In this piece from U.S.A. today the author made an argument about how people should not keep wild, non-domesticated animals in their homes because the animal can destroy everything and even attack their own owners. There were many incidences where wild animals who were pets have attacked people before and even their owners, from the past and even recently now, wild animals are not pets and people should not keep them as pets because they are wild and they are non-domesticated.

There are also breed of dogs that should not even be pets because they are also just as dangerous as wild animals, for example: Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, and even Pit Bull mixes. Dogs like them are pretty dangerous, because they can get pretty vicious at any given moment and if anybody is not careful they can turn on anybody especially you being the owner of the dog.

The author was also making created some key elements in his point-of-view of the piece. He used examples of what happened to people who keep wild animals and dangerous dogs as their pets. There were a few other arguments from one woman who owns two wild monkeys (one is Capuchin the other Snow White) as her pets. She says they are majestic creatures and the bond between the caretaker and the pet is unbelievable.

You really need to take in consideration that wild animals belong in the wild not in somebody's home, its unbelivable and outrageous to me that anybody would keep a wild animal as a pet that is ridiculous and on top of that is just plain wrong for the animal, because how can you take a wild animal from the wild, put it in a local shelter, and then you decide you want a pet and decide that it can be a wild animal, then you go to the shelter, take the animal, and you decide to keep it as a pet. That's just not right.

I believe the author was also trying to point out and that having a wild animal as a pet is not right and furthermore its just not a good thing to do, because you could endanger yourself and anybody else in your house and probably in your neighborhood.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-25-petslaw_N.htm

President Ahmadinejad's Welcoming of U.S. talks

I have read about the current event that is going on from the article U.S.A. today, and what they are talking about is how Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will welcome talks from the United States unless they are on "mutual respect" based. According to the article, it mentioned that President Barack Obama made "openings" to have a face-to-face talk with Tehran, and Ahmedinejad made his comments on the subject afterward.

Even though we had cut ties with Iran since 1979, (30 years prior) Obama does want to talk with Tehran about how the mess should be straightened out, and how we should have "mutual respect and progress" based upon Iranian President Ahmedinejad's plea about talking things out.

In the article, it does sound like Ahmedinejad is for the idea because he have said "It is quite clear that real change must be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear the Iranian welcomes real changes and is ready for dialogue in a climate of equality and mutual respect." From my point of view it sounds like Ahmedinejad wants to go for it. If Obama must be very careful if he wants to do this so that way there won't be no surprises or anything that can be messed up.

Everybody should take some time and read this article because it talks about how Iranian President Ahmadinejad is accepting any talks from us probably peace or negotiating with us about anything, and President Obama wants to try and make a difference by settling things with Tehran.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/irans-president.html?loc=interstitialskip