There are fewer great hypocrites in the world than the brutal killer who claims to be a “naturalist.” This epidemic of self-delusion stretches from the South Atlantic, where whalers claim to be the last of a breed, to the Arkansas whitetail-hunter who claims to feel at one with wilderness while slaughtering innocent animals. But nowhere are excuses for sub-human impulses more regularly exercised than in the killing fields of Northern Canada.

Canada is one of five nations left on earth to sanction the wholesale slaughter of seals. Though industry insiders claim that this centuries-old tradition is well justified by history and the “vast well of resources” that seal carcasses represent, the fact is that the same could be said for the Normans who regularly sacked England millennia ago. Imagine the chaos that would erupt today if ships carrying heavily armored shock troops from Norway showed up on the River Themes today, intent on carrying men to rape and plunder or to dine in Valhalla. Some practices are best left in the past.

Canada’s Royal Commission on Sealing states that the hunt could be viewed as a culling of a destructive species, as the seal regularly feed on the offshore stock appropriated by Canada’s fishing industry. This is an excuse which the aforementioned white-tail or hog hunter can rightly use, as those species would indeed run amok without such culling. However, no such validation exists for Canada’s fisheries. It is estimated that Seals are responsible for consuming less than 1% of all commercially viable species, and have never been shown to have a significant impact on the industry.

As to the sealer’s claims that seals represent a valuable commodity, one can only answer with a question: valuable to whom? Seal skins are used in some designer clothes, and seal oils are used in some industrial applications, but generally only as a supplement for synthetic lubricants. In short, there isn’t a machine in the world that requires seal-oil to function. However, it must be said the oil does serve one valuable function. Because a seal subsists on a diet of fish, its fat can be rendered to extract Omega-3 acids and are routinely included in “fish-oil” supplements by Canadian vitamin suppliers.

Seal hunting is a vile industry. It serves no purpose, other than to re-direct the base instincts of man away from other men. Though the Canadian government has recent imposed a moratorium on sealing, the fact is that this destruction needs to stop completely if we are to ever rise above the animalism of our past.

 

The campaign donations made by Whole Foods Chief Executive Officer John Mackey show that the man is a rightward-leaning libertarian whose views are likely more in vogue with nineteenth century thinking. Mackey's views are even arcane enough that he supported radical Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne with financial gifts to Browne's campaigns. This proves that Mackey's economic views are extremely classical and in many ways anti-working class or poor. The fact that he strongly opposes the Obama health care plan should surprise no one.

The real question is whether or not the millions of young people who supported Barack Obama's presidential campaign would ever follow through with a boycott of Whole Foods to show their displeasure with his extremely adamant and open anti-Obama rhetoric. If these young people do not take action then nothing will happen. Of course Mackey came out with his own health care proposal which is centered around the false premise that tax credits will often be enough to provide health care for the poor and the underpaid. Mr. Mackey's proposal just parrots more right wing talking points about enacting tort reform and enacting Medicare reform without going into specifics.

Of course Mr. Mackey would say that it is not his job to come up with the specifics, but indeed the job of legislators. This is correct, but so many CEOs are always screaming that a political outsider with business credentials can always do a better job of legislating than any representative within the territory of Washington D.C. This is why I invited Mr. Mackey to step up to the plate and offer specifics. Of course Mr. Mackey also references the tax code again and says we should just make it easier for affluent people to donate to causes to help the uninsured, as if a few rich people sitting in a room writing a check is going to fix the issue.

People on Daily Kos and other left wing sites have vowed to never shop at Whole Foods again due to Mackey's position on health care reform. I guess this way Mackey will see the tort reform that he was given that there will less people in his stores so thus less of a chance you will end up getting sued. I don't know if the Daily Kos crowd will follow through on their threats, but they at least need to point out to him that tort reform has already been enacted by many state legislatures around the country.

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21. There has been really one main argument for lowering that number to say 18, and that is a person can serve their country at age 18, why shouldn't they be able to purchase alcohol. It makes sense. Take the current conflicts over in Iraq and Afghanistan. An 18 or 19 year old soldier has to sacrifice their lives on the streets of Kabul or Baghdad but if they were on a base and were caught drinking or in possession of alcohol, they could face legal action. Doesn't make sense to me.

Here is another good argument. A person can vote when they are 18. If a person can dictate who our legislators are then they should be able to go into a bar or restaurant and have a beer or mixed drink. It all stems from back when the drinking age was raised to 21 during the 1970's that alcohol was a gateway drug that led to marijuana and other drug use. In today's world we have programs like D.A.R.E. in our schools that teach children that drugs can lead to bad things. Responsbile use of alcohol will not lead to bigger drug use. This is nothing but a crutch that has been used by the government for so long. Drug use has drastically declined since the heyday of the 70's. The government knows it and so does the public.

The bottom line is that if a person can vote in elections and die for their country on foreign battlefields at the age of 18, then they should be able to drink and possess alcohol. Bottom line. Especially the ones who have been to war. Common sense will tell you that these men and women are hardened, responsible adults and to think that if they drink before the age of 21, that they are not going to end up shunned citizens is ludacris. I bet there are some 18 year olds that are more mature than people say 22 or 23. Until the government can see this point clearly, the drinking age in the United States will always be 21.