Thursday, November 30, 2006

His Name is Tripod, and He Wears a Beret

A Wegman dog, front-loaded

I treat this blog in a manner very similar to those people who like to dress up their pets in little outfits. That is, it's my precious, of infinite fascination to myself even though to other people ....

not so much

Naturally, I like to give it pretty things, like a site-visit counter and a home on Technorati.

Thus, when I discovered a website that allows you to create your own free Internet polls -- and not only to create them but to rotate them through your blog, each return to the blog resulting in the appearance of yet another poll from your "playlist," I could not resist the opportunity any more than the average American could resist putting a Santa outfit on a kitty.

In the service of efficiency, I quickly knocked together a couple of polls to go with my first stoke, my prized "favorite bigot" poll, and out the blue -- a profound blue shading toward violet like Elizabeth Taylor's eyes -- came the poll question "If you had a three-legged dog, which leg would you prefer to be missing."

I have a strong admiration for three-legged dogs. I consider them brave, good, exemplary. I am not disrespecting three-legged dogs. But I somehow assumed that it would be better to be missing a rear leg than a front leg.

Early poll results suggest I was wrong, and maybe I was, the dog pictured above to the contrary. I suppose it is better to be able to rear up on your haunches than to be able to pull yourself forward like a car with front-wheel drive.

If anyone has some insight, personal or otherwise, on this question, I would certainly welcome it. I don't want to seem callous, not when it comes to three-legged dogs.

1 comment:

B. Wieder said...

Rear leg loss said to be easier on the dog. Our experience with dog leg loss was so utterly awful that you don't want to know about it. I applaud any and all tri-dogs who've pulled it off.