Sophie's Choice For Greenies
"Immediate removal" is a euphanism for "kill the #$@%!&," as in "al-Qaeda ordered the immediate removal of occupants of the World Trade Center."
Salmon-eating sea lions authorized to be slain
PORTLAND, Ore. -- State and fedeal officials say they have done all they can to stop protected California sea lions from munching on threatened salmon at teh base of the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, using pyrotechnics, beanbag rounds fired from shotguns and traps.
But the sea lions, who arrive each spring at the base of the dam for the spring chinook working their way upriver to spawn, have pretty much given them [the humans, not the salmon] the flipper.
So on Tuesday, the government authorized Oregon and Washington to kill the
worst offenders, listing about 60, identifiable by branding, scars or other markings, for "immediate removal."
The article is delightful since it highlights the sort of conunbrum the Greenies pile onto themselves because of their meddling ways. But it is also troubling on so many levels, being indicative of a thick green stripe running through journalism today, and of the belief that humans are no better than animals. From the top:
- In paragraph one, the use of pyrotechnics, bean bags etc., is symbolic of the environmentalists' hypocrisy: They tell us to keep our hands off the earth, but they think they have a right to put their righteous hands all over it in order to manage it. In truth, if they would just let the sea lions eat, eventually there wouldn't be enough salmon left and the sea lions would move on. Enough salmon would get through and the population would come back.
- In paragraph two, I was extremely miffed by this: "But the sea lions, who arrive each spring ...." Why would that bug me? Simple. "Who" is reserved for humans (and perhaps pets); the correct usage here is "which." It's a typical mistake in today's Greenie world,
in which animals are placed on a par with humans as just a fellow sentient being. Any good editor would have caught this; apparently there are no good editors left.
- And finally, in paragraph three, did you share my consternation at "worst offenders?" Says who? What laws of nature are the sea lions offending? None. They are not offenders of natural law, worse or otherwise. Have we agreed to make animals subject to human laws, so these sea lions are offenders under the Endangered Species Act? Are we to believe that the sea lions are capable of making moral judgment about eating salmon? How many threatened salmon are OK? How many would make them "offenders?"
That little two-and-a-half inch story in today's Fresno Bee packed quite a wallop. Sorry; I couldn't find a link in the paper's on-line edition. You'll just have to take it on faith -- and don't worry, unlike sea lions, I can make moral judgments, so I wouldn't lie to you.