It’s been quite awhile since the last Unconstrained Discourse.
It would be easy to blame that on my previously discussed penchant for procrastination, but the truth is I’ve been too busy contemplating how truly stupid some people are. I’ve been tempted to write about this fascination several times. As examples I could have used the number of people that voted for John Kerry; the number of people with lasting psychological problems related to the Democrats defeat; or just California in general.
I’m glad I waited though because those examples of failed natural selection pale in comparison to a story that I read this morning on MSNBC.com.
It seems that a Texas woman (probably a transplant from California, Massachusetts, or France) has paid $50,000 for a kitten. No, it wasn’t a solid gold statue of a kitten. Instead, this poor misguided soul paid $50,000 for a kitten that was cloned from her recently deceased companion of 17 years (not her husband – her cat!).
You see, this lady had owned a cat named Nicky for 17 years. When Nicky finally sniffed his last catnip last year this lady was so distraught that she had Nicky’s DNA banked. She then hired Genetic Savings and Clone to resurrect him. After a little genetic manipulation, Little Nicky was born.
Our now happy cat owner claims that Little Nicky is identical to Nicky right down to his personality. You know, I’ll bet that if she gave me $50,000 and a picture of the departed Nicky I could come up with a Kitten that looked like Nicky and acted like Nicky too. Heck, I’ll do it for $5,000.
Can you spell S-T-U-P-I-D?
I just hope that this woman doesn’t have children because I would hate to think that her genetic code was being perpetuated.
Unfortunately this lady doesn’t have a monopoly on STUPID. Almost has bad as her having her dead cat cloned is the reaction of some people to the story.
Animal rights activists wackos are incensed because she didn’t spend her $50,000 to provide homes for strays.
As stupid, ignorant, misguided, and gullible as I think this woman is – it’s her money. What right does anyone have to be angry that she didn’t spend it the way they think she should have (other than possibly her heirs who just saw $50,000 of their inheritance flushed down the toilet)?
Hmmmm. I just read that last paragraph and realized I made a mistake. The wackos have just as much right to be angry as I do to be incredulous. The difference is they believe they have somehow been wronged because this woman spent her money on something she wanted instead of on something they wanted.
It’s a typical liberal mindset. This woman can’t possibly be trusted to spend her money appropriately so it’s their duty to take it from her and spend it in a way that provides the maximum benefit for mankind.
Unfortunately, in her case they may be right.
Wayne