I’m not sure what to make of the comment from a Canadian researcher who is calling out the Humane Society regarding ads they have run deploring polar bear hunting for the commercial trade in bear goods.
I can’t peg the comments as a Leninist deviation from purely Marxist form of determinism or if it’s more of a rootless cosmopolitan deviation from a strictly Stalinist line of Polar Bearism for One Country.
Truthfully, it could both and I wouldn’t know it.
Nor would you—I hope.
We have come so far along the progressive continuum, that I'm not sure Progressives know even what Progressives are talking about.
"Polar bears are an incredibly uncontrollable symbol,” says Douglas Clark, a Saskatoon researcher from the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability “people use them for all kinds of things. It's to the point now where we need to depoliticize polar bears as a symbol."
Well this makes sense to me: Polar bears aren’t recognized by any amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Even in Canada.
We can pretty much do anything we want with them. And guns too.
So why don’t we get Congress to pass a law that would “regulate” polar bears as a symbol so we can get them under control… you know, as a symbol, and symbolically?
And if Congress won’t act, perhaps the president could wrestle with the darn beasts using his pen and his phone or, ah… stroke of genius…use the IRS to make sure polar bear symbols are “depoliticized.”
After all, we can’t have polar bears running around symbolizing things that the government doesn’t approve of.
Mid-term elections. Case. Closed.
Clark, who wrote a study about politics and polar bears paid for with taxpayer dollars—he works, after all, at a public university--is concerned that not enough people are upset about the “real” threat to polar bears: evolution.
Yes, as the earth gets warmer, these poor creatures lack the ability to adapt to a changing planet. Amongst their numerous deficiencies are a lack of language skills, no opposable thumb, and the inability to make basic and complex tools, which would eventually lead to air conditioning anyway-- which Obama has already warned us would make the world boil over.
It's not often that you hear a Noble prize winning scientist of such repute, like Obama, using such stern language about the planet, unless of course you’re trapped in a small room with him, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and the disembodied spirit of Yasser Arafat. And you can’t cover your ears.
“An oversimplified emphasis on polar bear hunting,” says Clark’s co-author Martina Tyrrell, “diverts attention away from climate change-induced sea ice loss and from the realities of humans and animals sharing that habitat.”
So, please, please, please: stop politicizing their politicization of polar bears.
Your anti-hunting message is messing with the political message they want to make.
They, as experts, truly know what’s best in the polar bear debate.
And you? Using the polar bear to politicize the wrong political message?
How low can you get get?
Just imagine how bad things would be if the polar bear symbol fell into the hands of an alien super race and they sought to use the uncontrollable symbol of the polar bear to conquer us.
“If we are going to come up with effective and appropriate multilateral conservation policies that can be acted upon and supported by the public,” says Clark, “we need more nuanced conversations and media coverage about polar bear conservation” than the splinter extremists at the Humane Society are serving out.
Even still, the deniers over at the Humane Society are sticking to their deviation from a purely Leninist framework that it’s actually the aggravation of the class struggle between polar bears and humans that’s really at work.
“We are genuinely concerned about the impact of international commercial trade on polar bears, that is the reason we [ran the ads],” said Teresa Telecky, director of wildlife for the Humane Society.
Oh, yeah, AS IF.
That’s exactly what deniers and deviationists always say.