Polar Bears are Like Big White Democrats

So, did you hear the one about the polar bear, the rabbi, and the Chinese guy that walk into a bar? Yeah, me either. I don’t think there is one like that. But, that’s besides the point. You know what else is besides the point? What the heck is a “one”? Why don’t we say “did you hear the joke…? ” Or for that matter, why the hell is “one” pronounced “wun”? Stupid English.
You know what’s not stupid? Polar bears. You’ve probably heard about this already, as I’m pretty much yesterday’s news, but there’s been a lot of fuss lately over whether to put polar bears on the path to being recognized as an endangered species. In a nutshell, here’s the deal: global warming (whether man made or not) seems to be prematurely melting large swaths of ice where the bears live, depriving said bears of hunting grounds, places to lay their eggs, and so on. So, rather than chilling on big pieces of ice, the polar bears have to float around on comically small blocks of ice where they basically starve to death. Their numbers are expected to decline precipitously in the coming decades if trends continue, so the thought is that we can put them on some list which gives them protection somehow.
I didn’t know this until about 10 minutes ago, but apparently polar bears are still hunted, with the US being the largest destination of bear pelts. I’m guessing the penises go to Asia, as Asians will turn any penis into a soup. As you can guess, the powerful bear penis lobby has those fat cats in Washington wrapped around their little fingers, so any attempt to put the bears on a protected list naturally rubs up against some stiff opposition. Also, penis.
In all seriousness, people who benefit from the hunting of polar bears are concerned about what a protected status would do to their livelihoods (this is primarily a problem with native tribes). In addition, since the die off is being caused by climate change, it’s not inconceivable that businesses that contribute to global warming (i.e. “everyone”) or which have commercial operations in areas where bears live could find themselves inundated with lawsuits blaming them for bear deaths.
I’m a veteran of at least several world wars, so as you can imagine, I’m a big fan of polar bears. Accordingly, I make sure my carbon emissions only kill off ugly animals and plants that no one wants. Like poodles. Or tree sloths. I certify that none of my carbon emissions have been used to kill polar bears. So please don’t sue me.
Now, finally getting to my point: it sucks that we can’t just have a legitimate debate about whether what we’re doing is in fact killing off the bears. It seems like we should ask two questions, and two questions only: are the bears in danger of extinction in the reasonably near future? If so, are we big enough assholes to say that our commercial interests are more important than the continued survival of this bear? I don’t care which way you argue the second question (there’s merit to both a “yes” and “no” answer), but it’s dumb to look at the question from a point of pure self-interest. If we’re killing off the bears and we want the bears to stick around, let’s find a way to protect them. If we like the bears but don’t care if they die, just say so. If drives me nuts that we dance around the issue. Human beings are such pussies.
I encourage you to write your congressman and tell them how you feel on this issue. You’ll probably get a nice form letter back with no real insight or human touch, but at least you’ll make me feel better about ending this blog abruptly because I don’t really know how to end it.
Edit: if you want a legitimate, mature opinion on this, here’s a story by some woman who actually has the training and fancy pants qualifications to write a good article.





