Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets 3 Posted 18 hours, 6 minutes ago
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing! 1 Posted 20 hours, 36 minutes ago
Grist Exclusive: Will Whole Foods’ new mobile slaughterhouses squeeze small farmers? 7 Posted 3 days, 12 hours ago
A website to lighten your day.
Don't miss the hilarious point/counterpoint debate between Palin and a surprisingly articulate and snarky polar bear.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Palin’s book spreads falsehoods about clean energy legislation
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 5:54 pm
20 Sep 2008
The site certainly makes its point clearly enough. And the pictures are great. The one of the polar bear sticking out his/her purple tongue has popped up in Gristmill a few times now -- and that is fine by me! Also, the "polar bear cub leaning forward" is probably a baby shot of Knut, who won the cuteness prize not too long ago.
Optimally, though, it would be useful to report in detail on the economics and politics of hunting in Alaska. A recent effort to ban aerial hunting of wolves in that state was defeated, thanks to the efforts of some trophy-hunting groups. But aerial hunting had been illegal for a considerable number of years, before it was legalized again. So apparently the Alaskans are capable of some nuance, when it comes to hunting and predators.
Who in Alaska actually makes a lot of money from hunting predators? What influence do they have on Sarah Palin? How many Alaskans buy the Palinesque argument (though she is hardly the only one to make it) that it is necessary, and even morally enjoined, to kill predators, so that there will be enough meat-providing animals (e.g. moose, deer, caribou, salmon, etc.) available for human consumption?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:13 pm
20 Sep 2008
Canis, actually, there is nothing wrong with this line of thought:
"How many Alaskans buy the Palinesque argument (though she is hardly the only one to make it) that it is necessary, and even morally enjoined, to kill predators, so that there will be enough meat-providing animals (e.g. moose, deer, caribou, salmon, etc.) available for human consumption?"
I consider this to be a legitimate arguement with a critical caveat. Most people are not interested in eating wolves. The vast majority of hunters find it morally reprehensible to kill and animal and not eat it. You don't have to personally eat it, but someone has to eat it. Cutting off a trophy and leaving the carcass is considered in hunting circles a gross violation of hunting mores. Hence the concern about aerial hunting. Flying over in a fixed wing aircraft, shooting and animal and then flying on is a major no go. If you can't land, gut the animal, take the meat........ you are crossing the line.
Also there is a clear cut certain lack of sportsmanship in hunting from an aircraft, and most hunters would be at the least uncomfortable with that approach, and consider it unsportsmanlike.
But Alaska is rural, and rural society is hunting society. So while you might well get many Alaskans criticizing aerial hunting you will barely find any at all who would criticize hunting in itself. Just forget that. Never going to happen.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Annimal Posted 6:14 pm
20 Sep 2008
There's a problem as well in Scandinavia among hunters to kill predatory animals , to make moose etc more plenty for hunters ....more on my blog:
http://annimal.bloggsida.se/
Blog about polar bears , whales , etc....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:00 am
21 Sep 2008
A good way to get the point across.
On the plus side for the doll manufacturer, the Palin mold could be used to turn out a new model for sexually frustrated republicans. maybe they already have one?
There is the smaller Palin doll.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:40 am
21 Sep 2008
Combine this, Palin's admiration for the witch hunting preacher who lead prayers for her to become governor..
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/15/s ...
..to her appropristion of $400,000 of taxpayer funds to "educate" alaskans (who voted against aerial hunting) on the benefits of shooting wolves and bears from airplanes.
And add in some "Left Behind" violent rapture/tribulation (Palin's church promotes Alaska as a tribulation/rapture end times vacation refuge) video game fantasy violence, and you can see a prospecrive president palin huddling with a re-hired Adm Poindexter at DARPA to come up with aerial witch detectors and hunting apparatus. Hehey.
Too bad it's not really that funny given past DARPA projects and Palin's evangelical insanity.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:59 pm
21 Sep 2008
A good way to get the point across."
No, it's not a good way to get the point across. But it is a good way to help McCain / Palin get elected.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
LGT Posted 7:01 pm
22 Sep 2008
Shame on YOU!
Permalink