Awesome (and long) article at The New Yorker about the problem with generalizations.  The main thrust of the article is about the good and bad of pit-bull bans and dog attacks.  But it also speaks on drug smugglers, the ongoing reduction in crime in New York city, the problems with profiling, and terrorists.

One of the more interesting tidbits I got out of the article is that in temperment tests, pit bulls on average score better in temperment test than beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund.  In other words, the pit bull is on average a better pet than any of those dogs, as far as temperment goes.  The real problem, as explained quite nicely in the article, has more to do with the owner than with the dog.

In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions.

The whole article is worth reading for all the good information about dogs.  Plus, how often do you read a serious article from a somewhat serious publication that uses the word “flibbertigibbet” any way?

[tags]Pit Bull, dog attacks, generalizations, profiling[/tags]