WHY? Obama breaking campaign promise to stop the slaughter of whales

[Karmadillo]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/06/Obama-hit-on-whaling-turnaround/UPI-67531275860640/

WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is breaking a campaign promise as his administration backs an effort to lift a 24-year ban on commercial whaling, critics say.

Environmentalists, already unhappy with the administration's allegedly lackluster response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, say the president is going back on his campaign pledge to end the slaughter of whales, FOX News reported Sunday.

The administration is leading a push within the International Whaling Commission to lift the ban on whaling against Japan, Norway and Iceland, the three countries in the commission still hunting whales, FOX News said.

The White House says a new agreement will save whales by keeping the three countries from exploiting loopholes in the current moratorium, but environmentalists say they aren't buying it.

more...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/opinion/la-oe-reynolds-20100428

It's no way to save the whales
The Obama administration and the International Whaling Commission want to allow legal hunting again. It's misguided policy.
April 28, 2010|Joel Reynolds

No one was surprised when conservation organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the anti-environmental policies of President George W. Bush. But it's a shock to many when we part company with the Obama administration.

It happens. And it's happening right now on the question of what to do about commercial whaling and, more specifically, whether to maintain the 25-year-old moratorium against the killing of whales for profit. Last week, the International Whaling Commission announced a proposed 10-year deal, spearheaded by the Obama administration, that would suspend the moratorium and allow whaling countries to kill whales legally for commercial purposes for the first time in a generation.

There's no disagreement between the council and the administration about the fact that the moratorium is one of the singular environmental achievements of the 20th century. Before it was adopted, on average an estimated 38,000 whales were being killed each year. Since the moratorium, that number has dropped to about 1,240, and whale populations have begun, little by little, to rebound.

There's no disagreement that whales are among the most extraordinary creatures ever to inhabit the Earth. And there's no disagreement that we need to protect them, or that many of the large whale species covered by the proposed agreement -- humpback, fin, sperm, sei and Bryde's whales -- are depleted or near extinction.

more...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1284549/If-whales-scream-man-tolerate-slaughter.html

The more we learn about the whales that roam our ocean depths, the more marvellous and complex these creatures are shown to be.
Which is what makes it such a travesty that nearly 25 years after we said goodbye to commercial whaling, it looks set to start again.

If this month's meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in morocco goes according to plan, the 1986 moratorium which outlawed the hunting of great whales will be overturned and we will take a giant leap back to the ecological dark ages.

How on earth has this happened? Haven't we learned anything? In the mid-20th century, the blue whale, the sperm whale, the right whale, the fin whale and the humpback whale were hunted within a hair's breadth of extinction.


The tail end of a species? Commercial whaling looks likely to start again after 24 years

In 1960-61 alone, 74,365 whales were killed - more than at any other time in history. Explosive grenades were shot into their heads, then electrodes were plunged into their brains to finish them off.

[Dinger]

1. Oh Well

I'm sure he knows best.

[Bluebear]

74. Must be pragmatic.

:silly:

[Joanne98]

2. Japan loans us money!

[OhioChick]

32. I figured the reason had to involve money n/t

[piratefish08]

33. it seems EVERY decision revolves around deep pockets.......

[amborin]

95. and military bases; same thing in the end

[Mimosa]

80. Yes. Follow the money explains most things. n/t

[Raine]

89. Yup aint that the truth! nt

:mad:

[Recursion]

3. This change lowers the number of whales killed every year

Yes, it pisses people off that it "legitimizes" those killings that do happen, but it's a decrease, which is a good thing.

[boston bean]

4. blah fucking blah blah blah

This sucks, even GWB didn't do this.

[Baclava]

36. No shit - bloodlust - "Hey - let's kill that big one and eat it"

Buy a fucking cheeseburger

[anigbrowl]

41. what a powerful argument you have there

Fewer whales will die but that apparently isn't important to you.

[Baclava]

44. 'Fewer whales' my fucking ass - who's spoon-feeding you this garbage?

Whaling countries mock IWC compromise

Pro-whaling countries have hiked up their whaling quotas in an attempt to skew the negotiations at the upcoming IWC meeting, and are manipulating New Zealand’s negotiating position, the Green Party said today.

“Norway’s quota is the highest in 25 years. It is neither a reflection of consumer demand nor scientific need, but a political decision to skew negotiations,” Green Party Oceans Spokesperson Gareth Hughes said.

According to the Telegraph newspaper in London, Norway’s quota has jumped from 885 last year to 1286 this year.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00043.htm

[anigbrowl]

62. a 2 month old press release about a negotiation demand which means nothing

Have you read the IWC proposals, as a matter of interest? I'm sure you're aware that prior to a negotiation participants usually say they want far more than they expect to get. But if Norway, Japan etc al actually agree to a lower number as expected I'm sure you'll find some other reason to be offended.

Key point: right now Norway refuses to accept the IWCs authority at all. The goal of these negotiations is to get them to give up their refusal to participate and cede authority to the commission. Which would be progress.

[Baclava]

72. Endorsing commerical whaling is a sell-out...no matter how you try to spin it

Cell phones for whale meat is no compromise.

Japan, Norway and Iceland should be forced to stop hunting whales. Period.

Not given a free license to kill.

[MoonRiver]

75. Absolutely!

Your pictures are horrific but need to be seen. THAT is the face of whaling.

[anigbrowl]

78. Forced? By what means?

I'm against whaling, but I fail to see what authority you or I have to impose that view on those countries. You can refuse to buy stuff from them, I suppose, but other than that there's no recourse if they don't want to be bound by the IWC. Pictures of whaling being horrible don't address that question.

I'd rather work towards an actual result.

[Baclava]

101. International court, for one. Sue their blubber eating asses. Make it hurt.

at least The Aussies have the balls to stand up for what's right


Australia takes legal action to stop whaling

Australia has launched legal action at the International Court of Justice to stop Japan's hunting of whales...

"We want to see an end to whales being killed in the name of science in the Southern Ocean," said Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett last week, vowing "to bring a permanent end to whaling in the Southern Ocean."

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/pets-animals/stories/australia-takes-legal-action-to-stop-whaling

[anigbrowl]

112. whiich will probably fail.

The IWC is a voluntary membership body. A legal challenge to Japan won't create any significant ground for enforcement.

[gleaner]

7. Why do you think it is a good thing?

Can you explain? As for Obama why should anyone be surprised when he breaks his campaign promises. He has been doing that since about day one.

Do you think it is a wonderful idea to kill living things of any kind? Suppose something decide to "decrease" you. Would that be a good thing too? I think it is sick.

[QC]

12. Anything that Obama does is, by definition, a good thing.

There is a bumper sticker popular with fundamentalists in these parts that says, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

I am often reminded of it when I come here now.

[Recursion]

29. Apparently I'm the only one here who wants to reduce the number of whales killed each year?

That surprises me.

[anigbrowl]

43. No, you're not.

[gleaner]

55. I don't see how killing animals will reduce the number of ...

animals killed. The logic escapes me. So I asked for an explanation and got what strikes me as a flippant answer instead of how you think killing whales will cause less whales to be killed. Sounds like pretzel logic to me and I don't have too much patience with it.

[Recursion]

57. The rule in question would set up legalized whaling quotas

Which are lower than the amount of illegal and semi-legal whaling going on today.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[gleaner]

68. The theory is not hard to understand ...

But if people are acting illegally or semi legally without quotas, what makes you think that is going to change if quotas are set? Does an elf or little peri come and wave a magic wand to make whale hunters, clean living and law abiding people all of a sudden? Quotas also give the practice respectability which makes it seem better than it does now. I doubt it will really help. All those wonderful laws that came out of this administration haven't seemed to help much of anything. Except to legalize torture, and make those who support it seem respectable. But we are talking about the environment here.

I guess what you are telling me is that this is as great an idea as deep water oil drilling. That was supposed to be a fine thing too. I know it is doing a lot to reduce the numbers of dolphins and other sea life.

[Recursion]

71. It's the same way ending prohibition put Al Capone out of business NT

[FedUpWithIt All]

100. Yes but the end of Prohibition did not exercise a quota..

In this case the quote would be a rather low number. There will still be an illegal market because demand, as illegal activity in this area currently shows, is greater than the quota will allow.

[gleaner]

105. Ending prohibition didn't put Al Capone out of ...

business. He had a lot of other rackets going. The IRS put Al Capone out of business by tracing assets to him through a front corporation which sold cigars. He had been hiding income for years and they found it. He went to jail where his Syphilis advanced to the point where he could no longer function intelligently, if you call being a killer and a racketeer intelligent.

I used to work for the IRS before I got sick with MS and had to quit. We used Al Capone on our recruiting posters. You know, "Be an accountant with conviction." Wink, wink. I had one up in my work area.

Even if that were not the case, your logic is flawed. Criminals who were bootleggers found other areas to operate in. Prostitution, drugs, murder for hire, bank robbery, whatever they could make money at. The same with poachers. They sell whatever they can kill. If Dian Fossey were still alive you could ask her about that. She tried to keep the silver gorillas from becoming extinct and she was so effective at it that the world turned against the poachers who still tried to kill them even though it was illegal. They responded by bludgeoning her to death.

Why do you think people who slaughter whales for money are any different? Maybe it's that magic dust that Tinker bell will sprinkle on them to make them into upstanding citizens.

[flvegan]

73. Who will enforce them?

[wordpix]

110. Everyone should see the latest Whale Wars episode where those fucking Japanese whalers

blast a little whale, probably a baby, with a harpoon and as it's flailing around in its own blood, they haul it in and shoot it a number of times.

I am for NO WHALING. Period. Except if the natives who have traditionally been whalers insist on whaling, they should do it in kayaks with traditional tools, and I mean bone harpoons, etc.

[anigbrowl]

64. eell if 10 are killed now and a new rule says that 5 is acceptable, 5 is less than 10.

Right now Norway ignores the moratorium completely.

[LeftyMom]

96. The rule right now says 0. Japan is breaking the rule. Giving them a quota rewards misbehavior.

Norway can continue to opt out of any new regulation by filing an objection after it's passage, just as they did with the current moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan had the option to do the same, but did not, and thus is violating international agreements to which it consented.

[anigbrowl]

109. irrelevant

Japan uses the scientific exception. It's bullshit but that's how it is right now. The IWC proposal is that they give up doing that and accept a smaller commercial quota.

A rule is only as good as countries' agreement to abide by it.

[wordpix]

111. +1

[Raine]

91. No, you're not

this pisses me off beyond all measure!!! :mad:

[treestar]

38. Or people who consistently read the worst in everything and misrepresent

each move to come out with the worst possible outcome. Sorry no knee jerk criticism. This happens on DU to often. "Obama Administration commits (insert outrage here) and it turns out most of the time that it is not really so, exaggerated or misrepresented.

[gleaner]

60. If you are referring to me,

find yourself someone else who will accept your negativism and judgment without question. I won't. Next time try asking what I am thinking. Stop trying to tell me. I don't accept that and I don't accept your assessment. You need to look to yourself first, fix that and then remember it is never a good thing to judge people you don't know.

[treestar]

66. I haven't heard of you until this post

Interesting that you put yourself into that category.

You may have this in the wrong place, as it seems unresponsive.

My point is there are many DU threads with titles like "Obama (outrage here)" and further investigation proves it to be wrong, putting the worst possible spin on it, or exaggerating the evils Obama is allegedly doing.

[gleaner]

70. Sorry about that ...

I was answering about four different posts and I am of the bi focal generation. I don't put myself in that category, and I did misunderstand your post. I came here for the whales, not for Obama. We don't have so many whales left that we can afford to lose any of them.

[gleaner]

52. Let us agree to disagree on the merits of Obama ..

Everyone makes mistakes and missteps and he has made his share. Most of them I am not in agreement with, and obviously i am not in agreement with you. So that takes care of that. We don't have anything to say to each other.

[GreenPartyVoter]

114. I hear what you are saying.

[Recursion]

24. Why is it a good thing to decrease the number of whales killed every year?

Is that even a serious question?

[MoonRiver]

42. Yes, I heard some people highly value human meat.

Who's next on the barbarians' menu?

[mopinko]

20. thank you for the only reply so far which

even refers to actual facts.

[mopinko]

21. more

The United States, Australia and the European Union, among others, want whaling to stop or at least be reduced.
Monica Medina, the U.S. commissioner to the IWC, told reporters at a briefing that the Obama administration cannot accept the commission's current proposal, which allows the hunting of too many whales. But Washington is willing to continue talks to see if a stronger accord to protect whales can be settled at the IWC meeting in Morocco, she said.
Medina, who's also a principal deputy undersecretary in the Commerce Department, said: "The IWC is fundamentally broken and must be fixed." Negotiators recognize that whaling continues despite a moratorium.
"The idea would be to cap that whaling and to get it under the IWC's control so that it can be monitored," she said.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCcW1YAH2ymsSOAleyuT11rIxnWAD9FVDN8O0

[MoonRiver]

46. The United States should take a NO COMPROMISE position.

And that position should be: NO MORE WHALING. We have the international clout to pull it off, IF we have a leader with the courage to promote it. That is the challenge.

[Bluebear]

103. +

[enough]

5. I don't understand. What can be the reason for this? (nt)

[boston bean]

6. he's allowing commercial hunting of whales to stop the killing of whales.

makes perfect sense, no??

[QC]

10. Clearly you do not appreciate googledimensional intergalactic chess.

[boston bean]

11. clearly NOT!

[Bluebear]

117. !

[Bluebear]

118. !

[Recursion]

27. Yes. They won't be able to kill thousands and call it "research" anymore

Instead they'll be able to kill dozens and not have to pretend it's research.

[donco6]

48. i.e., the whales had to die to save the whales.

That sounds familiar . . .

[Recursion]

26. They're closing the "research" loophole Japan and Norway have used

And in return they're allowed to hunt a (lower) number of whales without having to pretend it's for research.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

45. Last i checked Norway have not been using the 'research' loophole

Unless I'm wrong we used a rule or somesuch that exempts us from the measure

regardless the whole IWC has been corrupted from its original purpose

[calico1]

8. If this is true, he's lost me. n/t

[Recursion]

30. Read what the change actually does first. NT

[MoonRiver]

47. Why don't you present that instead of leaving factless inuendos.

Truth is this is a total SELL-OUT of our earth's great whales. Everybody who signs on to this sham has blood on his/her hands.

[Mari333]

9. and so it continues..

[stray cat]

13. if it was a campaign promise I missed it - but I still would have voted for him

I assume people would not have voted for McCain/Palin instead, maybe Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?

[Tesha]

14. Wow! It took thirteen replies before we got DU Standard Reply #1!

But the un-reccing crew has also been hard at work.

Tesha

[treestar]

37. Well just what would those mavericks have done about the whales?

But the Administration's actions are being misrepresented, as usual.

[Bluebear]

76. From standard PR guy #1

[Forkboy]

15. Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick....get a new schtick already.

:crazy:

[QC]

16. Do you remember ELIZA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

[tekisui]

17. lol!

You nailed it.:rofl:

[Forkboy]

22. By Jove, I think you've got it!

:rofl:

[donco6]

51. Don't be hatin' on ELIZA

She helped me through some rough patches.

"What is your problem?"

"My mother hates me"

"Does anyone else in your family hate you?"

"No, just my mother"

"I see. What is it about you that your mother hates?"

"She hates that I'm gay"

"Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Tell me more."


She saved me thousands on psychotherapy. And worked just as well.

[Bluebear]

116. lol

Another Doolittle!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. OBAMA is the BEST political chess player EVAH!!!

[blindpig]

23. Kudos on your sig image

We should not forget for a moment, should not be allowed to.

[Mimosa]

79. Kudos on your sig image

ITA. The environment and people's livelihoods matter.

[TexasObserver]

19. recommend

[Echo In Light]

25. "We're gonna need a bigger bus..."

[ProSense]

28. "FOX News reported Sunday"? Here is the Obama administration's position on whaling:

FPC Briefing
Cristián Maquieira
Chair, International Whaling Commission
Monica Medina, U.S. Commissioner, International Whaling Commission
Foreign Press Center
Washington, DC
May 27, 2010

<...>

MS. MEDINA: Good morning. Again, my name is Monica Medina and I’m the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC. I want to begin by saying that the U.S. commends Chairman Maquieira for his leadership during this difficult time for the IWC and this most intense process. And I want to say that we, the U.S., agree with his assessment that the IWC is fundamentally broken and must be fixed.

The goal of the United States in this process has been, and will continue to be, to conserve whales. The Administration recognizes that there are significant benefits outlined in the proposal that has been put forward by the chair and vice chair of the commission. And we will continue to work with them on the proposal, but we don’t believe it’s in a place where we can accept it yet.

As you may know, the process began several years ago. The Obama Administration inherited the process. We joined it midstream. But we decided it would be best to try and work through the process to attempt to fix the IWC and to achieve the goal that we seek of greater conservation for whales. We’ve worked diligently alongside the chair and the other members of the commission who have been supporting him in this process and we will continue to work hard through the end of the annual meeting. We’ll continue to work to see if there’s a way to find a diplomatic solution.

That said, it must meet our objectives to improve the conservation of whales, to better coordinate research on whales, and to address new and emerging threats to cetaceans such as climate change and ocean noise. If we don’t see that the IWC is going to be able to do those things in this new – under the new agreement, we wouldn’t go forward with it. But we are hopeful and optimistic that we can reach agreement because the alternative is the status quo, which has been a deadlock in the IWC and a failure in the IWC to actually achieve our objectives as I just stated them.

So we will continue to work hard through this process. We, as I said, don’t believe the proposal as it’s currently drafted is sufficient, but we do believe it was a good basis for us to begin our negotiations in earnest. And we have about five weeks to go, and hopefully we’ll find a solution. Thank you.

link

In March, Senator Kerry introduced the International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2010

[NYC_SKP]

31. Thanks, ProSense.

I really appreciate the replies in this thread that actually explain the truth behind these policies.

:patriot:

[Bluerthanblue]

34. yes, thank you for countering the deceptive 'Fox "news" with some

facts.

I hope people will read this, digest it, and stop swallowing and spreading stupid fox memes

:hi:

[treestar]

39. Oh wow, facts.

Rather than attempting purposely to paint the Administration in the worst light. And on DU, no less.

[MoonRiver]

49. I wish this statement said he WOULD NOT support lifting the moratorium,

but rather DEMAND a total end to whaling. Instead, it seems to engage in double speak. 'We might but again, we might not.'

Everything will be known soon. The best disinfectant is the light of day.

[donco6]

53. Your IWC link is bad. n/t

[MoonRiver]

58. Worked fine for me. n/t

[donco6]

59. Here's what I get:

Sorry, there is no www.senate.gov web page matching your request. The address may have been typed incorrectly, the page may no longer exist, or the file may have been moved to a new location during our recent redesign.
Your request will be automatically redirected to the www.senate.gov Home page after 10 seconds.

If this problem persists, please contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at [e-mail].

[MoonRiver]

61. Ok, but here's what I get...

http://fpc.state.gov/142281.htm

:shrug:

[donco6]

65. No, the link below that one.

Yeah, that one works for me. It's the other link below that.

[MoonRiver]

67. Oh, I see.

I so wish Senator Kerry could pass that bill.

[ProSense]

81. Sorry, here

The International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2010

[donco6]

83. Thank you. n/t

[donco6]

93. I'm going to be really curious to see how this all shakes out.

Kerry's site seems to say that he wants to keep the ban on commercial fishing of whales. But the other article seems to say that the WH is supporting approval of whaling in exchange for future abolishment. ?? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[MoonRiver]

106. Obama and Kerry are clearly in disagreement about this.

I'm so depressed that Kerry is not our president. :cry:

[Jakes Progress]

107. Shhhh. The poster didn't want you to read that closely.

[Karmadillo]

85. Joel Reynolds, in the LA Times piece, is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Why does that

organization oppose the Obama's administration on whaling as "misguided policy"?

[Jakes Progress]

86. So do you favor the administration position or the Kerry bill?

[LooseWilly]

102. Ahh, an Obama Whitehouse Press Release...

Now we have the facts, I guess. How could anyone believe that a press release could possibly be anything more than the gospel truth? The entire Whitehouse will be prosecuted for perjury if the content of the press release is found to be in any way counterfactual... or exaggerational... right?

[treestar]

119. We are Democrats

Why do we have to automatically disbelieve WH press releases?

[bvar22]

35. "Sir,....

...we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

So,
who here is against "saving" villages?
.
.
Get with the program.
March in step, and sing the campaign songs,
because,
Sarah Palin is coming,
and its YOUR fault!!!

Which way to the "Mission Accomplished" parade?
:patriot:


Black IS white.

Up IS down.

I did not have sex with THAT woman.

Free Trade is GOOD for the American Working Class.

I am not a crook.

I did not campaign on a Public Option.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. WHY? Because it was something to say to placate people so he could get

elected. You didn't really believe the things he promised he'd do, did you? He's a politician. What does a few whales matter to a politician in Washington DC? NOTHING.

[inna]

50. Lifting the ban on commercial whaling is wrong, period. No excuses, if's and but's; it's just plain

wrong.

[flvegan]

54. So...who is going to enforce the new quotas? Anyone?

Anyone who thinks ANY of these three whaling countries is going to kill fewer whales has lost it. Maybe the first year, just to be good little whaling nations.

Not that Obama's hands aren't tied. The IWC is about to fall apart without this agreement, being a volunteer commission. At which point it would be every whale for him/herself. So, either he flip flops and more whales die (but he can say that he thought the whaling nations would "do the right thing" :eyes: ) or he can stand firm, the IWC falls apart and everyone points the finger at him for more whales being killed by shitwits.

[TheKentuckian]

56. maybe this will result in less whales being slaughtered but it is hard to buy

Personally, I think we should upgrade the sea shepherd to a destroyer group and sink the whaling ships that refuse to stand down and return to port. Mealy mouthed protest won't save these cousins of ours, people are to disrespectful of life to care about animals too much.

[fascisthunter]

63. wow

repealing the ban is just wrong. Talk about selling out

[Capitalocracy]

69. Is there anything they're on our side on?

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[Bluebear]

77. kick for pragmatism!

[QC]

113. !

[Jakes Progress]

82. Let's really go with this idea.

We can say that it is okay to ban abortions for some women, say those under thirty. Maybe that will help.

We can say that we will only fight wars in one hemisphere.

We can vow to only kill half the members of any family in an Afghan village.

We can say that some banks can still sell derivatives.

This half way shit is so cool. It never stops and it never gets anything done, but you can always say you are for the greater good.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue-Jay]

87. AN UNCLE TOM? Really? You just typed that?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

92. Best post on DU ever!!!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

122. and it's gone!

Dying to know what it was but you cant tell me or it will be deleted. Ah the conundrum

[donco6]

94. That even made me laugh.

Jeez.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

99. :crickets:

[JCMach1]

98. triangulation looks more like a target on the back of the animals

:grr:

[voteearlyvoteoften]

104. rec

[wordpix]

108. why not fucking CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES instead of using this assbackward convoluted argument

:grr: Why doesn't Obama just switch parties? GEESH :grr:

[Mudoria]

115. Japan, Iceland and Norway are going to continue whaling...

They don't care what Obama's position is. If he can work out a deal for fewer kills then it's better than nothing. Which is what he WOULD get if tried to ban all whaling.

[branders seine]

120. new habits are hard to break

[mitchtv]

121. Why not? we're saving the polar bears

and wolves,

[Bluebear]

123. Wha;es don't vote.