"Why Planes Crash" was the title of a fairly in depth segment which ran today on CBS this morning:
Of the many explanations and reasons cited for air crashes, Canada geese -- or any wildlife was not among them.
I and others posted this vital information to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's Facebook page:
While admittedly tackling issues like pilot error, pilot fatigue, complacency, technology and old air traffic control towers is far more challenging than simply launching killing campaigns on geese, it is important that the Senator be informed of the facts. More importantly, Gillibrand needs to know that WE, the voters are aware of the facts.
It seems that what started out as cheap and easy political opportunity on the backs of defenseless, flightless geese will hopefully become a political boondoggle for Ms. Gillibrand.
It is, after all, interesting to note that Gillibrand makes no mention of her amendment to the farm bill to expand goose cullings into Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge and throughout city parks on her Facebook page nor in her latest newsletter.
It is hard to say the reason for this glaring omission. Perhaps the Senator is sneaky and underhanded on other issues as she is on this one. Or, perhaps she is realizing to her astonishment that there are people who actually care about protecting the wildlife in our city -- what little we have of it.
Mostly, what Senator Gillibrand and other politicians need to realize is that political opportunity does not come on the backs of slaughtered wildlife. Political destruction does.
One tends to reap what one sews in life.
In saying these things, one fully realizes the political advantage Senator Gillibrand has in the upcoming November election.
She has a ten million dollar war chest. This is mostly a democratic state. We have a democratic President, liberal Mayor and a powerful democratic Senator in Charles Shumer.
All of these things would seemingly spell an easy November victory for Gillibrand and in fact, cause one to wonder why she felt it necessary to launch a political and actual war against Canada geese for perceived political advantage in the first place?
Is Gilllibrand insecure? Or, does she just hate geese?
Whatever the real reasons for the political calculation, it needs to be demonstrated that it was the wrong calculation on multiple levels. -- Practically, scientifically, ethically, morally and economically.
(One hates to think of what Gillibrand would do the next time a tree branch falls and causes human casualty. She would surely push to cut down all the trees for "public safety.")
Someone who is this impulsive, histrionic, rigid and reactionary is a poor choice for representation in Washington DC.
We need someone who is prudent, thoughtful, willing to look at all the facts and is capable of bi-partisanship and compromise when necessary.
Gillibrand appears to be none of these things -- not just on the goose issue, but other issues as well.
I don't have great hopes for who the Republicans will choose in the upcoming primary. None of the three candidates were particularly impressive in last night's televised debate on NY One. (Posturing as very conservative to win primary votes.) Nevertheless, if elected any Republican would have to pull back from some conservative positions as s/he would be representing a mostly democratic and liberal state -- that is if s/he would have any hopes for re-election and they all do.
But, for sure any Republican cannot be much worse than what we have now. On the positive side, they would likely not support costly and wasteful goose roundups as these squander tax dollars.
Personally, I cannot vote for Gillibrand any more than an African American could vote for a KKK member or a gay person could support an admitted homophobe.
Some issues are too important to overlook and cast aside. We who care about and advocate for animal and wildlife protection need to represent a voting block that says simply, but emphatically, "Political opportunity does not come on the backs of slaughtered animals and wildlife."
Those who continue to think in this archaic and brutal manner will, in the future, hopefully be relegated to the back pages of darkened history along with all the other supporters of social injustice and mayhem. -- PCA
*********
No comments:
Post a Comment