Dolphin Dialogs and Whale Wonderings

One of the age-old questions is whether or not the end justifies the means. Are there points at which we accept questionable means in order to reach lofty ends?

I recently heard Paul Watson speak. Watson is the controversial star of Animal Planet’s “Whale Wars,” co-founder of Greenpeace, and founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. TIME Magazine selected him as one of the Environmental Heroes of the 20th Century. Neither Watson nor any member of his crew has injured a single person or been convicted of a felony in their activist attempts to put an end to whaling and seal hunts. He contends, “I uphold international conservation law; I don’t break laws, unless I have to.”

That’s one approach, and the only one Watson would have you believe is effective. About the time Watson founded Sea Shepherd in 1977, another man, Jean Paul Fortom-Gouin, purchased a facility in the Florida Keys and re-named it The Institute for Delphinid Research (now The Dolphin Research Center). His goal was to convince the world to stop whaling by proving cetacean intelligence in the smaller cousins, bottlenose dolphins. He achieved his mission with science rather than force when the International Whaling Commission adopted a voluntary moratorium on whaling in 1983. Japan, Norway and Iceland are the holdouts and have not abided by the moratorium. Those are the countries in Watson’s literal crosshairs.

He’s as entitled to his opinion and actions as I am to mine; however, in listening to him speak, I found his antagonistic nature and approach to detrimentally overshadow his message. And his message consisted of countless statistics rattled off without taking a breath… or more importantly, without substantiating them. In a packed auditorium, predominantly populated by college students, sadly, I think an important message was lost. Any questions posed that took issue with his means were answered with a confrontational attitude and more unsubstantiated claims.

Watson claims his objective is to make sure whalers (specifically the Japanese fleets at this point) don’t make any money. Now that’s an approach with which I agree. And I agreed with that same approach to end the slaughter of dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific by tuna fleets. That effort succeeded and was driven by consumer boycotts rather than ramming tuna boats. When the market dried up, fishing techniques were altered, and as importantly, a compromise was reached that enabled fishermen to maintain their livelihoods without dolphin deaths.

Fishermen are the ultimate bad guys according to Watson. I certainly agree that we’ve globally overfished, and Watson and I agree that an expanding population is a root cause for many, if not all, environmental problems. Reality is: there are a lot of people, and people need to eat. His claim: “You can’t be an environmentalist without being a vegan.” Well, I’m an environmentalist… and I’m an omnivore. Watson claims that beef production causes greenhouse gas and that 35% of the fish take goes toward feeding pigs and chicken. I haven’t researched those claims and won’t disagree with them out of hand; however, the question becomes: Where do we get all the land we’ll need to support the agricultural demands if we all opt for veganism? And if that’s the route we should take, then maybe global warming is a good thing. We’ll have more arable land.

As with every environmental issue, there are shades of gray, and compromise is sometimes the answer for long-lasting solutions. No doubt an opinion with which Watson heartily disagrees. His end is admirable; it’s his means I’m not so sure about. So does one justify the other? That’s the age-old question… and one we’ll debate forever.

Homeward Bound

The USS New York sailed “home” on Monday. It arrived from a Louisiana shipyard and sailed into New York Harbor. It stopped in front of the section of skyline that used to include the World Trade Centers. A 21-gun salute commemorated the moment. I don’t care to meet the American who isn’t moved by those images or in fact, by the very thought of this homecoming.

You see, the bow of the USS New York is built from 7.5 tons of steel from the fallen World Trade Center towers. A foundry manager is quoted as saying, “I could feel the power…when I touched the hull, every hair stood up.” If there was ever a phoenix to rise from its ashes, this is it.

Technically, the warship is a San Antonio-class amphibious dock vessel. The ship is 684 feet long and can carry as many as 800 Marines. Its flight deck can handle helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. It would be powerful without the emotional aura tied to the origin of its steel.

Families of 9/11 victims and first responders were on hand Monday to salute the USS New York… and remember. I hope the nation took a few minutes to set aside World Series fever and remember as well. I recall thinking on that fateful evening that these attacks would be the “Pearl Harbor” of the current era, but the world is a different place and moving at a far different speed than it was in 1941.

The Greatest Generation and its offspring still seem to bear deeper wounds from that attack. I sense our current generations have healed more quickly after 9/11. I won’t say “we’ve forgotten,” but if we were to return to 1950 and discuss the Pearl Harbor attacks, I believe its remembrance would be far fresher. Other than chalking it up to “the world being a different place and moving at a faster speed,” I’m not sure why that is.

The USS New York will remain in its namesake, appropriately, until Veterans’ Day. Let’s not forget our veterans or 9/11, and let’s hope the full force of the USS New York is never brought to bear. I’m certain its power far exceeds its technical specifications.

Social Media Mania

I joined a social media site recently… the one originally developed for college students that now, to their dismay and that of teens, is being overrun by Baby Boomers. There are a number of former colleagues / friends on the site, so it provides a forum to keep up with what everyone’s doing. I like that aspect of it.

Now I’m not sure about how anyone else feels about this, but it’s a tad disconcerting to me when “friends” are suggested. While it might be a benefit and provide an “oh yeah… I know that person and want to keep in touch” moment, I can’t get past the 1984 aspect of the whole thing. In fact, when I first signed up, upon entering my e-mail address and nothing else, I was immediately presented with two people I might know and wish to friend. (And yet another noun transforms into a verb.) Yes I did know them and spent several minutes wondering what information existed in cyberspace that enabled the cross reference since I use a few different e-mail addresses. Ah, I.P. address. Like I said, I found it disquieting and quite possibly am the only one on the site affected by it. If Big Brother isn’t watching yet, he’s surely got the means to do so. Then again, I’m sure it’s been that way for quite sometime… the social media site merely drove the point home. As far as I can tell, no one else is worried.

Businesses are embracing these sites for their marketing value. I know a teen who “fans” several sites a day… not sure why. I guess it’s cool. I asked what she did about all the advertising that ended up on her home page. She hides it. I imagine she’d have to since she’s “fan’d” 78 different sites in the fifteen days since I’ve been on otherwise she’d rarely see anything other than ads. So much for marketing efforts.

Getting fans and followers is now a goal for businesses. I read an article in the Washington Post recently about airlines getting in on the Twitter rage. It’s gone too far. In July, a spokesperson for Virgin America “...recounted how a passenger Twittered in-flight about attendants ignoring him. ‘We sent a message to the plane and alerted the crew – and he was served.’”

Let me understand this: a passenger sends a “tweet” to Virgin America’s administrative office regarding the need for attention who then in turn notifies the cabin attendants that the guy in seat 17C at 30,000 feet needs something? Does anyone else appreciate how ludicrous this scenario is? As far as I can recall (let’s say 45 years), there’s been a little button over the row of seats on the plane. It’s got a stick-figure depiction on it. When you press it, it alerts the cabin attendants that you need something. Isn’t technology amazing?

Worth the Price of Admission

Like many others, I’m glued to Ken Burns’ The National Parks, America’s Best Idea and am enjoying it immensely. Knowing the histories and back stories gives me a greater sense of appreciation for the locations and the preservation efforts… as if having a greater appreciation for them is possible for me.

I’ve been lucky enough in my life to visit many of them and some of them more than once. My experiences there have never failed to exponentially exceed the price of admission. Never. Some of my most favorite vacations involved trekking through a National Park. And I’ve got the photos to prove it….

I recently learned that the U.S. Mint is going to launch another quarter series based on our fabulous landscapes. To my dismay, they’re not simply minting a coin for each of the 58 parks. Apparently, someone decided it would be unfair not to include each state and territory. Well sorry, Delaware and Rhode Island that you have no land managed by the Department of the Interior and that California and Alaska would each be represented eight times based on my idea. I’d still prefer to see each park rather than each state represented in the “America the Beautiful” quarter series… but hey, that’s just me.

I’ve often wondered if I could pick a favorite National Park, and I can’t. There’s something special about each, and each has a certain feel to it. While the grandeur of the Big Ditch (aka The Grand Canyon) can’t be captured in words or photos (at least not by me… I’ve tried), I can’t say I’m more awed by it than by its spectacular neighbor, Zion, or by the whimsy of the geology found in Bryce. Yellowstone is beyond compare both in its unique thermal features and abundant wildlife, and I’ve got this incredible memory and photo of a wall of flowers at Glacier. Nope… no favorite except that if I've got one, it's simply the next one on my “to see” list.

Do yourself a favor. Visit a National Park if you haven’t, and don’t dismiss the idea because you’re not into camping and roughing it. Some of the most fabulous lodges I’ve stayed in and some of the best meals I’ve enjoyed… accompanied by a fine bottle of wine… have been in the National Parks. Hey, I’ll hike all day, but at the end of it, I’m one for a hot shower, cold beer and soft bed. So plan to go, but remember, thanks to Ken Burns, so are a lot of other people.

Thoughts in the Shadow of the Capitol

I found myself literally in the shadow of the Capitol a few days ago. Admittedly, I’m always a little awed by the building… both by its architecture and by everything it represents. The crowds always appear on the west side, so I wandered around to the east side where there were very few people. Away from the chaos of tour bus drop-offs and repeated photo ops, and literally in the shadow, I was left to ponder politics.

It’s been nine months since the inauguration, and it’s been a wild ride. The president’s popularity has fallen. He seems to revel in campaign-style speeches, but the campaigning is long over and it’s time to do the heavy lifting.

During the debates about health care reform in the town-hall meetings over the summer, far too many people were effectively told to “sit down and shut up.” Okay, not always in so many words, but disagreements with proposed reform made that message clear. People are angry… as were our Founding Fathers. And those men didn’t sit down and shut up. Even Jefferson and Adams agreed to disagree. So should we.

The ongoing tea parties epitomize what those early American heroes stood for and believed in. Now the opposition suggests they’re staged… they’re not being attended by Americans who simply want to make a public statement,,, who want to take their government back from the grasp of too many politicians… who want to stand against big government.

And if there were ever two words sewn together in a sentence that will capture the current climate, they would be, “You lie.” I don’t personally know Joe Wilson, the South Carolina Representative who yelled those words during the president’s speech to Congress when Obama stated that illegal aliens would not be eligible for health care benefits, but I suspect he’s an upstanding guy who was angered to the point of blurting exactly what he thought. He rightfully apologized afterward.

But now it seems anyone who disagrees with the president is a racist. Or at least if any Caucasian citizens disagree, they’re deemed racists. I think we’ve all lost our collective minds. The right to disagree and speak your mind about your government is the very foundation of these United States. It’s exactly what Jefferson and Adams argued about time and time again nearly two hundred and forty years ago. So no offense Mr. President, but if I disagree with your policies and politics, I’ve got every right to speak out without being accused of harboring a white hood and robe in my closet. And I’m offended that a former president would make such a suggestion.

Wilson’s comment was disrespectful to the office of the president. Regardless of what you may think of the man, you must respect the office. I certainly agree with that; however, when the president appears on late night television imitating David Letterman, isn’t he adding some degree of disrespect to the very office he holds?

Just a passing thought while in the shadow of the Capitol.

Passing Icons

Two American icons died recently. How similar their fame; how different their lives. These summer months saw the deaths of Michael Jackson and Walter Cronkite. One died “unexpectedly” at the young age of 50 while the other died at the age of 92 after a lengthy illness.

Both captivated and defined their corners of American culture. One in music, the other in news. Both achieved notoriety. One was famous, the other, infamous. I’m struck by their professional parallels and wildly disparate personal lives.

Cronkite was the first TV newsman to be honored with the title of “anchor.” Jackson, on the other hand, deemed himself “king of pop.” Cronkite reported the moon landing; Jackson “moon walked.” The most memorable image of Cronkite could be that of him removing his glasses and announcing the death of JFK. No doubt the most memorable image of Jackson is the Thriller video. While Cronkite was referred to as “the most trusted man in America,” Jackson battled charges of child molestation. While one led an exemplary life, the other… well, did not. Blame early stardom, blame a stolen childhood, blame false accusations, blame whatever you’d like. In the end, the result’s the same.

I don’t know about you, but in retrospect, I found the coverage of their respective deaths and funerals a bit disquieting. I can’t help but wonder what it says about American society in general that the coverage of Jackson’s death and funeral went on endlessly for weeks, while Cronkite garnered, by comparison, a passing mention. My hometown paper had stories of Jackson’s death on the front page every day until his memorial… and then that took over. Meanwhile, the story of Cronkite’s funeral was covered in two paragraphs in the “national re-cap section” on page A-4.

The circus that surrounded one memorial service continued to move from the sublime to the ridiculous on a daily basis. In fact, two days after Jackson’s funeral, I figured the morning news shows could not possibly lead with a story about it. Wrong. The lead story was that his casket was “missing.” It had not been publicly seen since pall bearers carried it out of Staples Center. Conversely, Cronkite’s funeral was held in his long-time church with the stately tradition you’d expect. Clearly the ceremonies and coverage of them reflected each man’s professional and personal life. I suspect each would have approved of the way in which they were memorialized and remembered.

No argument that they each changed their respective industries. No argument that they’ll each be remembered for a few generations. I simply wish that an upstanding life of integrity meant more in our society. This summer’s events lead me to believe it does not.

It’s a fly!

So President Barack Obama swatted and killed a fly this week during a televised interview… and the whole country seems to have gone absolutely bonkers about it.

The liberal media showed the interview and replayed it ad nauseum in the subsequent days. Somehow this is supposed to be an impressive quality in our commander-in-chief? I think there are more important aspects of his presidency and administration that need our attention and should be headlining our papers, broadcasts and the Internet. Not the fly swatting thing. But hey, that’s me.

I’d like to see him swatting a few terrorists, the budget deficit, and just for a few grins, Nancy Pelosi. But it seems the pedestal upon which he’s been placed was raised even higher because he swatted a fly. I appreciate that folks clamor to see the personal side of this president, but then focus on his interactions with his wife, kids or dog rather than the lowly fly.

And to make the whole situation even more ludicrous (which in my estimation was nearly impossible to begin with), the folks at PETA have gotten in on the act. I’m a long-time environmentalist and believe in treating animals ethically, but this organization is over the edge. Their defense of the fly is another ridiculous stunt in a ridiculously long line of them. I think PETA is consistently more interested in bringing attention to itself than the cause it espouses. ‘Nuff said.

So, I’m not terribly impressed that Obama swatted a fly. Maybe I should be… it’s a talent I lack. When I attempt the feat, the fly remains unscathed while whatever it was perched upon is usually broken. But I take heart in that result: at least I won’t have the PETA folks protesting me.