Never's Remedy

Yep, it's time to bring out the soapbox again. Why? Because the Navy wants to test it's latest underwater gadget off the shores of Hawai'i, despite an Environment Impact Study reporting to do so would likely deafen 15,900 whales and dolphins and kill 1,800 more. The link leads you to MoveOn.org's petition, which sends your signature and comment to the Navy's web site, where they are required to post public comments on the issue.

Whether they'll take those comments to heart seems doubtful if their ethics allow for the wholesale slaughter of oceanic mammals who are integral to a healthy ecology, but I decided to write a comment anyway. Because, you know, I have a soap box for these things.

Dolphins and whales already experience major challenges thanks to human intervention including whaling, industrial tuna fishing, toxic substances and plastics in the water, and depleted or sick food sources. Deafening large groups of other living beings who depend heavily on their hearing for their ability to live within their environment, seek out food, and avoid danger, is tantamount to slaughtering them slowly.

The study estimates 1,800 deaths? More like 23,900. Whale song and dolphin trills and clicks are the sounds used not just for navigation and hunting, but for communication with others of their species. A loss of hearing means more deaths, less mating, and thus, fewer calves born, and a loss of communities of whales and dolphins as they swim adrift of one another, isolated in their inability to hear.

By what ethics does the Navy operate that they feel this is a justifiable product of their testing?

Haven't we harmed enough life already with "tests" on humans and sea creatures on the Marshall Islands? Living beings who continue to suffer from irradiated food they can no longer eat, and babies born without bones or brains.

Haven't we done enough to Hawai'i, bringing in our military, crowding out the indigenous people, and poisoning the arable and sacred land with strip malls and inedible corn?

Haven't we done enough, making the Pacific Ocean toxic with plastic, waste, oil spills, and sewage run off?

No, we apparently need to further threaten the lives of the mammals who live in the ocean and the livelihood of islanders who depend upon those creatures.

And why? I'm certain someone within the Justice Dept. might claim it has something to do with protecting the U.S., but I wouldn't buy that line. I certainly don't feel safer knowing the food the EPA recommends is healthiest -- providing the most beneficial nutrients -- for pregnant women and young children to eat, fish, is also the one they should avoid because it contains the greatest amount of toxins. I don't feel safer knowing that our military's ethics are so shredded, they do not take into account the diverse life of the earth or oceans upon which we so greatly depend, often without realizing how much.

I don't feel safer, because I have a basic understanding of ecology. If a living being, plant or animal, is integral to the local ecosystem's function is suddenly removed, or their population drops precipitously, it causes the entire ecosystem to fall desperately, irretrievably out of balance.

When such an occurrence happens in this world, especially due to the greed or violence of others of my own species, then no, I don't feel safer.

So tell me why anyone would think this was a good idea in the first place? So good, in fact, it's gotten to this stage of development where testing is even being considered where the ramifications are so great? Can anyone answer such a question without resorting to "safety of the country" rhetoric? Because I'm worried about more than this country. I'm worried about the world.

What happens to the voices of individuals, and to free, multi-perspective discourse when corporations decide what views can be heard? We're about to find out, if Google decides to trade integrity and revolutionary ideals for a large paycheck.

Sign the Petition to tell Google not to sell out

"Dissenting voice" will become an archaic term if this deal goes through.

Too many links that are going to get lost if I don't put them here NOW.

Angsty soapbox girl has much to rant about:

Some idiot scientist needs to keep his mouth shut about sex without condoms even if it is medically accurate info. And revoke his kilt license, too. Remember gents, go commando in your kilts, not your quilts. Yes, of course it's evolutaionarily programmed into us to feel better when our girly bits are shot full of happy penis juice. I know it, she knows it, they know it, even a lot of lesbians have come to know (pun intended). But considering the dangers of spreading that info around to the happy-fuck-bunnies who keep getting told condoms are bad, or aren't being told about condoms at all and have no sense of responsibility regarding where they stick their genitals? SHUT THE FUCK UP. When we've found a cure for AIDS and all it requires is snuggling kittens, then you can go spouting the truth, but until then, seriously ... SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Oh yeah, and Mississippi? This includes you. Come kiss my no-no square and show the kids other ways of pleasuring themselves besides rubbing their thighs together and taking it up the ass bareback, shall we? By the way, I know it's called a "box," but that's just slang ... my mango ain't square in any sense of the word.

Is it Monday yet? 'Cause I feel like some fucking zen