Tag Archives: Palin

wolves, again

Posted on by

Sharon Shaw has written a too complimentary response to my recent post regarding Alaskan wolves and has directed us all to the World Society for the Protection of Animals petition. Shaw also points out how little attention animal rights gets as an issue, noting that On the Issues doesn’t list it. I agree that there is a lot of work to do, as Shaw says, and think that work perhaps needs to proceed on more than one front.

FactCheck.org has recently done a piece on Palin and the Alaskan wolf hunt that seems to me to beg a number of questions. Under a rubric reading “A wildlife group’s ad attacks Palin for supporting the shooting of wolves from airplanes. She does, but there’s more to it than that,” the scholars at FactCheck.org, whom I normally respect, make an argument which ultimately reduces the moral claims of those who oppose aerial hunting to semantics and personal taste, ignoring the history of the practice and its effect on wildlife as well as Alaska’s role in the Bush administration’s assault on the Endangered Species Act — and ignoring some other important things as well.

I’m not going to try to reply to the FactCheck piece in detail on the merits. A reply from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (which in fairness I need to say that FactCheck references in a footnote) does that quite well. You can read it here. Rather, I want to make two observations. One goes to the FactCheck argument, itself; and the other goes to method.

First, those of us who oppose programs of “predator control” such as Alaska’s do so at least partly out of the conviction that we humans, the most vicious of all predators, have done irreparable damage to the planet which is our home. For some the ground of that conviction is religious; for others it is based in humanistic ethics or in science. but in no case is that conviction a matter of mere personal taste in convictions — the implication of FactCheck’s “That’s a personal judgment call.” I think it remarkable that FactCheck bends over backwards to honor the reasoning of those in Alaska who defend aerial hunting but doesn’t even mention the reasoning of those who oppose the practice. The effect of FactCheck’s foregrounding the case for aerial hunting and footnoting the arguments from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is to promote aerial hunting. I’m sure the scholars at FactCheck know this. They are journalists, rhetoricians, philosophers, political scientists, etc.

Which brings up my second observation. If there is anything we have learned from the arguments among scholars during the culture wars, it is that belief in the existence of a neutral territory for the critic is problematic. What is claimed to be neutral territory, upon inspection turns out to be governed by interest. The most honest scholars in the postmodern twenty-first century take positions and acknowledge them. The proposition that the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund’s ad, which is the subject of the FactCheck piece, can be stripped of its emotional characterization so as to reveal its real content is to make a naive fact/value distinction that at bottom is no more than a denial of the valuation that is the core of the ad in the first place.

Here’s my point about method. The idea of the critic as dispassionate, autonomous, and culturally neutral carries with it the idea of privileged access to objective knowledge. That’s an interest like any other. Not that it means we shouldn’t listen to scholars who analyse arguments — we should. But their enterprise is as perilous and prone to error as any other human enterprise. Don’t believe them when they pretend that it isn’t. I think the scholars at FactCheck have made an error here.

I think, perhaps without meaning to, they have preferred the worse cause over the better.

snakes in the grass crying wolf

Posted on by

I’m glad the Humane Society Legislative Fund has endorsed my guy and hope that endorsement will garner him some votes. But even though HSLF judges that Obama’s record with regard to animal protection is superior to McCain’s (which it is), the real reason for the endorsement is HSLF’s abhorrence of Sarah Palin’s record.

While McCain’s positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska’s wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States.

HSLF points out that after Alaska had twice made killing wolves and other animals from helecopters and airplanes illegal by public referendum (referendums which the Alaska legislature immediately rescinded), Palin as governor sponsored a successful a campaign to defeat a similar referendum this year, using $400K in public funds. This was in addition to her attempt to reverse the Bush administration’s listing of Polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Spieces Act.

I’m remembering car trips to New Mexico in my childhood, when for miles along the highways I saw the skins of killed wolves and coyotes hung out on the barbed wire fences. There was a bounty for them, though I have never known how much it was. In Sarah Palin’s Alaska, there is a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf. These are details of the lag end of a certain history that involves the slaughter of the North American bison, the burning of the tall grass prairies, and the genocidal removal of Native American peoples from what became the American heartland, so called. In part this year’s presidential election is about two competing narratives of that history, or as Paul Starr points out in The American Prospect, two different versions of America. I had hoped to outlive the old triumphal narrative’s dominance, but it still has great power.

I’m also remembering Farley Mowat‘s Never Cry Wolf, still controversial though it shouldn’t be, and the popular film made from it. Mowat still fights the good fight. There’s a little film about the Alaskan wolf hunt, which you can see here. It’s very sad, and hard to watch in places, though I recommend it because it contains lots of beautiful footage of wolves roaming free, some of which was appropriated for an ad attacking Obama that I wrote about a while back. Here’s a shorter version.

And of course the Bushies continue to cry wolf about the current economic crisis, trying to stampede the houses of Congress into rolling over as they did after 9/11. But it looks as though that tactic may not work this time. There’s growing right-wing opposition to the bailout plan as well as concern on the left, though some of the right’s newfound desire to limit executive power may be disingenuous, as Glenn Grenwald writes in Salon.

Apparently, the same political faction that has cheered on every instance of unchecked, absolute executive power over the last eight years — which demanded that the President, and he alone, decide which citizens, including Americans, can be spied on, detained, even tortured, and that no oversight or disclosure was needed for any of that — has suddenly re-discovered their desire for checks on federal government power. The reason? They say it themselves: with the looming prospect of an Obama presidency, they may no longer be in charge of that Government and these “small government conservatives” have thus suddenly re-awoken to the virtues of checks and balances, oversight and other restraints.

Still, this political turn may provide an opportunity to reestablish congressional oversight in principle. And it’s hard to see that as a bad thing,

lay that pistol down, babe; don’t shoot that snow snake

Posted on by

I remember a story, my mother used to tell when we were all younger, and she was still in the world, to the effect that my father would stop and shoot snakes on the roadways in New Mexico because they could get inside your car. Last evening at dinner with friends from North Dakota I learned what snow snakes are and also heard some good stories about canny Norwegians and innocent city folk that it wouldn’t do to tell here, even though this is my blog and I can say anything I please without fear of censorship from Stanley Fish or anybody else.

New Obama ad: Well, my guy is speaking forcefully about the economy, and he has a new two-minute ad that is forthright and direct. I’m grateful to Ben Smith at Politico for the reference.

The comment thread for this ad at Politico is also interesting. Both positive and negative comments echo campaign themes. Read it all here.

Elitism turned: and in what seems like one more chorus of a tired, old song, The Huffington Post is carrying a story today to the effect that Lynn Forester de Rothschild, one of Hilary Clinton’s top fundraisers, is switching her support to McCain. Obama is arrogant, says Rothschild, who is “a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.” He (Obama) “has a problem connecting with average Americans.” How would Rothschild know?

Palin and Pegler: Robert Kennedy, Jr. notes Sarah Palin’s now infamous quotation from Westbrook Pegler as follows:

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

It might be worth asking Governor Palin for a tally of the other favorites from her reading list.

But I wonder if Palin knew that she was quoting Pegler or even who Pegler was. I suspect she didn’t.

David Brooks, again: The Huffington Post reports David Brooks to have written that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. Well, maybe. But Brooks still can’t give up on the theme that those of us on the left who don’t think Palin is qualified are snobs. “Sarah Palin has many virtues,” Brooks writes:

If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

Sounds like a claim that Palin isn’t qualified because she lacks experience and prudence, Brooks’s main themes. But here’s Brooks’s final paragraph, which seems to take the edge off the critique.

The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.

Now that could be a swipe at Obama as much as at Palin, it seems to me. Brooks is no democrat (note the small d); and however elegant his reasoning in most of this piece, and it is (mostly) elegant, he can’t credit the negative reaction to Palin from the left with any validity. “The idea that ‘the people’ will take on and destroy ‘the establishment’ is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right.” How droll. I sometimes think Brooks never met a stereotype he didn’t like.

“If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman.” No sh*t! as my ex mother-in-law used to say. Palin’s actual performance in office doesn’t justify Brooks’s enthusiasm — I suspect he knows it. And in spite of today’s reports of a lawsuit attempting to stop the Alaska trooper investigation, Palin’s own administrations in both Wasilla and Juneau are beginning to look a lot like corrupt establishments, themselves.

Brooks should realize that the candidate whose prudence he should question is John McCain.

and as if Tina Fey weren’t enough for your average Monday,

Posted on by

Garrison Keillor has a wonderful Salon column today about how the Republicans are running against themselves. I especially like this couple of paragraphs, in light of all the sneering and hand-wringing about elitism I’ve encountered lately.

. . . [A] former mayor of a town of 7,000 who hired a lobbyist to get $26 million in federal earmarks is now running against the old-boy network in Washington who gave her that money to build the teen rec center and other good things so she could keep taxes low in Wasilla. Stunning. And if you question her qualifications to be the leader of the free world, you are an elitist. This is a beautiful maneuver. I wish I had thought of it back in school when I was forced to subject myself to a final exam in higher algebra. I could have told Miss Mortenson, “I am a Christian and when you gave me a D, you only showed your contempt for the Lord and for the godly hardworking people from whom I have sprung, you elitist battle ax you.”

In school, you couldn’t get away with that garbage because the taxpayers know that if we don’t uphold scholastic standards, we will wind up driving on badly designed bridges and go in for a tonsillectomy and come out missing our left lung, so we flunk the losers lest they gain power and hurt us, but in politics we bring forth phonies and love them to death.

Right on!

And while I’m at it, here’s David Brooks scolding my guy for failing to correct the manners of vicious liberals.

. . . [Obama] needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin’s faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.

As a former hunter (in my childhood and youth) with an uneven college record, I can testify that no liberal has ever sprayed me with disinfectant. Nor has Bill Maher ever called me a stewardess. My neck is as red as the next man’s, but I am a proud liberal and member of the religious left, though I don’t believe in God in a creedal sense. In my checquered life I have managed to read a few books and perhaps learned a thing or two. My beloved, who is a real professor, tells me that I am an intellectual (though she may agree with Margaret Soltan that few professors are such). If this is true I got to be an intellectual over a long time and as a result of some honest labor. I don’t share most fashionable contempt for the professorial class (of which I am generically a member, having spent most of my adult life teaching and working in universities), though I do think the concerns of many academics are pretty parochial.

I’m thinking of writing something about the reconstituted culture wars here, and may do so soon. Today, I merely observe that Brooks’s comment about “coastal condescenders” is a self-indulgent piece of stereotyping to which Michael Kinsley quite rightly objects. Soltan doesn’t like Kinsley’s argument, but I rather do. And about the culture wars, Tim Burke has been writing some good posts recently. You can read a couple of them here and here.