Sunday, April 29, 2007

Dolphin Safe Government

What in the hell is the matter with these people? I just read about how a judge ruled that the U.S. government (read: Bush Administration) can’t arbitrarily alter the meaning of “Dolphin Safe Tuna,” without conducting a scientific study that shows it will actually keep dolphins safe. So how does the Bush Admin respond to this ruling? How else…

The U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service, expressed disappointment in the decision.

"The United States has been at the forefront of international efforts to protect dolphins in tuna fisheries, and we are proud of our role in negotiating international agreements that have led to a dramatic drop in the number of dolphins caught in tuna gear," it said.

That’s right. By saying everything entirely back-asswards. This statement makes it seem as if they were trying to protect dolphins, but the court limited their ability to do so. But it’s exactly the opposite. They were trying to scale-back our efforts in order to endanger dolphins, while perpetuating a fraud against American consumers. Because unless I’m mistaken, they can sell dolphin-dangerous tuna, but that people won’t want it because people like dolphins. So apparently, the Bush Admin would just prefer to work-around that preference by permitting tuna companies to lie to their customers. Excellent.

And really, the statement I quoted above really is pure deception, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the ruling. The agreements that led to a dramatic drop in dolphin deaths happened a long time ago, while the new agreements would have reversed that trend. So rather than this spokesmen giving the government’s reaction, he’s instead saying pleasant gibberish that had nothing to do with the ruling at all. They didn’t express “disappointment” in the decision, as the reporter suggested. They ignored it all together.

And all this goes to show how well the Bushies understand that reporters don’t actually give a damn what you say. All that matters is that you give the impression of saying something. Beyond that, they’ll just fill-in the blanks like they’re writing Mad Libs. The reporter knew the Bush Admin would be disappointed. Beyond that, they’ll let them say any damn thing they want without comment; including feelgood gibberish that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

And why not? I mean, do we really expect for them to admit that they’re trying to deceive tuna eaters? Of course not. So instead they’ll pretend as if they’re trying to strengthen the exact thing they’re undermining. But all the same, nobody else is listening to the Bush Admin anyway and anyone reading that article knew exactly what really was going on. Perhaps some day, the Bushies will understand that when you’re always speaking gibberish, you might as well not bother because nobody will listen anyway.

And as a final note, I’d just like to cite this article as yet more proof that Republicans are anti-free-market. In a free-market system, consumers can buy dolphin-safe tuna if they want to. But the GOP wants to screw that up by tricking consumers into buying something they don’t want. And that is in direct defiance of how free-markets are supposed to work. Sure, tuna canners have a right to sell whatever damn tuna they want. But that doesn’t mean we have to buy it.

No comments: