An old argument with a new twist

In observing mankind I find that I sometimes begin to suspect correlations and draw conclusions based on observations I make. Although this sounds totally banal, there is a subset of our population (cough donkeys) who would argue that drawing conclusions about tendencies from one's own observations is being judgmental, which I suppose them to mean as a pejorative. There was a time that the ability to draw general conclusions from specific sets of observations (I think this is called inductive reasoning, no?) might have been considered a good thing, as this ability is one of the handful of traits which separates man from the lower animals. But I digress.

One of the trends I noticed in college was that there was a moderately positive correlation between being a democrat and being a cat person. (And preferring Coke to Pepsi is positively correlated with being a communist, or at least a democrat, which obviously is pretty much the same thing. I kid.) What made this fun was the fact that my roommate at the time was a stern rightwing NROTC candidate who totally inexplicably liked cats. He also disagreed with my catlovers = democrats theory. Naturally enough, we spent the next several days arguing the point with an appropriate level of vigor, and we at some point reduced to debating which party a cat or a dog would tend to vote for in the upcoming 1992 presidential election. This was done with rather astonishing earnestness.

My theory, the truth which seemed so self-evident that I was surprised to have to even explain it, was that not only are catlovers democrats but the animals themselves would vote for democrats given the chance to, and dogs the opposite. The argument runs thusly:

1. Cats really don't do anything for you. They play, occasionally, more for their own amusement than your own. They perform no essential or even useful function within the household. Just like the unemployed street youth of Ann Arbor.
2. Cats clearly don't love their owners and labor under the delusion that they're smarter than we are. Just like the democrat kids angry at their parents for instilling and requiring discipline. (For some reason cat people agree with this assessment and find it sort of Hugh Grant rogueishly charming or something.)
3. Cats don't follow instructions, just like a bunch of unwashed hippie protesters ignoring orders to disperse their foul gatherings.
4. Cats nonetheless expect, due to their own apparent sense of wholly undeserved entitlement, for their needs and wants to be provided for them despite having made not the least attempt to earn them. Just like a 1991 pre-welfare-reform era welfare mom.

Pretty damning stuff, yes? On the same points:

1. Although performed with uneven competence, a dog takes seriously its mission to protect the household (even against mailmen and children) and secure the perimiter. A dog is surprisingly vigilant in this even when sleeping, as anyone who's ever seen a startled dog woken up by an imperceptible noise two blocks away can attest. A dog wants to earn its keep.
2. A dog loves everyone who hasn't run afoul of them within the context of item 1. Dogs in particular were fans of Ronald Reagan for his tireless optimism and cheerfulness.
3. Dogs follow instructions reasonably well provided they don't require patience or an unnatural act like ignoring available snacks or something.
4. Dogs therefore earn their keep, are cheerful warriors, and Just Want To Help The Ball Club.

Clearly a republican animal. That anyone could argue otherwise boggles the mind.

So with all this by way of a back story, recently I uncovered the fact that probable communist Eric Zorn has written the worst possible thing imaginable about dogs, Your dog does not love you and other cold-nosed truths. This bit of defamation was in response to a woman jumping into near-freezing water to save her dog.

Let me just say, hats off to Miss Craigie, and I think I'd rather hang out with her than a crabby old sourpuss like Eric Zorn. And my dog obviously loves me, so phllbtphlpt.