Let me go on record as saying that--as a species--we have made great strides in recognizing our fellow earthlings as comrades in the struggle of destiny. There was a time when men would choose sides against one another based solely on the color of another's skin, or where he was born. We've seen some evidence that a few women did too, but not as much because women are so great, and those that did were probably misled by the oppressive patriarchal society that controlled them. You go girl!
Where was I? Oh yes, fascism... Bush is a Nazi, but despite that we've freed everyone that matters from their stereotypes and their prejudices. That is: those in the Northeast and California; with special recognition to Oregon--Go Beavers! I, uh... I meant that in a purely animal mascot manner, and in no way was I referencing women again... Not that there's anything wrong with women...or beavers. I certainly did not intend to offend our water-dwelling mammal friends with a cat slur... No, ma'am, I certainly did not mean to imply that it's acceptable to reduce women to their colloquially animal-phrased parts. Ma'am, that's rude--please put your finger down. What? Oh, sorry ma-, ah, Ms.. You are absolutely right; I've been thoughtless. Look, I'm pro-gay--especially lesbians, okay? What? I can't hear you behind that N.O.W. sign. Absolutely not! I never judge a woman by her mullet.
I really need to get this back on track.
Anyway, irregardless of Bushitler's best efforts, men and women have learned that we're all equal; again, women often moreso. And, in the last couple of years we've made great strides towards our social animal allies. I embrace our chimpanzee, dog, and fire ant allies in the struggle against oppression, and Christianity. That's right--how much longer would we have been friends if the Pope had not brainwashed the masses against stem-cell research? Where would the goldfish be without that, I ask you? But we overcame; yeah we did! And you're damn right we have something to applaud--no more 16-year olds will have goldfish to dangle over their toilets anymore. Here's snippet from ALF that shows where we're at in the struggle, and yet highlights how much further we still have to go.
"British gardeners were up in arms in 2006 when proposed changes to Britain's animal-welfare legislation included offering slugs and snails similar legal protection to cats and dogs. The measure failed, but it did become illegal for under 16s to win goldfish at fairs."
Sobering, huh? What kind of a society says, "Buddy, you want to flush a goldfish? Well then you'd best be of age like everybody else. But if you want to pour salt on them, go right ahead!" Have we learned nothing? Can any of us be safe when slugs--in our own gardens--are not?
But, comrades, I did not come here to depress you. Too many are already affected by the grim truth of English Death Gardens. Today is a day of celebration. As I said earlier, and as seen by the plight of the goldfish still in the clutches of angry, lucky, 17-year olds, the road ahead of us is long indeed, but no longer will that road be paved on the backs of our green brothers and sisters. That's right! Plants have rights too*! Switzerland has long been carrying the burden of freeing many of our friends and neighbors from the cruel reductionist, binary, and systemic oppression of "us" and "them" that has been perpetrated in an unjust war-for-oil by the corporate fascists of the world! Honestly: Cheney shot his FRIEND in the FACE. Why, you ask? Because that man dared to put himself between a gun and one of the weakest among us--a quail. THAT'S a hero.
What was I saying? Ah yes: womyn are special, and so are plants. Did you know that some of the Nazi scientists had children? And now Bush funds them to bio-engineer vegetation that can yield a larger harvest, or resist blight! You want to hear something really chilling? Have you noticed how they've started putting fences around the wheat fields? First they came for the beans, and I said nothing. Then they came for the bean sprouts, and I said nothing. Then they came for the wheat... Mark my words--they're coming for the baby wheat next. Let me ask you: do you know the age of that wheat in your whole-wheat nuts-and-twigs dry toast you had with egg substitutes and soy curd this morning? There's a whole generation of crops growing up in this country reproducing like crazy just to be put on the the supermarket shelf! That's why I headed up the condoms for bananas intiative, and co-wrote that Gwen Stefani hit. But back to the issue: Understand that we are all partners in crime of the systematic enslaveryment and destructionation of wheat children in this country.
And what about the other countries? So what if Africans could use a more stable food supply? Is it our responsibility to provide them with resilient whole grains? Should we spend our sap and treasure bailing them out of the droughts they've gotten themselves into? Is it right that we interfere in the natural course of their lands? Worse: should we be party to plantocide here to "supposedly" help them there? That's right, I used air quotes, buddy. I mean, do we even know if more food is a good thing? When you think about it, who's to say? Maybe a cheap, renewable source of nourishment would wreak havoc in Sub-Saharan Africa. By the way: what do they call those guys above the Sahara; Pro-Saharans? What do the Pro-Saharan Africans get, huh? Is that fair? Should we be pro-Sub, or pro-Pro? Why can't we be for them both? Why do we always have to meddle; especially under the power of Granular Death Camps? I say: let them solve their problems as we have, like responsible, rational adults. Look, I buy fair trade coffee like everybody else, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and I say that line starts with our verdant brothers and sisters.
You've been a great audience, folks. Please stop by my booth on the way out to pick up a book, or maybe a "I'm BANANAS for BIRTH CONTROL!" tee shirt. Believe me: those kids in Malaysia are happy to get five cents a day. And pay a visit to the lovely ladies at the Gravel Treats vendors--corporate sponsorship makes this all happen.
*Found via Friar's Fires
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Sublime. Absolutely sublime. You, my friend, are the reason words were created.
I think there are approximately sixteen people in the world who appreciate this, or would if they knew of its existence. Thanks for being one of them.
Quite right, Hips Unhinged. Count me in, even if I happened to have lobbied my MP extensively for the Goldfish thing.
Did you? Haha! That's hilarious! I wouldn't put myself in the pro-goldfish-as-a-prize-then-flush-them camp, but I am squarely in the federal-governments-have-better-things-to-do crowd. Couldn't this have been handled on a regional level? But, hey, over here Congress debates the finer points of steroids in baseball. Stupid.
Let's be honest: I'm counting myself in that group, also. Hey, check it out: that means I've saturated nearly a fourth of my niche market. Pardon me whilst I go on with my bad self.
Goldfish - not really. I'm not much of an MP-lobbier, and in fact the prevalence in the UK of old-lady-driven "give money to the donkey sanctuary" cuddly animal welfare is, by dint of providing distractions and "easy wins", actually the enemy of serious environmental campaigning (e.g. on overfishing, which is a serious global disaster in waiting).
As a side note, "there are more important human problems to tackle" is not a valid excuse or reason for not being concerned with animal / environment problems; that's like a burglar saying to the police "why aren't you out catching murderers?"
Apols, I rhubarbed "actually... in fact" in my first para, making me sound like a bit like John Prescott at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Oh, and used "serious" twice in the same sentence. Was evidently distracted by the ascent onto my high horse.
"I am squarely in the federal-governments-have-better-things-to-do crowd."
"[T]he prevalence in the UK of old-lady-driven "give money to the donkey sanctuary" cuddly animal welfare is, by dint of providing distractions and "easy wins", actually the enemy of serious environmental campaigning (e.g. on overfishing, which is a serious global disaster in waiting)."
That's what I was getting at, Taf.
Good. Then that's what we were both getting at.
I wasn't accusing you of anything, just pointing out that there is a tendency in certain sections of the media to lump everything "environmental" in together, and then to try to ridicule it ALL as being unimportant on the back of stories like the goldfish one.
Post a Comment