By now most of us know about the flap with Ellen DeGeneres and the now famous dog, she gave away, because of the dog's inability to adapt to cats in the home. Due to some fine-print wording in the addoption agreement, the agency that provided Ellen the dog for adoption seized the dog from the good home, Ellen had found it. But Ellen made a tearful plea to the owners of Mutts And Moms, a non-profit agency run by the owners of Paws Boutique Store of Pasadena (Vanessa Chekroun and Marina Batkis), to return the dog to the family.
So far, they haven't. They even have gone as far as to claim that Ellen is bullying them.
Well, now there's an outcry. It seems there are threats coming in to the owners that are responsible for this "far from compassionate" act. And while I do not condone this at all, it's not surprising that this has generated a lot of outrage.
I know that Ellen signed the agreement and it is well within their rights to enforce it. But there's more to this than some agreement, if you ask me.
At the very least, these two women are so rigid and unbending, they have lost sight of what they claim their objectives are, in running this agency. At the very most, they are mean-spirited and have ice running through their veins. And their value systems are very much called into question, solely by the actions they have taken in this matter.
I am sure a deal could be worked out that would be beneficial to all parties here, yet, the people that are in the best position to form some agreement are not budging.
But make no mistake here, threatening these ladies is not the best way to get to a fair resolution here. The best way to resolve this seems to lies within the hands of those that are customers of the Paws Boutique Store. I do not call for boycotts, as a general rule. but in this case, I am calling on all customers of Paws Boutique Store to take their business elsewhere, until the dog is returned to the family.
If it means the loss of their livelihood, so be it. That's the power of the dollar, that's the true power of the American people. That's why I love capitalism, it gives us choices and not ultimatums.
8 comments:
LAS: I just had an argument/discussion with my wife about this this morning. You agree with her.
I don't necessarily take sides, but I have more of a problem with what Ellen did than with what the adoption agency did. See, I look at Ellen and see a typcial, spoiled Hollywood billionaire, used to getting her way, used to having the rules bent for her.
I've adopted a dog, and they had the same prohibition as the one in the present case. I think it's a logical rule: they don't want to see the same dog end up in their shelter again. Which brings me to my second problem with Ellen's behavior: she took a dog that had already been abandoned once, that she didn't have the time or energy for, and just dumped it on someone else. She should have thought it through first, and failing that, should have returned it in accordance with the deal she had made.
As for the behavior of the shelter, I agree that a deal could/should have been brokered with the new family that Ellen found. But as someone who negotiates for a living, I can tell you I've seen this a million times. A good deal is on the table, but one side embarrasses the other, or suddenly demands more, or does something else to anger the other side and the deal falls through. It's human nature. Ellen thought she could bully her way to getting what she wanted by blubbering on TV like a child and giving this agency - which does good work that we all approve of - some horrible press. Now she expects these people to give her what she wants? That ain't how it works in real life.
(P.S. - I like Ellen's work and think she is hilarious, but this incident has lessened my opinion of her).
Greg,
//I just had an argument/discussion with my wife about this this morning. You agree with her.//
You wife is smarter than you are(but you already knew that didn't you? [wing wink nudge nudge]).
Seriously, you may be right. There may be some credibility to your argument. But, I look at it from the kids (and the dog's) perspective here. The kids and the dog should be given more consideration than the stubborn adults involved in this whole mess.
The best thing to do here is, give the dog back this one time and use it as a tool to raise awareness about the reasonings being offered by those that are siding with the operators of the agencies that do this kind of thing.
Our nation is facing so many critical issues that I have a hard time getting upset over this one. Plainly, if dogs ran the world it would be a better place to live, and I have to wonder if anyone would adopt Ellen DeGeneres under reversed circumstances. But just because I’m feeling ornery today, I’m going to side with Greg—and for that reason I have a couch he can use if the domestic argument gets nasty.
There is a reason for adoption rules. Ellen DeGeneres understood the rules and agreed to them at the time of her purchase. As a legal matter, under what circumstances should parties compromise an agreement? Well, if the animal became sick because of a condition that existed prior to the purchase date, then there could be a reason to return the animal to the previous (rightful) owner. Lacking that, however, contract law holds that signatures are binding and offset any later claim that “I didn’t understand.”
The hairdresser’s children are not suffering. If the parent of these children wants a pet for his/her kids, they are available through any number of sources, including the SPCA. So in my typically suspicious mind, I think there is more involved here. First, the pathetic display on national television has increased viewership and potential consumers for her advertisers. Second, it is another claim that society must accommodate idiots. Third, it is entirely possible that Ellen DeGeneres is simply being an ass – or conversely, given her breakdown, she seriously needs professional help.
Hi LASunsett !
Amerloque is basically on the opposite side of the fence from LASunsett on this one. (grin)
M and Mme Amerloque have both "worked" (as volunteers) in animal protection for many years and one thing is clear: professionalism is far better than amateurism. There are reasons for "adoption contracts": the primary one is the welfare of an animal, not a person. That's why it's called an "animal protection society".
The two ladies (Chekroun and Batkis) obviously have more experience than DeGeneris in what's best for animals and did absolutely the right thing by checking on the dog's welfare by calling DeG to find out – and learning that DeG had passed it on without so much as letting them know.
As a matter of interest, M and Mme Amerloque have two dogs and a cat all adopted from the local pounds. The second dog, adopted ten years ago at the age of six months, had real problems: she had been dumped in the pound and subsequently outplaced twice. Both times she was brought back by the adopters. So the Amerloque family is her fourth "home". It took her ages to find her self-confidence – well over two years. She's a great, balanced animal, now. (Note that Mrs Amerloque is one of those individuals whom birds with broken wings flock to, and toward whom hungry cats and dogs sprint … (grin) … so sometimes "animal protection" is quite,er, adventurous …).
Amerloque only sees DeG sporadically over here in France (when she appears on Leno, Conan, and/or Dave L), but he has not been impressed by what he has seen and heard about her. Amerloque agrees with both Greg (DeG = " … a typcial, spoiled Hollywood billionaire, used to getting her way, used to having the rules bent for her") and Mustang (" … So in my typically suspicious mind, I think there is more involved here.").
/*/…/… The best thing to do here is, give the dog back this one time and use it as a tool to raise awareness about the reasonings being offered by those that are siding with the operators of the agencies that do this kind of thing. …/… /*/
Now that, LAS, is something that Amerloque can sign on to: a creative compromise to raise consciousness about the problem .. and place the dog in a loving home. Not all animal "cruelty" comes from the Michael Vicks of this world …
A thought: perhaps DeG, after playing the "sex" card for all it was worth for personal gain and aggrandizement, is now hoping that the "animal protection" gambit will take up the slack ? (Amerloque's suspicion is on a par with Mustang's.)
Best,
L'Amerloque
Well, it looks like I have been outflanked with dissent.
Oh well, being married, I am used to it. ;)
Maybe I could get my wife to comment, LAS.....
:)
Greg,
//Maybe I could get my wife to comment, LAS.....//
Not a good idea. I would eventually piss her off like I do Mrs. Sunsett and then, she'd blame you for getting into the whole mess. I know Mustang has a couch you can use as back-up sleeping quarters, but if we can avoid you getting into the same kind of trouble I get into, tis always better. (An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure.)
Remember Greg, forget Bill O'Reilly. I am looking out for you, not him.
;)
Hi LASunsett !
Well, well …
/*/ …/… October 22, 2007 -- ELLEN DeGeneres' latest doggy dealing wasn't the first time she'd passed along a pup she'd adopted, says a Los Angeles producer who gave the talk-show queen a pooch she quickly got rid of.
Kerri Randles says she gave DeGeneres a male mutt named Stormy two years ago, only to find out less than two months later that fickle Ellen had re-gifted him to a member of her staff.
…/…
DeGeneres may have passed along several other dogs over the years. Howard Stern said on his Sirius show that he'd heard she had done this nine times before.
…/…
Randles said DeGeneres seemed a perfect pet owner at first, but she quickly discovered the daytime TV hostess was "neurotic and crazy."
…/… /*/
from: The New York Post (!)
http://tinyurl.com/2efvc7
Best,
L'Amerloque
Post a Comment