Comment by Lis — September 7, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Oh, they’ll start zeroing in on one or another of the Molosser breeds:
http://www.moloss.com/001/ptxt/breed.html
That’s (one of the) problems with breed specific legislation (BSL). It will never be able to keep up with “the next dangerous breed”. But (if they have their way) they’ll just keep happily banning away until there really isn’t much left.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Way cuter than a hockey mom:
http://ihasahotdog.com/2008/09.....-lipstiks/
Comment by ChicagoBullies — September 8, 2008 @ 11:58 am
I would leave my family for Stewart…no word of a lie.
As for Palin…… as a REAL hockey mom and a “pibble” owner…I am DEEPLY offended!
She scares me so much. Please let me know when she is gone…until then, I will be hiding under my bed.
Comment by Susan — September 14, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Palin loves animals for consumption only.
She scares me, too, Susan. Imagine her being President if something happened to McCain.
Where would all the animals go (to hide)?
I dunno—pretty scary world is getting scarier.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — September 15, 2008 @ 4:12 am