An InHineSite Introspective: Do Women Need Men?

Miss Mya

I’ve told myself a thousand times over, “I don’t need no man." “A man DOES NOT define who I am.” “I can do bad ALL by myself.”…real talk! Unfortunately, these cliches have become extremely commonplace and familiar, especially for those of us who do not want to appear needy or clingy. I have always enjoyed my independent, self-sufficient side. I’ve enjoyed not having to depend on ANYONE for anything, except my parents and they never let me down. That’s it; I guess it depends on what and who you put your hopes in.

I have asked myself this time and again: Do I really need a man? I remember back in college a guy telling me that I really needed a man to help release this aggression I had pinned up inside (that was hilarious)! Ladies, what are you living for? Are your daily activities, habits or routines solely geared toward getting a man? At the end of the day, is it a man that will ultimately make you happy? An article found on CNN.com talked about being more accountable, focused and motivated when in a relationship? You’ve got to be kidding me! I would hope that regardless of having a man or not, that I would strive to be the best, do the best and share the best at all times…cased closed! Clearly that’s not the case with some women….and one has to wonder who the “real” person is and what her motivation is. Is she "keeping it real" when she has a man or when she doesn't? Are these positive, self-motivating characteristics signs of needing and keeping a man or self-improvement?

I can’t deny that I like being in a relationship and having someone interested in me romantically who desires and is attracted to what is my inner and outer beauty. God created us to love because He is love. He wrote a 66-book love letter just for us to contemplate, absorb and live by. So why then would I need a man when I have all I need in the one true living God. He sustains me, He holds me down, lifts me up, makes me smile, tells me I’m beautiful, encourages me, helps me through hard times, is my consolation when I need Him….man I could go on and on, seriously!

Needing a man is nothing more than misguided desires. We have come to use needs and wants interchangeably, thinking they are the same thing (when that is the furthest from the truth)! My want to have a man in my life stems from my own personal, flesh-filled desires to share, interact, grow, and learn with another person with hopes to meet that a person to share my life with intimately, forever. That particular want is vastly different than needing a man in my life. If me needing a man were true, that would mean there was something lacking or wrong with me that could be fixed or improved by a man being in my life. That could be nothing further from the truth….seriously folks! I need a man like I need a hole in my head, guys ain’t NOTHING but trouble.

Mr Hines

I recently had a conversation with a woman friend of mine about this very topic. She's 35, single, with no children. The conversation began with us discussing her recent break up with a guy she'd been with for over a year. They'd begun living together early in the relationship. I'd had a conversation with her just after he moved in. She was venting about the little things he did that drove her crazy. Almost a year later, things had become unbearable, prompting her to demand he move out. He put up a 'fight', dragging things on for several months. After a series of arguments and physically violent encounters, he finally left.

Before I divulge the rest of the conversation, I'd like to give a bit of history on her former relationships. Prior to the fore mentioned, she dated a guy older than her (around 40 or so). He lived in another state, and was admittedly less attractive than she would have hoped. When I asked her why she was dating him, she said he " treated her good". He made frequent visits to town. The relationship was going well until he began pressuring her to move to where he lived. She abruptly broke things off with him, saying she didn't want to be pressured into such a decision. The relationship lasted approximately 6 months.

The guy before that was about the same age and really handsome. He never moved in, and frankly only visited when she requested. He wasn't very 'smart', though, and this became problematic when they were among her friends. She found herself feeling embarrassed, and for this reason, broke things off with him. The relationship lasted less than 4 months.

The man prior to him was considerably older, at least 20 years her senior. This relationship ended well before we became friends, so I know very little about it. What I do know is they lived together for a long span of time (perhaps 3 years or more), even co owning a house. Things ended less than amicably, as she harbors bitter feelings towards him even today.

Given all that I know about my friend and her former relationships, I have come to a conclusion about her, as I have women like her. These women are destined to be single. Not cursed or doomed, but quite obviously destined. After years of living on their own, on their own terms, these women are not going to accept anything less than what they expect. Not to say that their counterparts somehow sacrificed all of their expectations, these women I refer to have become so ultra independent, their potential to compromise has all but disappeared. Perhaps shaped in part by former encounters with men, and subsequent years of 'making it on their own', these women appear to be proof positive that they don't need a man.

During our conversation, I conveyed these thoughts to my friend. She at first seemed to take great offense, suggesting that I was implying she was an 'old maid'. I assured her that I thought nothing of the sort. I asked her to look objectively at her past relationships, including the one that had just ended. I then suggested again that many women were destined to be eternally single, certainly not married, and that there was nothing wrong with it. I further explained that these women might even be 'lucky'. Compared to their counterparts, these women had the freedom to come and go as they pleased. They had no one to answer to, cook for, clean up after, compromise with, or indulge, unless they wanted to! Married people should surely envy them on certain levels!

Now, here's the irony. My friend didn't believe any of this. She was incredulous. She's 35, very unhappily single, with no children, but desirous of being a mother. Even though her past seems to dictate, if not foretell her future, she is resolute in her strong desire to be married! While I don't think it's an impossibility, I did point out that the more time that passes, combined with what seems to be an increasing incapability to compromise, the chance of marriage becomes ever more unlikely. She disagrees, stating that she "doesn't want to be alone forever."

Do women need men? This question is not easily answered. I would argue that even the most likely candidate to refute the notion may prove more 'needy' than what might be expected. Perhaps a large part of what we desire is directly attributable to how we are socialized and/ or the influence of culture or tradition in our lives.

Though my friend clearly exhibits all the characteristics of a successful career bachelorette, she still clings to a lifelong, little girl fantasy, that prince charming is going to come sweep her off her feet. While that in itself is harmless, the effect of failing to come to terms with reality, and accepting the possibility...probability...that you might just not be 'marriage material' is.

Understanding that we all have our own destinies to fulfill, destinies that are self defined, not characterized by whether or not we are married, or have children, or are married when we have children, may be the only way we can begin to adequately answer such a question.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/08/18/tf.women.need.a.man/index.html

Drug Legalization: 'WEED' ing Out the Myths

Mr. Hines
How many of you reading this know someone addicted to drugs? How many of you have family members, friends, or loved ones that have lost everything, and are now a mere shell of the person they once were because of their addiction? How many of you reading this have your own addiction problem? How many of you have suffered loss as a result of the abuse of drugs?

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, I have one final question for you. How will legalizing drugs change any of your answers? Like the effects of alcohol, nicotine, or prescription drug abuse, legal substances, the results on the body, mind, and spirit will remain constant. Does the argument that the "possession and/ or subsequent distribution or use of drugs is a 'victimless' crime" seek to validate what I see as an absolutely absurd notion? Perhaps peeling just one layer off of this rank onion is all that is needed to expose this fallacy.

After doing a bit of research, I've narrowed the drug legalization proponent's platform down to its basic elements. Legalization proponents are split into 2 branches. Those that are in favor of only legalizing marijuana, and those that desire that all drugs be made legal. The premise of both is that crime resulting from drugs being illegal would all but disappear. (I will point out that those that are in favor of only legalizing marijuana seem to harbor a disdain for other 'harder' drugs, and therein exists a split even within the movement.) I have to agree. If drugs are made legal, then quite naturally, those that possess, distribute, manufacture, and use drugs would no longer be guilty of committing crimes, which would in itself instantly eradicate a huge percentage of the overall number of crimes prosecuted in this country.

I suppose if murder was decriminalized, the volume of people being convicted of killing other people would be diminished to none. With the murder rate on the rise in this country, let's make it legal. Problem solved! What about sexual assaults? Make rape legal and let's watch the statistics drop...

Proponents further argue that related crimes would disappear. For instance, violent crime that results from waring drug peddlers at every level, in addition to users that commit crimes to obtain drugs. WHAT?! Let's get real. The nature of the drug world, much like the nature of the pornography world, is dark. Many people around drugs, no matter their role, eventually use and abuse drugs. The resulting behavior is a manifestation of the effect of drugs on the mind and psyche. Irrational, violent, uncommon behavior is par for the course even in the best of situations. Simply put, a millionaire might pull out a gun and shoot 10 people and himself, not because he was desperate to support his high, but because he wasted on coke!

Moreover, the assumption that the price of illicit narcotics would drop drastically, thus putting pushers and suppliers out of business is lofty at best. If that were to occur, then what would these folks do? Concede and go get jobs? Maybe work in the new government subsidised legal drug industry? Preposterous!

Aside from the hollowness of almost any argument given to legalize drugs, I think the best example why illicit drugs shouldn't be legalized lay in the fact that nicotine and alcohol are legal. Alcohol especially. It's legal to produce, consume, and distribute alcohol. It ranks as one of the biggest killers, from the effects it has on the body, to the numerous drunk driver caused accidents on our highways. Even though it is legal, the number of arrests directly attributable to alcohol is staggering.

In America, we pride ourselves on the upholding of principle, justice, and goodwill to each other, as outlined in the Constitution. With the inherent effect of drugs undeniable on society as a whole, it is our collective duty to unite against such an adversary. The war on drugs must continue, but perhaps with a new and improved battle plan.

For anyone who thinks different I have only one question...are you on drugs?!

Miss Mya
Me? On drugs? Ha, now that’s preposterous, a good girl like me? Never that…however, I’m pretty sure I know someone addicted to drugs and/or lost everything because of them. Me personally, I have not dealt with it but like I said, a few people pop into my head that have suffered a loss related to or as a result of abusing drugs. With that said, will keeping marijuana illegal keep help drug abusers see the “light” turning away from their wicked ways? Seems like it should be a personal choice, not a government choice by evaluating who is affected. What is very interesting is that three (3) of the United States founding fathers cultivated marijuana themselves (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin). Guess Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t the only one to “inhale”.

Just so we’re clear, I’m in the “legalizing marijuana only” camp. Why? Oh, I’m so glad you asked! How can something from the earth, which was created by God and put into the hands of man to take care and subdue, be illegal? There are so many things created by God that are abused and misused that ARE NOT illegal, why then is marijuana (we should be seriously considering how to properly use what God has put in our care)? This is the only “drug” I can think of right at this moment that is produced from the earth, so it has a purpose and place for us, as human beings to utilize it in the fashion it was created for: medicinal, aroma therapy, cooking purposes, etc.

Between the humble beginnings of this country and around the turn of 20th century there were NO regulations on cannabis, Indian hemp, also known as marijuana. What do you think caused shift to regulate this plant? In early 1930’s, Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics “claimed cannabis caused people to commit violent crimes, act irrational, and act overly sexual. The FBN produced propaganda films promoting Anslinger's views and Anslinger often commented to the press regarding his views on cannabis.” The Geneva Narcotic Limitation Convention was promoted as a deterrent and restrictive measure to curtail importing and exporting drugs, later including in the treaty “cultivation, production, manufacture and distribution – related to the use of opium, coca (and its derivatives) and cannabis for non-medical and non-scientific purposes.” So basically some guy said it was bad, and it is so! Wow…

The studies are still fairly new in relation to the harmful effects associated with the consumption of marijuana. I completely understand not wanting to poison our children and cause long term health problems. However, what is the difference between tobacco and weed? I’m wondering why tobacco was never considered to be a threat. Was it ever regulated in the history of this country? Capitalist based economy = cash crop! Only thing I can fathom is that tobacco was a major cash crop for the United States and the country could not afford to regulate it in the same manner as they did marijuana. Marijuana and tobacco have similar if not the same health problems; they’re ingested in the same manner. Furthermore, marijuana is not as addicting as the nicotine ingredient found in tobacco. My point is the importance of consistency: one is legal and one is not yet they both have similar if not the same effects on the community and the body. Help me understand….it’s same with alcohol, which was actually illegal at one time and now has a rampant effect on this country as whole. Has anyone ever heard of Mothers Against Weed Smokers (MAWS)? I personally don’t hear of any deaths occurring as a result of being under the influence of marijuana, not saying it doesn’t happen, I just haven’t heard of it….

God was not inconsistent with the laws he gave to Israel. He did not waver or move as time progressed; new technology came into existence or as we became more sophisticated as a people. God is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. The same laws He established and required of the Israelites are the same rules utilized by Jewish people now, same rules. It would seem as though the United States would not have to waver back & forth with the wind on laws, especially not if you are establishing the laws with God’s will and desire in mind…

Taking it a step further, we’ll accept and promote prescription drugs that have who-knows-what-in-it, side effects that could kill you, with little to no relief of the original ailment and still say no to marijuana! Since there are no long term studies available as of yet on the harmful effects marijuana can have on the body, it’s still hard to say definitively that legalization on this drug is the way to go. However, I am leaning extremely close to legalizing the drug. From an economic standpoint and a legal standpoint, legalizing marijuana seems to be in the best interest of the country and its constituents.

Thinking about it from an economic standpoint, not only would the legal sale of marijuana generate revenue from taxes imposed on each sale that could be used toward education, health reform, feeding the homeless but there would be money saved from less policing and prosecuting sale, possession and consummation activities.

The legal pros, well my partner Mr. Hines has already outlined which I completely agree with, crime would decrease…case closed! Let’s not go overboard though, I mean really, legalizing rape & murder? Who’s smoking now, and what the heck is it!?!?!?!?

Health'S' Care or Health 'S'care Reform?

Miss Mya
People, what am I missing?! I’m not quite sure why the issue of health care is so prominent for President Obama and the nation as a whole. Every single 2008 presidential candidate expressed concern for and willingness to upgrade the current status of health care. Why is that? While perusing Wikipedia, one of my favorite online sources, I found the following information:

The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a Universal Health Care system, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others.... In spite of the amount spent on health care in the US, according to a 2008 report, the United States ranks last in the quality of health care among developed countries. The World Health organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the US health care system 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). International comparisons that could lead to conclusions about the quality of the health care received by Americans are subject to debate. The US lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, but some argue that these differences have little to do with the structure of its health care system.

Ah yes, I totally get it now, our influence on other countries and stature in power and authority may be misinterpreted if citizens of the United States aren’t even able to receive or have adequate health care. Never really thought of that way....so in other words, image is everything! Completely valid point, however I still fail to see the sense of urgency in the matter.Initially, I was thinking that there were hundreds of millions of people without health care, either not able to afford it, working for an organization or company that didn’t provide it, or maybe felt like they didn’t need it. On my way to work this morning, I started to wonder which companies and/or organizations might or might not offer health care.

As I drove along the question came to mind. How many people actually do not have health care coverage? As you know, I like to have at least some facts before I start to ramble and here’s what I found: “The number of people without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people.” This internet source says that a lot of the insured folks actually have inadequate coverage with limits on what it is covered and pay high premiums and/or deductibles. Interesting....is 16% of the population considered a lot? In my opinion, it’s not a huge impact. The source does not cite statistics on those who have inadequate coverage, but just says “many of those with insurance are not sufficiently insured”.So what exactly does that mean? Does it really matter how many people are affected? Yes and no. Yes, because obviously the health of one human being has greater or lesser value than another and ideally proper, adequate health care is the goal. Having proper health care for families is vital to the sustainability and prosperity of this country. I say no, because the overall cost to implement the reform covering the uninsured or under insured doesn’t seem worth it if only a few million people benefiting from the reform program. Another concern is that undocumented immigrants or those that wouldn’t pay into the pool would be able to access loop holes and/or obtain coverage meant for citizens of the United States.

Western medicine seems to focus on just taking care of the symptoms instead of researching and finding cures. As we all know health care in this country is BIG business, with little or no regard for the well-being of the patient. So why build an entire reform around a system that, in the long run, doesn’t benefit the user. Studies have shown that health care costs in this country are among the highest, especially for those who are obese. So why not push advocacy programs that will assist this country to get their weight under control instead of throwing money toward money-hungry prescription drug companies, non-empathetic hospitals and clinics? Why not put our efforts towards eliminating what we know to be a major problem and create positive, effective solutions for the masses. Just think about the mammoth –sized portions at restaurants and the cheaper yet unhealthy food grocery stores sell. These are just some of the many problems. Why not have exercise become apart of the daily work routine not by choice, but making it mandatory – these are the types of things that may have an impact on the health and physical condition of this country.

Well....that’s my two cents!



Mr Hines
Mya, I'll tell you what you're missing! The simple fact that your opinion, along with the opinions of potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans, has been spoon fed to you, almost injected via a hypodermic needle, by the very entities that stand to lose billions upon trillions of dollars they earn by choking it out of the citizens of this country! This debate is no different than the debate on oil dependency. The entities that earn billions in the oil business pay millions to keep the propaganda machine roaring, scaring people into thinking that alternative fuel sources are unrealistic and virtually logistically impossible to implement, or suppressing the reality that there exists the capability to produce an automobile capable of achieving significantly higher mpg averages. This is a simple case of the uber rich wanting to stay rich at our own risk!

The central issue is everyone having access to adequate health care. Everyone! Not just the rich, or the employed, or the self employed that pay up the wazoo, or the elderly on Medicare, or the military who utilize the VA. Those who have health care now, for instance, through their job, and oppose Health Care Reform because they are "satisfied" with their current provider, are the very people, in my mind, reform benefits most. In our current economic state, (where unemployment nationally topped 9.5% and 14% in at least one state), jobs are being lost by the thousands and scarce for job seekers. A person who is content with their health coverage on Monday could quite easily find his/ herself unemployed and uninsured on Tuesday. This is where the biggest impact is made. People are either condemned to a career in which they might be miserable, often mainly to have barely adequate health coverage, or they lose their job (they hated) and are punished two fold with the financial hardship of not having an income, and the harsh reality that they have no health insurance.

I will spare everyone, and not repeat much that I'm quite certain you've already heard. This debate is a no brainer. It is time for America to do with health care what the courts seemed to be so preoccupied with doing to Bill Gates and Microsoft. I would sooner have a monopoly in the world of computer technology than in the area that deals with my health. It is no accident how the current system evolved. It was planned and designed several decades earlier. (Go to http://kaiserpapers.org/ or Google Kaiser Erlichman Nixon. If you're not already aware, you will find it very interesting).

Do White People Like Dogs More Than They Like Black People?

California whale rescue cost $240,000.
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. _ Although analysts haven't finished calculating the total cost of rerouting two humpback whales that strayed into the Delta last month, the bill to taxpayers is in the six figures.
The massive rescue effort spanned more than two weeks and involved 35 groups, including agencies at every level of government and multiple nonprofit organizations.
Five Delta counties and as many U.S. Coast Guard stations took part; so did a handful of universities, a couple of pharmaceutical ... Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA)

Mr Hines

Do I really believe that collectively White people consciously like dogs more than Black people? No. What I am attempting to bring to the forefront are the seemingly race driven inconsistencies that exist with respect to this issue. I would like to make very clear that this is not meant to in any way condone, excuse, or diminish the despicable nature of Michael Vick's offenses. It is however an analysis of the fall out that followed.

Michael Vick plead guilty in federal court to a dogfighting conspiracy charge. He was also indicted on one count of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs, and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each count is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The cruel nature of the charges is tangible. The illegal, underground world of dog fighting is replete with similar, and worse offenses. Like its popular counterpart, cock fighting, the images of bloodied, scarred, or even dead animals are common.

What, though, is fundamentally different between the results of dog fighting and...deer hunting? How about quail hunting? What about bear hunting? All result in the death of these animals. "Yeah, but deer hunting is sport", you say. I recently watched a television program about hunting. A group of men armed with rifles lay on a hillside. On their rifles were scopes that enabled them to hit a target 3/4 to a mile away! They were shooting deer, accurately, from that range. I was floored, having thought that there was a technique, perhaps finding, tracking, and finally executing the kill. Just sniping unsuspecting deer from a mile away seems somehow unfair and cruel.

Hunting any animal armed with assault rifles and thousands of dollars of the latest military tracking, camouflage, and reconnaissance equipment is hardly sport in my estimation. Not to mention the reality that the head of the animal ends up on a wall, or the body is stuffed and displayed. I find these 'trophies' to be slightly unsettling.

I do not have official numbers, and cannot back the following statement up with statistical facts, but, making an educated guess, based merely on the racial breakdown of the US population, more specifically the populations in areas where hunting is popular, it is my assertion that many more White people are avid 'sport' hunters than Blacks. (Not to mention the expense associated with hunting and the social economic statistics that are available, especially in these regions). I mention this only because if this is fact, the perception of what is sport and what is cruel and unusual becomes extremely relevant. I assert also that the world of dog and cock fighting is dominated by people of color. It is noteworthy to point out the perception of both, and the predominance of the group associated respectively.

Another noteworthy phenomenon is the amount of money, resources, and man hours that are involved in individual or organized attempts to save animals. It never ceases to amaze me when I see a news story about the 15 firemen that spent 8 hours extracting a kitten from a well or a trapped in a crevice in the wall of a building. Like the article above, hundreds of thousands are spent on whales that swim off course or beach themselves. I suppose these are valiant, worthwhile efforts, but I have to stop and wonder. When I see so many under privileged, mal nourished, under resourced, seemingly forgotten little brown skinned boys and girls around this country, I wonder are the efforts to save them as intense and urgent? They are 'off course' and 'beached' by the thousands, and worthy of our heroism in 'saving' their lives.

Since Michael Vick's conviction, he has become a poster child for Animal Rights groups. He has not only suffered a loss of freedom, he has also suffered financially, probably now and in the future. Worse though, is the blow his reputation suffered and will always suffer, as he is hardly associated with anything but negative undertones. He plead guilty in a court of law, and served his sentence. Is the rest of the hoopla really necessary? Is it warranted considering the circumstances? Would it have been the same if it had been Eli Manning or Tom Brady?

Celebrity might have a lot to do with the fall out, but much like comments, events, and attitudes directed at President Obama, the role race plays is unmistakable. Also the fact that dogs were involved, and in America, dogs are 'Man's Best Friend.' As cruel as we might find his actions, Michael Vick is a human being, and the 'victims' were just dogs. I have two dogs that I love very much. It would pain me deeply if something were to happen to my dogs at the hand of a human being. I am conscience bound, however, to value the life of my fellow human, and the lives of the family he or she is responsible for, over that of a dog, or any other animal.

Michael Vick has 3 children. People sought to take his freedom, his money, and his future earning potential (re induction to the NFL) away from him, over the death of dogs. Does the crime justify the severity of the punishment, which not only impacts Michael Vick, but obviously includes his children? Is responsibility for the death of dogs, born and bred to die, like the minks that end up on the backs of the rich, really reason for the suffering of an entire Black family?

Miss Mya
Here’s what I’m wondering...did Michael Vick know what he was doing was wrong? If he did, regardless of what other people do, we are always responsible for our actions, period. Playing the race card every five minutes is not as popular or fruitful as it once was! I don’t know of many celebrity superstars that pled guilty to dog-fighting conspiracies. However, I do know that when it comes to celebrities and felony charges to discourage potential offenders, they become examples to deter others from making similar mistakes. Hence, harsh charges are brought, consequences are suffered and hopefully a lesson is learned from their mistakes and cruelty.
So the lesson here boys and girls is to play nice with the doggies!

Deer hunting, saving the whales, extracting kittens from tree limbs and the like are not the issue. How much attention animals are given is not the issue. Whether black man is railroaded by the justice system and the media is not the issue.

Genesis 1:26, God illustrates man receiving dominion over all the earth:

And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Have we translated “having dominion” to doing whatever the heck we want, whenever we want, with whatever type of animal we want? Seems that way, doesn’t it. I’m not the biggest animal-lover, don’t really care too much for dogs; I do realize that having dominion over a certain thing also incorporates protecting that thing. Parents and teachers are responsible for protecting their children and/or students, a husband is responsible for and protecting his wife. Even though, we’re talking about animals, it’s not ok to use an animal for entertainment with no regard to their sustainability in health and life. These dogs were not able to make decisions on their own behalf to participate in these violent ordeals, nor did they see any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars made from their own blood and life. These dogs were in the care of individuals who had no consideration for their life, health or purpose.

Here is the overall issue: treating animals with an honorable amount of respect, not as equals to humans, but as well as animals should be treated. A dog, be it pit bull or poodle, should expect to live their life purposefully as God intended. It's not right for us as humans to "have our way" with them as we see fit but to incorporate their usefulness in our lives. We truly have to be SMART in our choices and what God has put in our care.