Obama pushes for renewed commercial whaling. :)

[gturner]

Would you describe for me what a pro-Obama,
anti-whaling thread would look like?

It doesn't have to be pro or anti Obama. Get that down and maybe people will stop calling you a troll.

Um, isn't that like having an anti-whaling thread that isn't either pro or anti explosive harpoon cannon?

Sorry, but Obama isn't neutral on this issue. Unlike 99.99% of the American public (and you'd think everyone on a Star Trek forum), he's pushing for a renewal of commercial whaling, as every link I've posted has pointed out, including one written by the executive director Greenpeace who asked him directly to change his position. Obama blew him off.

I'm sure once the deal is done, Obama will give a rambling speech about how more commercial whaling will save whales, which will probably go over about as well as his last speech on the oil spill, and like that one, he'll be mystified as to why people can't see the genius of his position and wonder why the speech got eviscerated by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

This would all be political fun but the whaling decision will not only outlast Obama, but Obama's successor.

I tried to alert the liberal TrekBBS members here hoping that their voices could help stop the coming whale of a disaster (as Obama won't listen to any non-liberal voices), but to no avail. They'd rather shove their heads in the sand than doubt their trust in their glorious leader who promised them, promised them, that he would put an end to commercial whaling, not write a government check for it (Under the new proposal US tax money will be allocated to monitoring the newly legalized whale slaughter).

Where else could I have directed their ire? Blaming Bush, who opposed whaling and no longer holds any public office? Blaming the American whaling industry, which doesn't exist?

No, there are only a couple places to cast blame. Obama, the press who dare not speak against him, and the environmental groups (including the anti-whaling groups) who were willing to post the truth in obscure locations in a CYA attempt but were apparently afraid to beseige the e-mail boxes and fax machines of their own members and the press to really alert people to this story.

So the quarter-century whaling ban will probably come to an end next week, and it will die not with a bang but with barely a whimper. Already South Korea has said it might resume commercial whaling, and if South Korea and Japan are harvesting whales then we can expect North Korea to start harvesting them as well. Do you think some anti-whaling activists could survive an encounter with a North Korean whaling ship?

But like we've been learning with the oil spill, governments are filled with bureaucrats who value procedure and turf far above actual results, and one of the main arguments for the renewal of whaling is that if the IWC doesn't compromise it will cease to function. Well that's fine with me, because why should the world need an organization whose purpose is ensuring a sustainable harvest of tasty whales, one bought out by Japan and sold out by the US?

 

[BolianAuthor]

I'm surprised this thread went the distance it did, and is still not closed. Then again, I think we ought not have threads of a political nature here anyway, as eventually, someone's post will go just a bit too far...

That being said, I'll just throw in that I don't think ANY President... Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would bring or vote to bring whaling back... it'd just be a big political headache for them, and a mess they'd rather not get into.

 

[Hoser]

Um, isn't that like having an anti-whaling thread that isn't either pro or anti explosive harpoon cannon?

Nope.
When Greenpeace sent me the note, they asked me to help them convince him to change his mind. They didn't spend half the time making him out as some kind of evil Bond villian. It's like the difference between a news agency writing a story about the Touchdown Jesus statue being struck by lightning, and an atheist humourist's version.

And like I said earlier, the press is busy with (ahem) bigger fish to fry with the whole BP crisis that may be a finishing move on the Gulf. Greenpeace, a few other sea agencies and another conservation agency sent me messages on this a bit ago, so they ain't hiding it under a bushel. Heck, I haven't looked at Facebook yet to see if they've asked. Of course, they're similarly busy with the whole BP thing too...

 

[gturner]

I'm surprised this thread went the distance it did, and is still not closed. Then again, I think we ought not have threads of a political nature here anyway, as eventually, someone's post will go just a bit too far...

That being said, I'll just throw in that I don't think ANY President... Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would bring or vote to bring whaling back... it'd just be a big political headache for them, and a mess they'd rather not get into.

So you'd think, but that's not what's happening. Reagan backed a complete moritorium on whaling. H.W. Bush supported it, Clinton supported it, G.W. Bush supported it.

Obama wants to overturn it for reasons we can only guess at. Perhaps he's misguided or delusional, perhaps he thinks the West shouldn't exert their anti-whaling environmentalist culture on the rest of the world, or perhaps he traded it away in return for concessions on CO2 emissions. Who knows?

The more horrifying thing is that nobody, even on a Star Trek board, is willing to question the decision, despite knowing the inevitable results of the new policy.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Well... we better start building some transparent aluminum tanks, and clear Golden Gate Park so a Klingon Bird of Prey can land there, and...

 

[gturner]

Um, isn't that like having an anti-whaling thread that isn't either pro or anti explosive harpoon cannon?

Nope.
When Greenpeace sent me the note, they asked me to help them convince him to change his mind. They didn't spend half the time making him out as some kind of evil Bond villian. It's like the difference between a news agency writing a story about the Touchdown Jesus statue being struck by lightning, and an atheist humourist's version.

Which just makes my point. Greenpeace, an organization all but founded to stop commercial whaling, just sent you a note. After decades spent screaming their lungs out whenever a whale chipped a tooth on a beer can they added a little blurb saying, "P.S. Oh, by the way, no biggie but the US is going to allow a renewal of commercial, industrialized whale slaughter, in case you're interested."

And like I said earlier, the press is busy with (ahem) bigger fish to fry with the whole BP crisis that may be a finishing move on the Gulf. Greenpeace, a few other sea agencies and another conservation agency sent me messages on this a bit ago, so they ain't hiding it under a bushel. Heck, I haven't looked at Facebook yet to see if they've asked. Of course, they're similarly busy with the whole BP thing too...

Nobody is busy with the BP thing. Obama is on what, his fortieth or fiftieth round of golf since the explosion? Environmentalists along the coast can't even get permission to suck up the oil or build sand bars. Heck, they probably can't even manage to schedule a meeting to determine which agency is denying them permission to get on the meeting agenda of the government agency that's overruling other government agencies on potential action plans.

That said, the BP disaster will be cleaned up and forgotten almost decade before this whaling treaty expires, so rest assured that during the entirety of that decade your e-mail inbox will get spammed daily by the same anti-whaling groups who were so reluctant to hit "send" when they actually could've done something about whaling.

ETA: The situation reminds me of the novel "Cobweb" by Stephen Bury, aka Neal Stephenson. The point of "Cobweb" and its title is that solving a problem makes you hero for a day, whereas managing a problem, making it seem intractable and complicated, provides a career you and thousands of others in a host of federal agencies can milk until retirement and a fat pension.

Stopping whaling would actually be easy, just calculating how much money whaling is adding to the economies of the countries engaged in it and paying them double that in compensation to end it. But that would put half of professional environmentalists, everyone on the IWC, and lots of people in the government out of work tomorrow. Best to milk it, even turn the outrage up to eleven, and keep environmentalists convinced that they will always be at war with corporate whalers, just as we're always at war in East Asia.

 

[Hoser]

So you'd think, but that's not what's happening. Reagan backed a complete moritorium on whaling. H.W. Bush supported it, Clinton supported it, G.W. Bush supported it.

I thought we've gone over this in this thread a few dozen times already?
I mean, even in the letters I get from Greenpeace, some going back to the inaugaration, they mention that Bush holdovers are the problem.

According to news reports out of Hawaii, Bush appointees on the International Whaling Commission - Doug DeMaster and commission chairman William Hogarth - participated in closed-door negotiations with Japan to finalize a deal that would allow increased whaling off the coast of Japan in return for marginal limits on Japan's illegal commercial whaling program in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The trade-off will not benefit whale conservation and could actually put additional endangered populations at risk.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/bush-holdovers-attempt-to-unde

There's quite a few links to back that one up as well. And there's even more that state why Obama is considering backing this, he's hoping that a compromise would make Japan allow themselves to be regulated, as opposed to how they're doing it now. I don't agree with it, and neither do environmentalist groups, but it's not because he's got some nefarious plot underway.

Also, I'm seeing the story in more and more places as it gets closer to the time. Here's hoping it changes his mind.

 

[Amaris]

I really do hope he changes his mind. In my opinion, Obama has done a decent job so far, even when I've strongly disagreed with him on certain policies, but this just isn't something I wouldn't be able to let go so easily. I really do hope he stands firmly against renewing commercial whaling. If he doesn't at least make a stand, then he's going to lose a good deal of respect from me for letting such an important, beautiful and endangered species become fodder for such a gluttonous commercial industry.

 

[Danoz]

What local special interests could America possibly have in whaling, the Moby Dick re-enactment troup featuring Patrick Stewart as Ahab?

If G.W. Bush still determines US whaling policy then why do we even bother having elections? If US thoughts from a long gone administration pushed by a discredited ex-Senator determines the actions of the 83 nation whaling commission then why do all the other countries' representatives even bother to attend meetings?

No, Chicago must be getting a new Toyota plant.

If things don't work out in the complex, convoluted ways that apologists promise, with more whales feeling the steel and fire of an exploding harpoon in their ribs before they drown, moaning to the rest of the pod, then the fingers will point to Big Blubber or Big Whale Oil and human greed, not the kind hearted Messiah whose only thoughts were to save Gracie (and whose advisors will get sweet kickbacks from a spankin' new auto plant!)

I think you're missing this point.

"To say that the moratorium doesn't work, that is a conscious effort to mislead or a complete misreading of the facts," Ramage said, adding that "throwing it overboard in the name of good feeling and cooperation and conciliation with Japan is jaw dropping."

This is political pandering. The Administration, for whatever reason, is looking for a hard issue to side with Japan at a time when the relationship is mildly strained and Japan's political system a bit shaky.

Why the Administration would do this now, I have absolutely no idea. The last thing Obama needs is more backlash from the environmentalists in this country. Whales (as a species) aren't in any immediate danger from the remaining three holdout countries-- so the timing here is very likely part of a larger political strategy in U.S.-Japan relations.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong.

 

[Marc]

Why the Administration would do this now, I have absolutely no idea. The last thing Obama needs is more backlash from the environmentalists in this country. Whales (as a species) aren't in any immediate danger from the remaining three holdout countries-- so the timing here is very likely part of a larger political strategy in U.S.-Japan relations.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong.

Whales as a whole endangered as species no but when you break it down in the various types of whales and look at which whales are hunted then it I gather it becomes a different matter.

Man nearly hunted the certain whale breeds to extinction in the 19th Century so the current numbers have taken a 100 hundred years to be reached.

The Japanese claim it's a historial and cultural part of their society - in which case they should be hunting the traditional way - which excludes the massive whaling ships and travelling to the Great Southern Ocean.

 

[gturner]

So you'd think, but that's not what's happening. Reagan backed a complete moritorium on whaling. H.W. Bush supported it, Clinton supported it, G.W. Bush supported it.

I thought we've gone over this in this thread a few dozen times already?
I mean, even in the letters I get from Greenpeace, some going back to the inaugaration, they mention that Bush holdovers are the problem.

The Greenpeace letter blaming holdovers from the Bush Administration was from January. In February those holdovers were replaced by Obama appointees. Both Obama and his appointees not only support the renewal of commercial whaling, they are pushing it. We can go over this a couple more dozen times - and blaming Bush still won't work.

 

[Lindley]

It's more complicated than that.

I'm not clear on the details, but there are details, to be sure. I'm a little surprised no one has laid out point-for-point why this notion is so well-supported.

It's easy to say "OMG WHALING BAD", but there have to be strong arguments in favor or this wouldn't be an issue. I want to know what they are.

 

[gturner]

Why the Administration would do this now, I have absolutely no idea. The last thing Obama needs is more backlash from the environmentalists in this country. Whales (as a species) aren't in any immediate danger from the remaining three holdout countries-- so the timing here is very likely part of a larger political strategy in U.S.-Japan relations.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong.

Whales as a whole endangered as species no but when you break it down in the various types of whales and look at which whales are hunted then it I gather it becomes a different matter.

Man nearly hunted the certain whale breeds to extinction in the 19th Century so the current numbers have taken a 100 hundred years to be reached.

The Japanese claim it's a historial and cultural part of their society - in which case they should be hunting the traditional way - which excludes the massive whaling ships and travelling to the Great Southern Ocean.

I'd also add that the Japanese are great at making up new traditions because their culture was totally upended when they Westernized. Now it's popular for small villages to dream up a wacky "tradition" that will draw lots of young tourists from Tokyo on the weekends.

Their current whaling culture seems to be a post-WWII phenomenon when they sent out massive whaling fleets, peaking in 1968 or so.

Now they build world class cars, computers, consumer electronics, and live fully in the 21st century - except for the little whaling habit. Of all the countries that could least justify a need to eat whales, Japan tops the list.

North Korea could at least make a good argument that its agriculture is so pathetic, with its population reduced to eating tree bark, that it desperately needs whale protein. Somalia or Ethiopia could make a similar argument.

But Japan?

Hey, part of their culture was beheading peasants who didn't bow deeply enough when a samurai walked past. They gave that up, so giving up whale meat shouldn't be that much of a challenge.

 

[gturner]

It's more complicated than that.

I'm not clear on the details, but there are details, to be sure. I'm a little surprised no one has laid out point-for-point why this notion is so well-supported.

It's easy to say "OMG WHALING BAD", but there have to be strong arguments in favor or this wouldn't be an issue. I want to know what they are.

Oh, most of the details involve procedural issues, the continued relevance of the IWC, and stuff like that. This is where the people who run an organization become more concerned about how well their organization runs than about its alleged purpose, which is all too common in bureaucracies.

The idea was that since the IWC isn't able to control the number of whales Japan takes for "scientific" purposes, nor stop Japan from taking whales from the southern oceans, it could horsetrade permission to hunt more near Japan if Japan would stop the other hunts.

Those supporting this swap were claiming that nobody likes it, so it must be the right compromise. That argument is both purely bureaucratic and procedural and refuted by the actions of the the Japanese whaling industry, which likes this idea so much that they've been secretly bribing little third world countries to vote in favor of it.

To me that indicates that we're trading the Japanese the right to hunt in their home waters - in return for empty promises of reductions in the existing "scientific" harvest.

Some in the British press screamed that given Japan's bribery, the IWC should put the brakes on the current proposal. I would agree. If nothing else the agreement should be on a year-by-year basis, not a ten year blank check. As Reagan said, "trust - but verify."

 

[Hoser]

So you'd think, but that's not what's happening. Reagan backed a complete moritorium on whaling. H.W. Bush supported it, Clinton supported it, G.W. Bush supported it.

I thought we've gone over this in this thread a few dozen times already?
I mean, even in the letters I get from Greenpeace, some going back to the inaugaration, they mention that Bush holdovers are the problem.

The Greenpeace letter blaming holdovers from the Bush Administration was from January. In February those holdovers were replaced by Obama appointees. Both Obama and his appointees not only support the renewal of commercial whaling, they are pushing it. We can go over this a couple more dozen times - and blaming Bush still won't work.

And saying Bush is blameless won't work either. His appointee started the ball rolling, Obama's appointee seems to think it's a good compromise to bring Japan into the fold.

"Saving whales is absolutely what we are about," said US IWC commissioner Monica Medina.
"But now we have a problem of increasing whaling, a black market and no controls.
"The US government couldn't be more opposed to lethal scientific whaling and commercial whaling."
But behind the scenes, some activists are prepared to endorse a compromise if it results in a significant and sustained cut in the numbers of whales killed each year.
Those moving the "peace process" are keen to find consensus at this year's IWC meeting in Morocco.
But it is not clear how the impasse between these countries and Iceland can be overcome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8623535.stm

 

[gturner]

And saying Bush is blameless won't work either. His appointee started the ball rolling, Obama's appointee seems to think it's a good compromise to bring Japan into the fold.

"Saving whales is absolutely what we are about," said US IWC commissioner Monica Medina.
"But now we have a problem of increasing whaling, a black market and no controls.
"The US government couldn't be more opposed to lethal scientific whaling and commercial whaling."
But behind the scenes, some activists are prepared to endorse a compromise if it results in a significant and sustained cut in the numbers of whales killed each year.
Those moving the "peace process" are keen to find consensus at this year's IWC meeting in Morocco.
But it is not clear how the impasse between these countries and Iceland can be overcome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8623535.stm

And that was published last month, before the Japanese whaling industry was caught bribing everyone to pass this deal.

Further, Obama's appointee to the IWC is about to approve the renewal of commercial whaling. I would suggest that being more opposed to commercial whaling would require actually, you know, opposing it.

So what we have are talking points about how this is a complicated issue and "golly gee maybe this new idea will help us get along in the break room."

Bush's appointee, Bill Hogarth, was president of the IWC and was in a position to control the negotiations, making sure the number of whales would actually be reduced. Obama's appointee is just a delegate, and apparently a naive one, and the Japanese are going to run circles around her. This deal will go about as well as the administration's efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

There was only one real chance to stop this deal, since Obama isn't even willing to listen to Greenpeace, and that was to exploit his confessed love of Star Trek by getting all the TrekBBS mods to come together and slam him until he comes to his senses. The mods failed to act, completely and utterly, so the deaths of the thousands of whales murdered in the coming decades will rest on their heads.

You can dance around all you want, but when the time came for you to support the whales, the Shat, the crew of the Enterprise, James Bond, and the future of the whole planet, you chose instead to make excuses for Obama. It's a sad day in fandom.

 

[Teelie]

uh oh, gturner - better look out cuz they're on to your sarcasm

The sad thing is, even if this were complete sarcasm and a poke at Republicans/Conservatives/Animal Rights/Whomever, there are people who are serious like this and aren't dead panning a joke. They really do think and act this way. So regardless of his intent, the fact there are people like this is a depressing fact of the internet only made worse because they congregate together and fuel their misguided anger at what or whoever their target is. I've run into them before and there are some who likely post here as well so you can probably forgive anyone for mistaking his sarcasm or satire for reality.

 

[gturner]

In the latest news 67 House members sent Obama a letter asking him to order our IWC delegate to vote in continuation of the current ban on commercial whaling.

The fact that Japan, Iceland and Norway have continued whaling during the international moratorium --the former under the guise of scientific research that has been disavowed by the scientific community and the latter two continuing to whale commercially under an objection -should not be rewarded. Yet, in addition to granting these specific countries quotas to harvest whales, the proposal would fail to eliminate the scientific research and other loopholes in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling that have allowed commercial whaling to continue. It also would not prohibit the commercial trade of whale meat. Adding insult to injury, citizens from the U.S. and the majority of other countries who are party to the IWC and oppose commercial whaling would be asked to subsidize the resumption and regulation of this activity through the increased dues that they would pay to the organization.

The letter was signed by 3 Republicans and 64 Democrats (their names are at the link).

 

[Hoser]

You can dance around all you want, but when the time came for you to support the whales, the Shat, the crew of the Enterprise, James Bond, and the future of the whole planet, you chose instead to make excuses for Obama. It's a sad day in fandom.

Actually, when I got the emails from Greenpeace I signed the petition and wrote some letters to local State Rep's etc. Also wrote an email to Obama, although the last time I did that I wound up on some weird mailing lists...
I'm cynical enough to think it won't do anything, but ya can't just sit and do nothing.

 

[gturner]

Exactly.

Obama's choice for the US IWC representative doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, either. She's a lawyer, not a scientist, and has no experience managing fisheries.

Prior to her selection she was part of Obama's transition team, while her hubby is a high-powered DNC insider who worked on the election campaigns for Gore, Kerry, and Obama and currently serves as Vice President Joe Biden's chief of staff. No stranger to defending corporate interests, her hubby defended companies against asbestos lawsuits and in 2004 helped Fannie Mae overcome those pesky "regulatory issues", probably leading to the economic collapse of 2008.

So on the all-important issue of whaling, Obama looks around and throws a bone to the main squeeze of Joe Biden's chief of staff - "Hey, wasn't she principal vice deputy assistant undersecretary of some weather bureau?" Not only is she not accomplished enough to have a wiki entry, she only rated one mention on her husband's wiki! ("He lives with his wife, Monica Medina, and their three children.")

The deal with the Japanese will allow her to put "successfully negotiated" on her resume, whereas to a lawyer, continuing the ban on commercial whaling would represent a failure to reach agreement, and thus a failure.

So yeah, the whales are screwed.