I couldn’t agree more, Robert. I was fuming when she said that last night. As the owner of a loving and loyal pit bull, this kind of analogy always sets me off. This viper of a woman comparing herself to my sweet Lizzy makes me dislike her all the more. (I hope that wasn’t disparaging of vipers.)

Well put Robert. Speaking as a Virginian, my state is still dealing with the awful effects of the Michael Vick fiasco. Palin’s comments really were really poorly timed, not to mention grossly misinformed. Maybe she should stick to Moose analogies.

My poor grammar shines on that last comment. Sorry.

Robert you are completely taking her speech out of context. She was implying that pit bulls are tough. In fact I’m a pit bull myself. You are only trying so hard to discredit Sarah Palin, by twisting what she says. That is just why I feel so bad about America because there are too many rabid people like you who shred and tear other people down.

Maybe she was trying to say nice things about Hockey Moms by comparing them to adorable pit bulls? ;-)

I’ve not heard that Obama will adopt a dog if/when he wins. Is that true?

man i really hope this entry was some kind of joke. i could be wrong but most people i’ve ever met seem to know that it takes bad owners to produce bad dogs (in most cases). seems like common knowledge everywhere i’ve been. people makes jokes about mean dogs but most people aren’t foolish enough to let that sink in. remember a ton of ideas get floated around, but people still make up their minds (usually) for themselves. i love dogs a ton too.

Pit bulls are nice dogs until you see one in a parc killing another dog while wagging its tail. No aggresivity there, it was just playing. I’m pretty sure you’ll never see a pug do that.

@zedia.net: With all due respect, I have a hard time believing that. First, dogs don’t wag their tails while attacking. Rather, their tails generally stand straight up. It’s far more likely the dog was playing and you misunderstood its actions.

Lots of breeds play rough. I have two dogs that look and sound like they’re going to kill each other almost on a daily basis, but they are the best of friends and have never hurt each other in any way. There are subtle differences in the way a dog sounds and moves when angry vs. playful.

If the Pit Bull you saw was, in fact, hurting the other dog, however, it again falls on the responsibility of the owner. Dogs are not naturally aggressive, nor are they natural predators of their own species. In my experience, this would have to have been learned behavior.

Picture this:
Empty parc covered in snow, white pit bull mouth area all red and the other dog pined down trying to defend itself without great success. The pit bull tail clearly wagging. I will never forget this, no misunderstanding here, no mistakes. The other dog did die.

I agree that the owner is somewhat responsible for its dog behavior, because of the way it was trained / treated.

But pit bulls where breed to be agressive dogs. There is a genetic part involved also. Pit bulls are more prone to aggressive behavior than other dogs.

FYI: Comments that do not contribute in a genuine way to the conversation here will be deleted. In other words, I reserve the right to ignore and prevent my readers from being subjected to trolls.

@zedia.net: I’m sorry you had to see that—it must have been awful. I can only assume it’s true, despite that it goes against everything I’ve seen, but I also have to assume the dog’s aggression was the result of bad or malicious human handling.

One correction, however: Pit Bulls, which are terriers, were not bred to be “aggressive”, they were bred to kill vermen. Many types of terriers were bred for the same reason. Toy Fox Terriers and Rat Terriers, for example, were bred to kill rats and other small animals, and they carry no stigma whatsoever. The reputation Pit Bulls carry with them comes from mishandling and abuse on the part of their human handlers.

Robert, first off you’re a very sharp guy, and I really like your books and insights on design.

I’m not exactly a McCain supporter, but I’m not in the Obama camp either. I’m a dog owner (an awesomely beautiful Mutt, from a animal rescue group too!), but I’d echo the comments saying that it was meant not as a derogatory comment towards pitbulls, rather a general statement about toughness, however misguided.

@Ben: I realize Palin’s comment can be interpreted a number of ways, so I spent a good bit of time last night analyzing it before I wrote this post. You may very well be right (and thanks for the kind words!), but as I tried to say here, I think the only way the comment becomes *funny* is if it’s meant as a comparison between the perceived viciousness of a Pit Bull and a hockey mom.

If the comparison was simply an analogy that hockey moms are tough, well, there are a million other ways to draw that parallel, but this was a community-wide joke that has been told and retold, similar to the countless “how many light-bulbs does it take?” jokes out there on every subject. The only way it becomes funny is by playing on the stereotype of a Pit Bull, in which case putting lipstick on it creates a humorous caricature of a hockey mom in the listener’s mind.

If a Pit Bull is simply “tough”, then putting lipstick on it isn’t funny‚ it’s … weird. Imagine, however, the *stereotype* of a Pit Bull with lipstick on, and the comment becomes an urban joke. Playing on stereotypes is a common and standard technique in comedy and joke-telling, and this comment was not an off-the-cuff sarcastic comment like many other comments Palin made—it was a joke that she heard in her community and passed on.

Palin had to have meant it as a joke. And even if she didn’t, the audience as a whole took it that way, and the media latched onto it, interpreting her comment to mean that she is the new “attack dog” for the Republicans. The consensus appears to be that she meant it as a self-characterization as an “attack dog”.

To me, it had to be a play on the stereotype, and as such, I find it offensive. But please don’t mistake this for partisan bias. If Obama had said it, I’d be offended by that as well. I’m a dog lover before I’m an Obama supporter.

Thanks for your comment!

I think you and the media have read this completely wrong. I think she was stating that hockey moms are as ugly as pitbulls. Lipstick is used to be beautify not conceal. I was more confused why she said “hockey moms” instead of “republicans”. As we all know democrats are the more attractive party!

Seriously? This is what offends you? It was a *joke* and was derogatory to hockey moms, not pit bulls.

Despite her stance on pit bulls and hockey moms; her claim to fame on the bridge to nowhere is reason enough not to support her. After all, she became governor running on a platform to build the bridge. They ended up not building that bridge to nowhere even though Alaska was awarded the money. They didn’t build the bridge but they kept the money. Small government? Doesn’t sound like it. She’ll say whatever she has to do to win, honesty is not a prerequisite in politics.

I too, think you’re way off the mark on this one. I think Palin did play on a stereotype of pitbulls, but I don’t think it was at all derogatory. I think the pit bull stereotype that she was tapping for humor in her joke was tenaciousness. The fact that a pit bull, once it bites into something, can be very hard to let go, is both famous and considered a model of not giving up. Why would she want to portray hockey moms as vicious? I agree those pit bull stereotypes can sometimes dip into a grey area with regard to meanness, but please be open to the fact that “attack dog” hocky moms might not have been her intent at all. I think something a little closer to tough, tenacious, never backing down hocky moms is probably where she was aiming.

Is this post a joke? I am a dog owner myself and an independent voter leaning towards Obama. I did not find this quote to be the least bit offensive. Looking at it from a communications standpoint, she did not mention or infer that pit bulls were aggressive dogs. In the context, the pit bull was merely a symbol which requires the user to develop their own ideas based on personal experience and knowledge (or lack thereof). The joke worked because people already had the mental image that pit bulls were aggressive. If you are angry about the interpretation of the message, it is the people who initially created the image of pit bulls being aggressive that you should be angry at.

I enjoy hearing peoples political opinions but I think that this post degrades the value of your typical great work.

It was simply a metaphor (equal to the viper comment). Not to mention you misunderstood the meaning of the metaphor.

Is this a professional or personal blog? I don’t think you should mix the two. It causes readers to devalue or distrust your professional findings when you mix it with objectionable material of a personal nature.

Why don’t you add that to your list of good design principles. Mixing mediums is NOT a good idea.