McCain gains 20 points among white women
The most surprising results — and surely the most disturbing for the freshman Illinois senator’s camp — are the immense gains McCain has made among white women following the Republican National Convention and the well-received prime-time speech by Palin.
In barely three weeks since before the Democratic convention last month, that crucial group of female voters has moved from 50-42 in Obama’s favor to 53-41 for McCain now.
That’s a huge 20-point shift in almost as many days, no doubt attributed in large part to the addition of a woman to the Republican ticket, Alaskan Gov. Palin, for the first time in the party’s 164-year history.
38 Responses to “McCain gains 20 points among white women”
-
salt h2o says:
So Violet, the question is- what do you think of this?
I think your assesment of the Palin nomination thus far has been dead on. The Republicans added a geniune woman who wasn’t looking for the nomination- the Democrats and the media took the bait and attacked her for issues that all mothers and families face- making mothers in the country more sympathetic to her cause.
It’s the media’s fault really, they went after her family and not her policy.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:59 pm EST -
Violet says:
I’m not as surprised as whoever wrote this article.
I am wondering how much of it will hold.
-
RealChange says:
I think it will hold and probably grow. I think more women will start to see that we need to take power wherever we can. Sarah Palin may not have made all the same kind of choices that I, as a self described liberal, Democratic, feminist, Hillary supporter would have made. But, she still can be a strong, principled and inspiring role model for many. Especially for young girls (and boys), who don’t care or understand about her policy positions, but will see a “girl” as the Vice-President of our country. How exciting! If we wait for only the perfect woman candidate to support and help get into power, I fear we may be waiting another long time. I’m going to take a leap of faith with this woman. I hope others do too!
-
Ciccina says:
Violet, I think you need to create a new tag: file under “we told you so”….
Heard on CNN this evening that Hillary, out on the stump, said she won’t be directly criticizing Palin (she does criticize McCain-Palin, the ticket) because this election isn’t about going woman vs. woman, its about Democrats vs. Republicans. :-)
-
FemB4Dem says:
I think this shift may well hold. Two important things happened at the Repub convention. First, Palin gave a whizbang speech that really resonated with women. Second, McCain gave a mostly boring, but in parts moving, speech that convinced the women (and men) who were attracted to Palin the night before, that he’s not a loon, he’s not Bush III, thereby making it ok for those voters to do what RealChange says above: “take a leap of faith with this woman.” I don’t see that dynamic changing now without something big happening — Palin implodes at the VP debate or some such. I, for one, do not think that will happen. Obama and the Dems stupidly opened the door for Palin. I think she will now kick Obama/Biden out that same door and slam it in their faces. As a Hillary suporter, I will be smiling and planning for 2012.
-
cellocat says:
I have to say, the idea of Palin as VP or President freaks me out – she’s really pretty right-wing, and I don’t trust organized religion in general and conservative organized religion in particular. I think she’s almost as unknown as Obama; it’s really not possible to know what she’ll do as VP or pres if that happens.
She has done really well so far, but popularity can shift like the wind, though, and the way some people are reacting to her really seems like more a question of popularity than substance. So I’d hesitate to hazard a guess as to whether this will stick or not. It’s a long time, really, to the GE.
-
myiq2xu says:
Why do all these people act like McCain/Palin are complete lunatics and say the idea of them in the White House “freaks me out?”
Approximately half the country agrees with them (and no, they aren’t super-radical conservatives, they are about average) not to mention a big chunk of the Congressional Dems (Blue-dogs) too.
Besides, look at what the non-blue-dog Dems have been doing lately. (Can you say FISA?)
I’m a liberal, and while I don’t agree with them, I don’t think they are insane either.
Get a grip, people!
-
kenoshaMarge says:
I’m with you myiq,
I keep reading too that she is a “radical”. I haven’t seen much that makes me believe that is so. I have seen and heard one lie or spin about Governor Palin after another.
Guess the Obamacrats and Obamamedia had so much fun bashing two amazing Female Democrats, Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, that they thought taking out a Republican woman would be a piece of cake. Not so much. Republicans actually stand up and fight when a member of their party is attacked. Even a lowly woman.
-
Randall Shake says:
McCain went to the NAACP Convention and paid a big compliment to his opponent which showed real class. The netroots of the DC Party are wrecking Obama’s chances and his base’s attacks that were snide, condescending and vicious of Hilliary did not help. The Media coverage has been so lob sided for Obama against Hilliary and now Palin. They are throwing the election to McCain.
Code Pink’s behavior at the RNC did not help their cause. People who act like Crazy Lunatics don’t do a proper job of selling their ideas. They discredit their ability to appeal to the electorate based on their programs. Dissing Sarah Palin who millions of Women are like, is going to give McCain Palin a landslide victory.
Obama going on Fox News was a Smart Move. And the O’Reilly interview he held his own helped him did not hurt him. He needs to state his case wherever he can reach voters. His base of voters is unhappy about the Interview. I personally think he did a credible job of it. He needs more experience.
Hilliary should run for Governor of NY or some major state. So she has authentic Governing experience. AS Bill has had. She has the Politics down, she needs to show she can effectively govern. She will run to the Center and govern more from the Left. This is a solid strategy to win.
Obama should have vetted Hilliary and at least talked to her about being his running mate out of respect. That he did not showed he has no respect for her. And it is back firing on him now.
-
InsightAnalytical-GRL says:
Part of reality is reporting facts, isn’t it?? The Palin misinformation campaign seems to be backfiring…as the powers that be miss the point of what makes Hillary supporters/PUMAs tick…
“The Myth of the Grief-Stricken Hillary Democrats”
http://insightanalytical.wordp.....democrats/
kenosha Marge….gives a reality check to the Democratic Party, the DNC, and corporate media, who don’t have a clue as to why there are so many disaffected Democrats….a great read!!
-
Sarah2 says:
Obama did not vet Hillary because she told him she did not want to go through the vetting process, unless he was serious about putting her on the ticket.
He clearly had no plans to do so, and she wasn’t about to let him pretend that he was, plus go through the invasive vetting process for nothing.
So she wasn’t ever considered by Obama.
-
blondie says:
I’ve been a long-time reader and some-times commenter on this blog, having agreed with most of the dearly departed Violet’s posts; so I post the following with some trepidation…
I believe Palin is being advanced as one of the GOP’s “exceptional” women. She can advance and be accepted into the boys’ club, but the rest of “us girls” can figure out for ourselves how to make our own way in the patriarchy.
Palin holds views that are decidedly anti-woman, e.g., anti-choice, abstinence-only sex. ed. Yet, the GOP advances her as a model woman — attractive mom. A great deal of her speech at the GOP convention seemed intent on establishing her bona fides as a proto-typical “hockey mom.” A pit-bull with lipstick? puh-lease.
She supports the shooting of wolves from planes. Again. She. Supports. Shooting. Wolves. From planes. Repellent.
Regardless of your views of such “hunting,” it enforces the understanding of Palin as a “man’s woman,” a “girl” who can make it in the “boys’ club,” dare I venture to say, a “mean girl?” Has she given any indication (other than actually being a woman) that she would promote policies that help women in the U.S.? I’ve seen none.
After the fact-checking occured, we see that many of the claims she made regarding her gubernatorial activies were simply puffery, e.g., refusal of Bridge to Nowhere funding (not hardly), selling the state’s plane for profit on e-bay (sounds so cute, but not quite what happened).
I see Palin in the same vein as Coulter, Malkin, etc. — an attractive, youthful woman who is willing to be the spokesperson for ideas that denigrate her own gender, but serve the powers-that-be. I do not believe attractiveness or youth are reasons to discredit her, but do you think she would have been chosen were she overweight, 60-ish, not in line with American beauty pageant standards, or non-hetero?
-
Violet says:
blondie, I partially agree with you and partially disagree.
I agree that Palin would not have been chosen if she were overweight, old, etc. She is definitely a patriarchy-compliant woman, which is what eases her path. And of course that is no reason to discredit her, as you say.
I agree that many of her policy positions are utterly repellent. I’ve said I disagree with most of her political positions, which is not surprising since she’s a conservative Republican and I’m a leftist.
I disagree, however, that she is anti-woman, or should even be mentioned in the same breath with that monster Ann Coulter. Palin is, in her own mind, pro-woman. She considers herself a feminist. She’s sincere about that. Everything I’ve read, including from other conservative feminists, persuades me that she is quite sincere about believing in women’s equality and women’s power — except when it comes to abortion, of course.
By the way, no one needs to explain to me, of all people, why that’s a self-contradictory view. But the fact is that some women do hold that view and do not believe it’s incoherent.
I think we on the progressive side of the fence tend to disbelieve that “conservative feminism” can even exist, but it does. As I’ve said, I know these women. I’m related to them. They’re my cousins and aunts and nieces. They’re real — just like Sarah Palin is real. It’s not a secret plot to trot them out as show horses and trick us into voting so that then the GOP can get started on The Handmaiden’s Tale.
One note: Palin is not in favor of abstinence-only sex education. That’s one of many misrepresentations floating around, and there have been many.
As for how Palin would help women, I think any help would come not from her party’s policies, but from her existence as a woman in the office of Vice-President. And that does matter; the only reason people are pretending it doesn’t is because they’re afraid of the Republicans. But modeling female power does matter. It matters that girls see a woman in power, that the barrier is broken.
-
simply wondered says:
the article strikes me as soemthing of a ‘bears in arboreal toilet shock’ story.
palin – gives over huge tracts of land to oil companies (partner in oil industry), finds killing animals rather fun – reminds me of that bush guy a bit.
a woman playing to the perfect image of the conservative, religious, family woman does not inspire me as an image to get young women into politics (tho i am of course male). hillary however does – but i guess that’s largely because i personally find her politics more in line with my own.
it freaks me out on principle that the repugs may be back in the white house largely cos i have to share a planet with america and the sensible progressive liberal voices are heard only on blogs like this when they should be setting out us domestic and foreign policy. there’s a very different agenda outside us. -
run_dmc says:
Although I am a left liberal, I have to agree with the commenters who note that McCain and Palin aren’t the scary, insane boogey men some are making them out to be. I was telling my Obama-loving friends well before Palin was named, that they were going to underestimate, badly, McCain’s appeal because the majority of Americans just don’t find him to be a scary, right-winger. They just don’t. And, now I realize they are going to feel the same about both people on the ticket.
As for her hunting – people need to really dial back on the “Palin’s a monster because she kills animals” meme. If she ran a beef butchery in her “small town” would you think she was monstrous. Everyone should note that she doesn’t just kill moose and caribou, she also eats their meat and uses their fur. Where do all these liberals/progressives think their meat and leather come from – someone has to kill those cows. I don’t have a problem with hunting or fishing if the animals are used to sustain life. I do have a problem if it’s just for fun and sport – like Cheney does with his gruesome staged bird-shooting.
As for the wolf-culling, I agree that it seems unnecessary and cruel. However, it’s not done for fun – it’s done when the wolf population becomes unbalanced with the moose and caribou and elk population and the wolves are beginning to cut into the balance of numbers of their prey. Would I want to see if there is a different way to sustain the balance – yes – but then, I don’t live there and am not an expert in this ecology. But, to say it’s done “for fun” just portrays the type of ignorance of on-the-ground issues in these western states that republicans always hype.
-
fetlocks says:
The hunt is invigorating, focused, exciting, all your synapses firing. You’re barely breathing, make eye contact through your scope: It’s down. You made a clean kill. Then, you give thanks to this animal that gave you its life. You give thanks that you got a clean shot, that it died immediately, that it did not suffer hanging, alive, upside down, gutted, but not dead, its own feces and urine running down its body into its nostrils as it dies screaming. To appear wrapped in plastic at the other end of the belt. After a life in a cage, eating pellets.
Hunting is fun SW. After you hunt you share out the meat, and send some to the seniors centre. You send the hide to the local tannery. It becomes kamiks and big warm gloves and jackets and work for people who do that and sell it. The horns are used to make carvings, and jewellery.
The meat is organic, free range. No preservatives, no pesticides and no growth hormones. Delicious. Low in fat and cholesterol, but very high im Omega 3s, Bs and C. As
Most fun is not making an animal suffer so you can live.
-
Maurice says:
First I’d like to address a few things I thought were a little off kilter with blondie’s post:
Re: Shooting wolves from plains/helicopters. In many states that are largely undeveloped and that have high predator populations, it is often necessary to establish predator control programs to safeguard domestic animal herds and for public safety concerns. When blondie talks about Governor Palin supporting the hunting of wolves from planes she’s referring to predator control. In Alaska Governor Palin signed into law a bill that did little more than clarify and simplify the states existing predator control regulations. The goal was to focus on controlling wolf populations in regions of Alaska where the Caribou and Moose herds were dwindling. Personally hunting any animal from a plane or helicopter is abhorrent to me. I’d prefer to see the animals captured and released in states here in the lower 48 where they are attempting to re-introduce wolves and increase endangered wolf populations. The fact remains, however, that wolves in Alaska are not an endangered species and for most native Alaskans hunting isn’t a sport or hobby it’s a way they put food on the table. In light of that Governor Palin’s decision to simplify the regulations regarding predator management was the right choice to make for Alaskans. In any case I will be charitable and attribute blondie’s reaction to a case of parochial ignorance.
Re: The Bridge to Nowhere. As a candidate for office Sarah Palin was in favor of the bridge. So, for that matter, was Senator Obama. In fact Senator Obama voted to fund the bridge not once, but twice. Outgoing Governor Murkowski signed a bill that actually awarded a contract to begin construction of the bridge. Despite her initial support for the bridge as Candidate Palin, when she became Governor Palin and saw the price tag associated with the project she balked. Governor Palin realized that the state of Alaska was being perceived as another pig at the trough and she killed the project. So I guess it would be more accurate to say “She was before it before she was against it, but in the end she killed it.” Of course if Obama supporters were to be honest they’d have to say “He though it was so nice, he voted for it twice.” BTW, does anyone find it the least bit hypocritical that a man who finagled over $740 million in earmarks for his state is beating up on a Governor that actually turned down an earmark he approved?
Re: Selling the Plane on eBay – actually she NEVER said she sold it on eBay. She said she put it on eBay and she did. It didn’t sell because she couldn’t get enough money for it, top bid I believe was around $1.6 million dollars. Governor Palin took it off eBay and sold it to a private bidder for $2.1 million. It’s Obama supporters that keep spreading misinformation like this.
While we’re at it:
Governor Palin did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library.
Governor Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She does however think that if students ask about creationism it should be discussed in class like any other theory.
Governor Palin has not pushed for teaching abstinence only sex-ed in Alaska’s schools. She is against sexually explicit sex-ed in schools.
Governor Palin is not against teaching or giving access to contraception.
This brings me to the argument that somehow the fact that Sarah Palin is anti-choice makes her anti-woman. I couldn’t disagree more. There are many people, men and women, who because of their religious beliefs are anti-choice or against explicit sex-education. I come from a family of strong women, my mother and sister are two of the toughest people I know, yet they agree with Governor Palin on these two issues. Except for these two points of contention they would be considered model feminists, yet according to blondie’s standards they are “anti-women”.
My mother was in the navy during Korea and Vietnam. As a chief petty officer and a RN she was in constant conflict with two offensive patriarchal systems, the Navy and Doctors. She was a feminist back when men still thought it was cute to “smack” a woman on the butt, call her sweety instead of by her rank, or tell her to make some coffee even if she was their superior. She didn’t take crap off people then and she sure doesn’t do so now. My sister is a civil rights attorney and is much like our mother, she’s strong willed, opinionated, and not afraid to confront someone who is out of line. Both of these women are devout Catholics and both are strongly pro-life. Anyone who wants to call either one “anti-woman” had better wear asbestos underwear because either one of them will roast that person alive.
As a devout Catholic myself I am in conflict with the Church on this point among others (gay marriage, don’t get me started on that one). For one I think it’s a woman’s body and so a woman’s choice. As a man I’ve really have no right to impose my beliefs on a woman’s body, to me that’s self evident and just plain common sense. However my mother and sister disagree. I respect them, I respect their opinions. It really is that simple. A disagreement on matters of principle should not result in someone being thrown under the bus, I would say that instead it is better to keep the discussion going because silence never swayed anyone.
Just my .02, and it’s probably not worth that much.
-
blondie says:
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Vi. I may be closed-minded, but I have a hard time believing someone can be conservative and a feminist. I, too, have relatives who are staunch conservatives, and some of them are strong women, in their own ways. The ones I know (and I recognize this is anecdotal) do not consider themselves to be feminists and are rather suspicious of those who believe themselves to be feminists. To my mind, a conservative wants things to stay the same, if not go backward in time. More of the same, or more of the dreamy, non-existent ’50s America is not my idea of feminism. I see conservatives as the army, or maybe flag-wavers, of the patriarchy.
My reference to abstinence-only sex. ed. comes from Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia entry, not (I know) a perfect source. It’s still up there as of a few minutes ago. Did anyone else hear the strange story about Palin’s Wikipedia entry receiving a thorough overhaul in the hours leading up to the announcement of her pick to be v.p. candidate?
I could never vote for Palin to be in office merely because of her gender. I appreciate the idea of a female role-model, but I don’t think her gender alone is enough to make her a good role model.
By the by, I know the killing animals thing is nothing to do with feminism, per se, but (my own thing) it turns my stomach. Those wolves are my beloved dog’s cousins, and there’s no need to kill them or the moose in Alaska, unless you just like killin’.
Finally, I respect that this is your blog, not mine. I won’t toss in further dissent. Thanks for allowing this contribution.
-
Huan says:
blondie
some conservatives believe in less government regulation, oversight, and intervention, in order for each individual to develop unfettered, recogizing that some will blossom and some will fail. in this, feminism is completely compatible.
-
Mike J. says:
I certainly wonder what Obama’s position on shooting wolves is. He’s abandoned every other progressive stance to date, be in on Iraq, FISA, offshore drilling, etc., I don’t see why killing animals would be an exception.
I support McCain-Palin as opposed to Obama-Biden for a very simple reason: as I see it, we have a choice between two moderate and competent Republicans who still believe the government’s job is to serve its constituents, and two Democrats who are either incompetent at it (Biden) or out and out crooked (Obama). I would not vote for McCain if Hillary were the Dem nominee. I would vote for Obama if the GOP ran anybody other than McCain. But McCain is a reasonably normal Eisenhower Republican. He has integrity and he genuinely tries to do the right thing, even if we disagree on what that might be.
Obama, on the other hand, is a cynical opportunist with no discernible political principles other than pursuit of power. That is all he has ever done with any success. Palin’s comment that Obama has managed to write two (!) memoirs and pretty much nothing else of note is spot-on. To the extent he has any political instincts, they seem to be distinctly conservative. If he is elected, he will do untold damage to the Democratic Party and the liberal progressive cause, much as George W. Bush pretty much finished off movement conservatism. Therefore I’d rather take my chances with McCain and hope his presidency is a reasonably successful one, than take a virtual guarantee of a failed Obama presidency.
-
quixote says:
I hate everything McCain and Palin stand for. And yet, when I see a picture of her, my first reaction is “simpatica.” Now that I know Obama a bit better, I pretty much hate everything he stands for too. Nukes, coal gasification, McClurkin, faith-based government, abortion rights if some man sees the need for them (ie no actual rights), helping Big Medicine against health insurance in Illinois, the list just goes on forever. And when I see a picture of him, I think “He lies.”
So here I am, for the first time in a long life, quietly rooting for a bunch of Rethugs I hate, just because I want to see that smug jackass get his comeuppance.
What a long strange trip it’s been.
-
Carmonn says:
simply wondered, I don’t find Palin personally “inspiring” as a young woman–but I did find Clinton inspiring and watched as she was pushed aside for a man who plays “99 Problems,” does a little dance to “Dirt off the Shoulder,” and gives her the finger (talk about resemblance to Bush). If I’m going to have to wait for a woman who “inspires” John Kerry, Ted kennedy, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, well then, my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren will be dead a thousand years, I’m afraid. I’m not voting for the Mccain ticket because Palin’s a woman, I’m voting for them because misogyny is not a progressive value and this party needs a profound change in personnel and culture beofre it can be a viable alternative to anything imo.
-
octogalore says:
“modeling female power does matter”
Absolutely. Many women deny this, or claim that unless the women in power have perfect politics, they don’t serve feminism. Wrong. How many men have perfect politics? How many have shitty politics? And yet, the bulky % of men in power is convincing to people. People can be impressive and inspiring without our having to agree with them.
I saw Obama on O’Reilly last night, and obviously O’Reilly doesn’t love Obama’s politics nor vice versa, but O’R said at the end that he was impressed by what he felt was Obama’s determination. We should give women that same ability and credibility in standing up for the ability of other women, each with her own ideals, to lead.
-
Violet says:
Just to be clear, I’m not endorsing Palin. I just want two things to happen:
1. As voters, I want us to assess Palin the way we would a male candidate. I want the sexism to stop.
2. As feminists, I want us to honestly consider our choices. Intellectual honesty is what I’m looking for here. Policy and representation are both important, and anybody who says otherwise is either a very young feminist or she’s kidding herself. At this point we’re faced with a choice between a party that is better on policy in every respect but is apparently determined to stick to a male-only model of power, and a party that is rotten on policy but is willing to put a woman in the White house.
-
Violet says:
Octogalore, we were posting at the same time!
-
Maurice says:
quixote,
You have almost perfectly captured where I am as well. I’m not a fan of McPalin’s politics either. I’m pro-choice, pro same-sex marriage, and decidedly to the left of them on almost everything. The only other time I’ve voted for a Republican for President was Reagan and that was my first election (I was only 18) and I vowed never to make that mistake again.
The thing is Obama is so repellent to me, I just can’t stand the man. He’s smarmy, slick, and so egocentric I’m surprised small objects and children don’t assume a stationary orbit around him because clearly he thinks he’s the center of the universe. More than that it’s his sense of entitlement. I’ve never wanted to see anyone lose more, so I have now become McPalin supporter.
What a long strange trip indeed.
-
Janis says:
I AM PRO-CHOICE. And for the past three decades, we’ve seen choice left to teeter over OUR heads like the sword of Damocles, a very definite raised fist to our throats to get us in line. Why the hell do you all think the Dems left it to teeter? They practically came in their pants this year when they figured they could AT LONG LONG LAST let loose with their Sekrit Weppin to get the bitches in line.
Why do you think they left Hillary Clinton out to dry? Why do you think that when the MSM gang-raped her, they piled on for a few pokes of their own instead of defending her?
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD TAKE US FOR GRANTED. They thought they had the ultimate threat: “Vote for us or die in an alleyway with a knitting needle up your c*nt, bitch.”
If we do NOT vote for them, they will fear us. and you all will see them finally defending choice, shoring it up at long last, instead of letting it barely hang on by a thread because it’s the perfect rod with which to get is back in line.
That is WORTH four years of an honorable Republican and the first female VP in the history of the country.
This is the only way we can make choice safe. We’re like the women trapped in the serial killer’s basement who are scared to fight back because we have to be SAFE — and we end up dead. It’s worth RISKING your life to save it, goddamn it.
-
Janis says:
When it comes to ss marriage, don’t forget that the vast majority of Obama’s fans are 20-something young males, not exactly the typical pro-sexual outlaw type. They will NEVER vote in favor of “f*g’s rights.”
I fully intend to vote FOR McCain/Palin and AGAINST the amendment to my state’s constitution that will outlaw ss marriage. Fully. The Obama fanboys are worshipping a man who wouldn’t even have his picture taken with the gay mayor of a major city. Don’t kid yourself that these people are in favor of ss marriage. The boundaries have been redrawn by this election cycle.
-
sharmajee says:
For the record, Biden also voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. Blondie might be forgiven for even visiting wikipedia – I never, ever do – just cuase it’s so easy. These links are a delightful way to kill some time, and dwell on the uselessness of Wikipedia The New Editor and NPR Both are fun to read. Finally feminism equals liberalism no more than masculinity equals athleticism, Cheers
-
Sis says:
As I like to remind anyone who flicks Dickepedia at me: Jimmy Wales funded the DP start up with profits from HIS *Bomis* pornography site.
Please don’t cite DP.
Newsweek has the list you want. Check out their site.
And unless you’re a vegan, you have no right to call out people who hunt for their food, particularly, when 20 percent of them are aboriginal, and it’s…you know…kinda their culture.
Things to save: endangered people.
-
blondie says:
Shooting wolves from planes in no way constitutes a continuation of the indigeneous peoples’ hunting for food tradition. Nor is it an “honoring” of the animal. I am unbearably acquainted with the hunting culture of the western states and am well aware of how these animals are regarded and treated. It is unbelievably easy to learn the manner of these hunts, so google for yourself what is done to these animals in the course of shooting them from planes.
-
Sis says:
It does indeed constitute continuation of aboriginal people’s hunting rights, herding and following them across the barrens as they have done forever. And one way to do that type of cull is by plane. I don’t completely condone it, but neither does anyone, especially as first measure.
blondie I am aboriginal, and do not athropomorphosize animals the way non-aboriginal people do. You won’t see misty pictures of wolves on my living room walls or t-shirts, or me using pictures of wolves for my posting addy. I respect them and their place in my life far too much for that. Whites living in the north generally have the same thinking about animals as aboriginals do.
-
Sis says:
Sorry for the confusion and serial posting! A couple lines are missing.
The wolf cull is sometimes necessary, and in wilderness will be done by plane. The reason for the cull is when the wolves, who in Alaska and most parts of the north, are not endangered, but the caribou are.
So the wolf cull does indeed constitute…etc.
Apologies. I’m not where I can click and copy to straighten this mess out.
-
blondie says:
blondie I am aboriginal, and do not athropomorphosize animals the way non-aboriginal people do.
Generalize, much?
Claims made on the basis of alleged personal experience over the internet are worth the paper they’re written on.
Trying to prevent cruelty to animals does not constitute anthropomorphizing them. No one was talking about airbrushed drawings of wolves on posters or t-shirts. I raised the issue of how it is cruel, not “honoring” to an animal to an animal, to run a wolf to the literal point of exhaustion by an airplane terrorizing the animal, sometimes flying as low as 10-15 feet above ground, then shooting the wolf from the plane or landing the plane and shooting the nearly-dead-tired animal. How this constitutes sport, humane “culling” (assuming culling is necessary), or native tradition is beyond me.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” — Mahatma Gandhi
“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” — Immanuel Kant
-
Sis says:
When I’ve seen it done, the wolves were not run to the ground in terror and exhaustion. They were target and shot cleanly.
Your description, however, is the practice to get footage of wild animals for so-called nature films.
I have nothing more to say on this subject.
-
simply wondered says:
i don’t anthropomorphise myself and i must be aboriginal as my ancestors were at some point the first people somewhere, but i once read a great book called wurst seller by wallace tripp that was full of anthropomorphic jokes. my fave was a mouse taking off his shoes and saying ‘my feet hurt – gad, i hate anthropomorphism’.
and my dog mr barky is standing on his hind legs in his little waistcoat to agree with me. -
Fetlocks says:
Hey SW, you’ll always have First Person status with me.
-
Alex Curylo says:
@Maurice:
“For one I think it’s a woman’s body …”
You do realize that you can only hold that position by denying science and rationality, yes?
Once the zygote forms its cells’ DNA are provably not the same as the DNA of the host. Therefore, your statement “it’s a woman’s body” is contradicted by basic biology — a zygote inside a woman is no more her body than a tapeworm is.
Just sayin’ …
