Animal Rights. In Iraq. Huh.
I've learned that any time a new Iraqi leader steps forward he always has some sort of association with the Iraqi National Congress. Always. Why? Because the INC is led by Ahmed Chalabi, and here is all you need to know about the guy:
- he is an Iraqi exile.
- he is tight with neo-conservatives.
- he is a jowly fat ass.
- he is a money whore.
It's also useful to know that, while Chalabi led the INC, it was initially funded by the CIA (see the above link for a broad overview). He's an American pawn...a fat one, a soulless one, a totally corrupt one. So, anytime some new Iraqi leader steps forward, just type his name into google and inevitably the phrase "Iraqi National Congress" will pop up. It's the political equivalent of poison ivy: once it began, it spread everywhere.
Anyway, Iraq's new Prime Minister was named last week, Jawad al-Maliki. Doing a bit of random searching the usual sort of thing popped up. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "He was elected chairman of the Joint Action Committee, a Damascus-based opposition coalition that led to the founding of the Iraqi National Congress, in which the Dawa Party participated between 1992 and 1995" Meaning that the requisite Chalabi/CIA connection is there (i.e. he's a pawn too) but there was one sentence from his bio that surprised me: "He is well-known in Iraq for championing animal rights and is president of the Iraqi branch of the Animal Salvation Society."
Really, I have no idea what to make of that. It's admirable, good for him. But I wonder what Fox News conservatives will make of that. "What?! We blowed up Hussein and put a hippie in charge? Damn, man, what's the world comin' too when even the towel-heads are turnin' communist."
I don't know. Is that unfair to conservatives? Am I stereotyping all the white, deeply stupid crackers who put an arrogant buffoon in charge of our nation? Yes. Yes I am.
Thanks.
- he is an Iraqi exile.
- he is tight with neo-conservatives.
- he is a jowly fat ass.
- he is a money whore.
It's also useful to know that, while Chalabi led the INC, it was initially funded by the CIA (see the above link for a broad overview). He's an American pawn...a fat one, a soulless one, a totally corrupt one. So, anytime some new Iraqi leader steps forward, just type his name into google and inevitably the phrase "Iraqi National Congress" will pop up. It's the political equivalent of poison ivy: once it began, it spread everywhere.
Anyway, Iraq's new Prime Minister was named last week, Jawad al-Maliki. Doing a bit of random searching the usual sort of thing popped up. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "He was elected chairman of the Joint Action Committee, a Damascus-based opposition coalition that led to the founding of the Iraqi National Congress, in which the Dawa Party participated between 1992 and 1995" Meaning that the requisite Chalabi/CIA connection is there (i.e. he's a pawn too) but there was one sentence from his bio that surprised me: "He is well-known in Iraq for championing animal rights and is president of the Iraqi branch of the Animal Salvation Society."
Really, I have no idea what to make of that. It's admirable, good for him. But I wonder what Fox News conservatives will make of that. "What?! We blowed up Hussein and put a hippie in charge? Damn, man, what's the world comin' too when even the towel-heads are turnin' communist."
I don't know. Is that unfair to conservatives? Am I stereotyping all the white, deeply stupid crackers who put an arrogant buffoon in charge of our nation? Yes. Yes I am.
Thanks.
posted by Samwick @ 10:46 AM
7 Comments:
At 7:54 PM,
Christopher said…
Only some white guys are all alike.
At 8:06 PM,
Impulsivecompulsive said…
Now I'm gonna have to say something horribly Machiavellian here:
I'm not a big fan of animal rights.
That's right, I said it. Don't get me wrong, I'm huge on animal rights in rich states, and I'm all over conservation and sustainable farming practices, as well as protection of endangered species, but animal rights activism in less wealthy states is the cop-out means of do-goodery.
Nobody cares what religion or ethnicity the dancing bear is or accuses it of acts of terrorism, and ditching the dancing bear won't affect big business in any way.
It's finding a way to look like you care, without actually needing to focus on anything which could be controvertial.
At 11:36 PM,
Unknown said…
Matt: Thanks for relaying one real piece of good news to come out of Iraq. Now let's see how al-Maliki treats his people.
Impulsive... Animals don't care about rights but they feel pain. How about Animal Welfare?
I understand what you mean by making a distinction between the rich and the poor vis-a-vis animals. Animals always fare well in prosperous societies.
I was born in India. I saw corruption, exploitation and cruelty to both man and beast, justified in the name of poverty. And I have also seen dirt poor people who are generous, hospitable and incredibly kind.
When people and animals compete for food and other resources, animals invariably starve and suffer. That is natural and understandable. But it is still no excuse for inhumane chicken and pig farming, cruel methods of slaughter and trapping or for kicking a dog.
I am currently reading a book about the delicate ecological balance in the delta country of the Bay of Bengal - the habitat of the Royal Bengal tiger. I hope to review this book on my blog in the near future. The competition between man and animal to survive in this beautiful and dangerous region is acute. Most of the time you are on the side of the humans. But a description of what happens to a tiger when it strays into human territory and is attacked by the frightened and enraged villagers is so heartbreaking that you want the tiger to win.
At 11:56 PM,
Unknown said…
I should add that I am not in favor of PETA style aggressive animal rights advocacy.
At 1:16 PM,
Impulsivecompulsive said…
Like I said, it's my machiavellian thought of the day.
I just see it as being more important to have a narrow focus when dealing with animal welfare in rich countries, and a more broad focus in poor countries.
Protect the habitat of animals, yes. Do so at the same time as finding ways to make areas more sustainable, yes. The natural repercussions of that will be improved animal welfare.
But using punitive measures against people (even if those measures are merely a tsk tsk) because their animals are starving and unhealthy, when those same people are also starving and unhealthy? In that case, it's not the animals I care about.
If I drove out to Maple Ridge and saw someone getting ready to ride a horse that had saddle sores, I'd be on the phone with the SPCA in a second flat. There's no reason for that shit. They can keep that horse in the stable for a week, and if they lose money, well they can damn well skip wine with dinner for the rest of the week.
But if I'm in Giza and they saddle up said horse, I'd be a little more lenient. If all you have is two horses as your sole means of income and you need both at once (tourists travel in packs), you gotta do what you gotta do.
I'm all over animal welfare, I'm just concerned about what methods advocates use, and where they focus their attention.
At 3:16 PM,
Unknown said…
Impulsive:
I guess you and I agree then ..
At 3:48 PM,
Snave said…
What WOULD the paleocons say to this news? FOX probably wouldn't broadcast it. If they did, the paleos would probably start shouting stuff like "Nuke a gay communist baby whale for Christ!!!"
That would be funny to hear them spout, but even better would be
"Death to all fanatics!"
Post a Comment
<< Home