May 8, 2009

"Why Does President Obama Hate The Polar Bears?"

Just one of those things that were terrible when Bush did them.

52 comments:

NKVD said...

Because they are white.

rhhardin said...

Star of Bethlehem is out 3 days later than last year, showing that the earth is cooling.

Curiously there's only one place, a shaded roadside, that this single plant comes up each year. You'd think they'd be all over or nowhere.

They turn up very suddenly, overnight.

Dale said...

Alpha Liberal, want to take a stab at this one?

Actually I respect our AL as an often worthy representative of the liberal side. hdhouse too.

But I think, after the stretch we saw from our liberal friends who often use polls to justify why we conservatives should just shut up - any liberals come to mind here? - about Obama and the country and tea party and et al, that we should expect either condemnation of Obama or a mea culpa about Bush on this issue by said liberals.

But I'm not holding my breath . . .

daredevil-66 said...

Are we really expecting any consistancy from what passes for liberal thought these days? Bush was and will continue to be the anti-christ for them. It's a binary existance for them at best. Obama's for it=good. Republicans=bad. There I saved all those multiple trolling posts from jeremy and AL.

Maguro said...

Good to see common sense prevail for once. It would have been even more sensible to take them off the Endangered Species list altogether, seeing as how their numbers have been increasing since about 1950 or so, but I suppose that would be too much to ask.

Fen said...

Example #443 that the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

EDH said...

Polar bears at times have shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Revenant said...

Alpha Liberal, want to take a stab at this one?

You'll have to wait for one of the lefty blogs to respond first, so Alpha can quote them verbatim. :)

Joseph Hovsep said...

Ok so "Obama is like Bush" here except for the very significant fact that, unlike Bush, Obamka doesn't oppose taking action on climate change by normal means(cap/trade) so there's no need to take the circuituous polar bear route to the issue.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

WTF?!!

Umm, regarding the polar bears: It's just as bad now that Obama is doing it. Worse, even.

Chip Ahoy said...

That's all so terribly interesting, lpcyusa, but for the life of me I can not make the connection between that and Obama hating polar bears.

Of course, we all know that Obama does not hate polar bears. He realizes as most rational people realize using the awesome power of the Endangered Species Act is not the preferred method to address global climate change, because if it were, then all government activity including TARP, the various bailouts and his economic initiative would also fall under its purview.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

Of course of all the Bears, the Serbian Polar Bears are the worst. I think one of them started World War II when he assinated Archduke Ferdinand with a bottle of Coca Cola.

rhhardin said...

there's no need to take the circuituous polar bear route

The crows of the arctic, they call them.

Beta Conservative said...

Polar bears are known clingers when it comes to guns and religion.

And baby fur seals when they can get 'em.

Jeanine said...

Maybe Howlin' Howie Dean should have said God, Guns, and Polar Bears to get elected.

The Drill SGT said...

Can somebody explain how polar bear became a distinct species in the last 500 years or so?


I mean if during the Medieval Climate Optimum, the Atlantic Ocean temperature was warmer than today, and Greenland was free of ice to the point that Vikings grew crops there and thought it ws a good place to immigrate to, then any Polar bears must have been wiped out then.

so how did they come back? or are these bears a new species? :)

SteveR said...

What's next? Changes to the Orangutans' cages.

Cedarford said...

Maguro said...
Good to see common sense prevail for once.
Ken Salazar is a common sense Democrat. Using the Endangered Species act to single out only Americans to penalize - for at best only partially addressing a global problem is stupid.
Like trying to help protect a migrating songbird with huge new regulations and restrictions imposed only on Americans - while ignoring the 9 other countries the songbird is present in.

Speaking of common sense, Secretary Salazar has that "diverse" life experience and empathy people like, as well as common sense when talking SCOTUS picks. The guy is also a 12th Generation American of hispanic ethnicity. And would be the only SCOTUS Justice from Rocky Mountain States if picked.
Great mainstream choice, so I doubt Obama would pick him.

Palladian said...

"Umm, regarding the polar bears: It's just as bad now that Obama is doing it. Worse, even."

But you'll still love to tongue his armpits, won't you Zachy baby?!

Peter V. Bella said...

The better question is why does Obama hate... fill in the blank?

MadisonMan said...

Salazar is on record as opposing his own nomination.

The Drill SGT said...

MM,

I know you are an academic with some climate expertise. How do the Global warming folks explain how the polar bears survived the Medieval Climate Optimum?

Trooper York said...

New York Times
Letters to the Editor
Published: Thursday, June 4, 1987

To the Editor:

It is too bad that the people complaining about the recent polar bear killings in Brooklyn's Prospect Park have been referred to dismissively as ''animal lovers.''

That epithet implies that their objections were founded upon the dogmatism of a splinter group ruled by sentiment. On the contrary, they seem to me far more likely to have been motivated by an appreciation of logic, a commitment to fairness and a belief in practical rather than merely symbolic action. I am in sympathy with their reaction.

Polar bears, extremely territorial by nature, are kept in Prospect Park Zoo in a very small area - exacerbating, as one might easily imagine, their fierce protectiveness of their space. To protect the public, zoo keepers have erected high fences topped by spikes, so forbidding-looking that it is impossible for anyone, even a child, not to understand that the bears are very likely dangerous.

Into the environment enter three children, who admit they were taunting the bears; who, in addition to scaling that fence and climbing over those spikes and invading that territory, were throwing rocks at the animals. For the bears to attack the child who did not run away was for them simply to be acting as bears naturally act.

By the time the police arrived, Juan Perez was plainly dead, beyond saving. Yet the police emptied two firearms into the bears, shooting them until they were dead. Killing the bears was not a logical act, for it was not - and the police have admitted they knew it was not - going to bring Juan Perez back. It was certainly not a fair act, because the bears had been behaving not only instinctively but under provocation.

It was not a practical act, for it accomplished absolutely nothing. It seems to have been merely a symbolic act, designed to show the public that the police were not going to stand by helplessly. But the truth is that it was too late for help. All that was achieved was the killing of two of God's creatures, provoked by taunts and rocks.

I object to the killing of the polar bears on the grounds that it was illogical, unfair and a meaningless show of force. Presumably at least, some of the hundreds of callers protesting it have had equally reasoned objections.

GERALDINE Q. RUTHCHILD Brooklyn, May 22, 1987

Trooper York said...

Juan Perez was Barack Obama's half brother.

1jpb said...

What's next? Is he going to pay ransoms to folks who cut off polar bear limbs after they shoot them w/ machine guns from helicopters?

Maybe he saw this in the news recently, so he's working to protect us.

Trooper York said...

Nah that part was bullshit but that is an actual letter to the Editor. I remember the incident vividly.

Theo Boehm said...

Here are polar bears that no one should hate.

1jpb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1jpb said...

Theo,

Not all cartoon animals are nice polar bears.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Can somebody explain how polar bear became a distinct species in the last 500 years or so?

Here you go Drill Sgt.

Polar Bear evolution. Brown bears that got trapped by the last ice age and made the best of a bad situation Darwin style.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

But you'll still love to tongue his armpits, won't you Zachy baby?!

You always hysterically try to paint people who voted for Obama as some kind of mob of horny, brainwashed maniacs, so is that what you make of Althouse, who voted for Obama?

And what about you, darling Palladian? Are we to assume that you voted for John McCain, or did you not vote at all? Just because there is no magic candidate that reflects all of your wildest hopes and dreams doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else.

Sometimes, people have the fucking balls to go with a candidate and hope for the best. Sorry you couldn't man up.

dbp said...

The Drill SGT said...

Can somebody explain how polar bear became a distinct species in the last 500 years or so?

DBQ has it right.

It is a little known fact that polar bears and grizzly bears can still interbreed.
Which in a technical sense, means that they are not a truly distinct species.

mdis29a said...

I don't get the point of this post. Plenty of environmentalists are just as pissed off about this now as they were when Bush was in office. I mean, I guess you're suggesting that liberal opinion has done a 180 on this issue just because it's now our guy in office, but if you google for like 5 seconds you'll see that's not the case.

mdis29a said...

Using the Endangered Species act to single out only Americans to penalize - for at best only partially addressing a global problem is stupid. Eh, I'll agree that it's not the wisest application of that particular law, but surely you don't think we should just ignore all issues of global scope that we can't resolve w/ domestic legislation. Human trafficking, for instance, is a global problem, and not one we can solve--but that's not a reason to permit American involvement either.

Palladian said...

"You always hysterically try to paint people who voted for Obama as some kind of mob of horny, brainwashed maniacs..."

I do? Where do I do that? I'm usually talking to you.

"...so is that what you make of Althouse, who voted for Obama?"

I don't think of Althouse as horny, brainwashed, or a maniac. I understand why she voted as she did. I don't agree with her choice.

"And what about you, darling Palladian? Are we to assume that you voted for John McCain, or did you not vote at all?"

I voted for McCain/Palin, but it was a meaningless vote considering my state and district. I voted out of contempt for the other candidates and as a protest against the incredibly distressing mob mentality exhibited by the citizens of my city. I was actually not going to vote for anyone on the Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket but when I was in line at my polling place, someone laughingly said "we're racking up the votes for our man Barack!" and a few people cheered which irked me enough to pull the lever for the opposition ticket.

"Just because there is no magic candidate that reflects all of your wildest hopes and dreams doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else."

Huh? See, this is the difference between lovers of liberty and freedom and people like you. We don't want or need a candidate who reflects all of our "wildest hopes and dreams". We want a candidate who will leave us alone. Neither party generally delivers such candidates. It is liberals (and often also conservatives) who need to be "led", who look for a politician to be their "savior", who vest their "hopes and dreams" in the person of a politician. This is a mistake, a pathetic vestige of our dark days when we dropped on bended knee and surrendered ourselves to worldly kings and potentates.

It was your candidate who based his entire campaign upon the ambiguous and ultimately meaningless word "hope", it was you who looked to him to reflect your wildest hopes and dreams of further enslavement to the State and further erosion of our national character. And, as it always happens, it is you who ended up with the political equivalent of vaporware inhabiting the Oval Office.

"Sometimes, people have the fucking balls to go with a candidate and hope for the best. Sorry you couldn't man up."

It's funny to hear liberals constantly, un-ironically, deploy the rhetoric of masculine power (balls, fucking, "man up") in defense of the weakest of feminine traits. There's nothing manly about "hope". Men don't hope for things, they make them happen. You sold your birthright for a mess of pottage. There's nothing manly in that.

Reap the whirlwind, dear Zachary. It's wonderful to watch you twist in the wind.

mdis29a said...

It's vaguely amusing that the right can maintain simultaneous memes that Obama is a) ineffectual "vaporware" constantly failing to deliver on his liberal agenda and b) a huge flaming liberal who'll stop at nothing to deliver on his liberal agenda.

Palladian said...

"It's vaguely amusing that the right can maintain ...."

The right? If by "right" you mean "correct" then I'll accept the label. If not, I suggest you recalibrate your instrumentation. Hint: don't use Lenin as your calibration source for the center.

Eric said...

I mean, I guess you're suggesting that liberal opinion has done a 180 on this issue just because it's now our guy in office, but if you google for like 5 seconds you'll see that's not the case.

But it still deserves the "Obama is Like Bush" tag, don't you agree? That tag's been getting so much use it's starting to fray on the edges.

The Drill SGT said...

Thanks DBQ,

I need to write with more sarcasm I guess. Yeah, I know the origin of Polar bears, my point was that if they spun off 100,000 years ago, and 1000 years ago, it was much warmer than today, how did the survive when Greenland was green and there was not much polar ice in the period 1000-1300 AD. Have they gotten wimpy lately? why if they can be endangered now, didn't they vanish then he says, tongue in cheek :)

jayne_cobb said...

1jpb,

Sorry but rats are nothing compared to
rabbits

jdeeripper said...

NKVD said...Because they are white.

Their skin is actually black.

jayne_cobb said...

And their fur is actually clear.

knox said...

It's vaguely amusing that the right can maintain simultaneous memes that Obama is a) ineffectual "vaporware" constantly failing to deliver on his liberal agenda and b) a huge flaming liberal who'll stop at nothing to deliver on his liberal agenda.I don't remember anyone claiming that Obama is failing at a liberal agenda. Quite the opposite.

But, see, there are those of us who believe that being dumb and being liberal are not mutually exclusive! it doesn't take brains to follow the liberal agenda... just sign off on a bunch of government programs. You even have to read the bill. ahem.

traditionalguy said...

Using the Crisis of impure air as a PR cover for a legislative Super Taxing scheme to fund the new world Authority of Air Control has always been the Prize. The wild threats to use old environmental statutes to criminalize use of the Air was only a distraction to frighten conservatives.

mariner said...

Palladian, that was great!

PatCA said...

See, this is the difference between lovers of liberty and freedom and people like you. We don't want or need a candidate who reflects all of our "wildest hopes and dreams". We want a candidate who will leave us alone.The very definition of a classical liberal. de Toqueville (or I) couldn't have said it better.

Methadras said...

"The Drill SGT said...

Thanks DBQ,

I need to write with more sarcasm I guess. Yeah, I know the origin of Polar bears, my point was that if they spun off 100,000 years ago, and 1000 years ago, it was much warmer than today, how did the survive when Greenland was green and there was not much polar ice in the period 1000-1300 AD. Have they gotten wimpy lately? why if they can be endangered now, didn't they vanish then he says, tongue in cheek :)"

I have a very old globe that says Grönland on it.

Michael McNeil said...

How do the Global warming folks explain how the polar bears survived the Medieval Climate Optimum?

The answer is that the Medieval Climate Optimum wasn't very much warmer that the world is today, at which point Greenland was almost as solidly locked in ice (albeit with significant ice-free areas) as it is right now.

Greenland area today (sq. km)
Total: 2,175,600
Ice-covered: 1,833,000
Ice-free: 342,000

Thus the ice-free regions of Greenland today are collectively larger than the nation Finland in Europe, and almost as large as the state of Montana (the fourth largest state) in the U.S.

The last time Greenland's ice sheet significantly melted was during the Eemian period (the last “interglacial” epoch between ages of ice before the present interglacial called the “Holocene”) some 125,000 years ago at its height. Here one can see maps bracketing what Greenland likely looked like during the Eemian (the center map is preferred amongst the alternatives).

NKVD said...

Because they are black.

Harrison said...

I think it's explained in the article:

“The Obama administration on Friday let stand a Bush-era regulation that limits protection of the polar bear from global warming, saying that a law protecting endangered species shouldn’t be used to take on the much broader issue of climate change.”

I agree.

kentuckyliz said...

Polar bears are large, white-haired hirsute gay men.

Let them fend for themselves.