Monday, September 22, 2008

Sarah Palin Wants Polar Bears To Die

I knew that already, but if you are at all concerned about animals, please check out the first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate by the Humane Society Legislative Fund (hint: they're not backing McCain). In addition to an objective run-down of both the prez and VP candidates' records on animal welfare, the link features a rather awkward photo of Barack Obama holding a poodle. Neither one looks very comfortable, but that's beside the point.

Props to my bro for sending the link.

8 comments:

Jon said...

I wonder why perfectly good blogs can't stick to what they are perfectly good at. It seems every blog I read today is a political one. To heck with cooking or knives or who knows what. Bring on the politics.

As for polar bears...yes, Governor Palin did sue the Bush Administration. This is not some nefarious scheme. It is because polar bear populations have increased in the last 3 decades. They are not endangered.

This is mainly due to hunting bans and some think global warming may effect these numbers, but currently 25,000 polar bears (up from 5000 in the 70s) is a nice increase in numbers. 5 times the population in less than 40 years, yup, sounds endangered to me.

Add to this that the department of the interiors research on the global warming threat to polar bear populations was critically flawed and we have another issue.

Polar bears are cute, at least on tv. Awww, look at them playing in the snow! Ain't they adorable?! Sure, but that does not make them endangered. However, it sure does make them an attractive propaganda too.

flawed research link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

population increase link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=4test1

even a link from less than conservative CNN which whines about global warming but at least acknowledges the increases in population: http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/


There are plenty of reasons to vote for Senator Obama - his vast experience, his ability to speak without a teleprompter, and his ties to people who try to blow up the capital. Please, lets not invent ones like the opposition wanting to club baby seals and make rugs out of polar bears.

Yes, that was sarcasm, and I am sure there are good reasons to vote for Senator Obama. I'm not sure what they are, but then again, I am having trouble finding any good reasons to vote for McCain either. Perhaps I will just write in Hillary (though probably not)

The Pastry Pirate said...

Hi Jon

I'm not going to get into the credibility of the links you sent, or the zillions of other reasons not to vote for McCain-Palin, because golly, you know, that would be political.

I'll just say this: My blog. My choice of topics. Your choice: to read or not. I don't care either way.

Jon said...

PP,

Yes, it certainly is your blog and your choice of topics. I too will refrain from posting the several reasons not to vote for McCain-Palin (though I think zillions is a stretch). I just find the 'Palin hates polar bears' argument to have about as much merit as the 'Obama is a Muslim' one used to scare ignorant rubes. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have concern about both candidates without sinking to those levels.

And, while, you may not like the links I would like to point out that the Human Society certainly has an agenda. It might be one with which you agree, but it is far from neutral.

Anyway, enough from me. I won't say something lame like 'I won't ever read this blog again' because frankly I like pastry and I like pirates. Now I am off to see what Olbermann has to say today. I hear he has a great recipe for beignets.

The Pastry Pirate said...

Hi again Jon... the tone of your initial post irked me, but I appreciate that you took the time to follow it up.

Of course the Humane Society has an agenda... have you ever known a society that didn't? (Not to be nitpicky, but the endorsement I linked to was from the Humane Society Legislative Fund, not the HS itself.)

I put the Palin v. Polar Bear reference in the header because it's the issue that's gotten the most buzz, but if you followed the link you'd see it was just one line in a much longer article that looks at all four of the candidates' records on animal rights in genereal... an article that is, dare I say, objective in terms of presenting the positive (and the negative) of each person's record on the issue overall.

For the record, I am not an Obamamaniac, though it would be nice to have someone in the office who can speak the English language with some proficiency. This November I will, as usual, be voting for the lesser of two evils.

Jon said...

Pastry Pirate,

Thank you for following up also. I was irked by the headline. It was too similar to some of the moronic stuff I hear about Senator Obama (He is a Muslim who wants to hand us over to the terrorists!!). I wish both sides would take a Valium and speak rationally.

I apologize for my tone in the first post. I should follow the 'never post when annoyed and lacking caffeine' rule.

Truth be told I am not a huge fan of either candidate and am getting really tired of politics in general. After getting bombarded by emails from my ludicrously liberal family and my equally as insane paranoid conservative in-laws, to turn to a blog I consider fun and informative to see more of the same I jumped out of my good sense and more importantly good manners.

I did read the link btw, and yes, they do raise some good points. I've never been a big fan of hunting (not on a moral level, I just don't see the point.) And I see nothing aesthetically pleasing about a deer or moose head etc stuck on a wall. I am just tired of the hyperbole on both sides.

Anyway, enough rambling. I apologize for my snappy tone. It coming so soon after the lose of your dear companion and friend Wiley was doubly insensitive.

As for whom I will be voting. I think this shirt says it all....

http://shop.cafepress.com/design/20770646

tommy said...

McKinney for president!!!

I, too, have a blog which in the beginning was food related, and has morphed into a more general soapbox, for matters political and otherwise. I can see how this might seem a bit of a bait and switch, but when it comes down to it, there's more to write about than just food, and in a politically contentious atmosphere like America's, no candidate is safe.

I can't speak for the Pirate, but if I didn't have an avenue to vent my frustration once in a while, I'd probably have to resort to strangling kittens just to deal with it all. Blind kittens, preferably...

Jon said...

I'm really hoping the first line of your post is a joke, even more so than the last. McKinney? Cynthia? The same McKinney who lost in the primaries after assaulting a police officer? Yikes. I can understand wanting a 3rd party candidate but Cynthia? *shudders*

tommy said...

If I remember correctly, the incident was instigated by the officer (I mean really, the guy works at the capitol and doesn't know one of the house's most recognizable representatives?)... but no, I'll be voting for Obama. The McKinney comment, like the McKinney bumper sticker on my car, was more an expression of my disgust with the two party system, which I take it you can agree with me on. As for kittens, I was kidding there too. I love kittens! Almost as much as avocados!