"Whale Wars" Republicans? Yes - but which one? - Granite Grok

“Whale Wars” Republicans? Yes – but which one?

Or “why does the Republican Party keep acting like Captain Luis Manuel Pinho?”

Translation: “Are you willing to die to save the life of a whale?”

So which Captain do we see in the Establishment Republican wing of the Party?

I have to admit that I’ve been watching this “reality show” for quite some time.  Whether or not you want to save whales, or even the politics of the thing, I watch if for no other reason to see if the Japanese were finally going to go” all ninja” on these self-righteous bullies whose morality allow them to attempt to or actually destroy other peoples’ private property to advance their agenda. Not, too, that they are far to easy to call themselves “Victims!” when the bullied retaliate (must have taken lessons from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; that white boy Paul Watson can’t jump but can learn Democrat political theory). Anyways, for his antics over the years Watson is now in the legal dinghy in a roiling see – Ninth Circuit has ruled against Sea Shepherd USA and Interpol has warrants out for him.

Thus “sidelined”, a “non-entity,” but with the addition of a new ship (irony: a former Japanese whaler) that allowed two new Captains to step up “for the mission”:

  • Captain Luis Manuel Pinho – a history of being a commercial captain, in charge of M/V Sam Simon (purchase monies given by the Simpson’s Exec producer, Sam Simon)
  • Captain Peter Hammarstedt – a 29 year old (a save the whaler since 14), in charge of M/V Bob Barker (purchase monies given by game show host Bob Barker)

Let’s apply this to the current Republican Civil War – which kind of Captain do we really want?

Again, remember that question: “Are you willing to die to save the life of a whale“?  So as to not bore you all, the purpose of the Antarctic ‘campaigns by the Paul Watson led Sea Shepards is to stop the Japanese from whaling by any means possible.  Every season has seen a ratcheting up of the intensity of the tactics: just getting in the way, throwing butyic acid, paint balling, prop fouling, PR wars – to ship collisions (strictly “unintentional”, according Watson). And that last tactic was the focus of last night’s two hour special – which Captain would back down (re: THE question) and which would not?  Which one would start to “finish the mission” and then back down at the wrong time, do it again a second time (and not put his ship or his crew into certain mortal danger of the South Pole ‘sfreezing waters), and which one was willing to risk his life and that of his crews’ in their 500 ton ship being squeezed two Japanese ships (4000 & 8000 ton) to prevent a refueling operation?

The M/V Sam Simon (the former Japanese whaler), captained by Luis Manuel Pinho had their shot of denying the refueling (and thus stopping the whaling operations) once but when contact was made, backed off. Later on in the show, it became clear that FOR THE MISSION, he wasn’t willing to risk it all for the whales.  Hammarstedt, however, was and was willing to put his small repurposed ship in the way of the refueling tanker ship and the whaling factory ship, Nissan Maru (which would haul the bodies of the killed whales up for processing).  Even being put into a listing situation as the Nissan Maru tried to push it out of the way (the optics was intense with the Nissan’s bow TOWERING over the stern of the M/V Bob Barker), his response was: “I have power. I am not backing down:  I will not move.  You will have to sink me,”

So he’s willing to be sunk from behind by one ship and willing to ignite a conflagration from the sparks from scraping alongside a tanker full of bunker oil – fumes, baby!  A mission signed up for voluntarily, put into a position of command and importance, decisions that could have far reaching affects to tens (if not a hundred plus) folks and three ships. Like his mission or not, like his political leanings or not, like his tactics or not, like his morality or not, it was clear that he was willing to risk his life for what he felt was right.

The Japanese, thinking they could roll Hammarstedt due to the lack of resolve of Pinho, learned otherwise.  They broke off the refueling operation and then left the whaling waters a couple of days later.  A retreat by one emboldened their later action against another.  His resolve to not let pragmatism (“Get out of there!”) overpower his Principles turned out to be a failure for the whaling fleet.

So, which Captain do you think was replaced in a hurry (Memory Hole’d from what it seems) and which was hailed as a hero by his base?  Which one let his Principles drive Pragmatism?  Silly question, isn’t it?

**************

Yet, after watching the show, the question hit me: where have I seen this behavior, this adherence to Principles and the willingness to sacrifice their lives (ok, their political careers) for a long held Principle?  Yeah, that would be the Democrats back when they passed Obamacare.  They knew, with the surging TEA Party movement and all the other common folks screaming “STOP!” that a bunch of them would lose their careers.  But their Progressive Principles drove their action – and voted to pass it anyways.

And in the end, they lost their careers.  Is is silly to ask: can this be applied to the RCW (Republican Civil War)?

Yes, and this IS the crux of the RCW.  The Sea Shepherds act by the mantra “by any means necessary”.   Ditto the Democrats.  Not so the Republicans.

And the Republicans?  We watch them in DC – it always “the next Fight” that we are told to be ready for – THEN we’ll make our stand.  Not the prior budget fights – they’ll allow that small leftward slide to larger government yet one more time.  Willing to do anything necessary to repeal or defund Obamacare?  That would be a Captain Pinho “not gonna do it”, fearing for their political lives.  Careers over country – why not put it out there?  They keep saying that our country is in the most dangerous situation ever – but at every time, we see the retreat of the French Republicans when they approach the political precipice(s).  How many are REALLY willing to put their words on the line?  How many have shown us that Principles override their Party?

Can’t have another shutdown over the budget. But wait until the Debt Ceiling comes up – again!  There, THERE we will make our stand!

Sure, duds – so tell us, when have we seen that Hammarstedt Resolve? The Sequester was a great beginning.  However, tThe Republicans are all back slapping themselves over this latest “bipartisan agreement” – which effectively killed the only real success they’ve had for a while.  So even after a win, they choose to lose: the Overton Window moves ever Leftward yet again – spending goes up, we’ll never see the vaunted savings that are mostly scheduled 10 years out – but boy, they can puff out their chests and preen their peacock feather, can’t they?

So many Republicans have asked “Where are we going to find our next Ronald Reagan?”.  Heck, I’d be happy to find a few Hammarstedts for the time being.

 

 

 

>