Why I can't stand Paul McCartney
Granted, the man had a pretty good career with the Beatles.
And I'll admit that his Super Bowl halftime appearance was less cringe-inducing than most.
But his deciding to join the parade of celebrities decrying the seal hunt is really grinding my gears, as Peter Griffin would say.
Point one: The seal population is three times what it was when annoying celebrities deciding that Harp seal pups (pedantic grammatical aside: they are not baby seals. Only humans have babies.) were too cute, of all bloody things, to be killed. I've interviewed fishermen who blame the exploding seal population entirely for the complete collapse of the Atlantic Canadian fishery, and while I've no doubt that they're exaggerating, I don't think a three-fold increase in the population of a predator will have no impact on the population of prey.
Point two: The methods used to kill the seals are far more humane today than when, as mentioned above, annoying celebrities began to protest the seal hunt.
Point three: I give Paul McCartney credit for being consistent in his opposition to animal cruelty-he is, after all, the world's most famous vegetarian. But I would wager that a lot of the support his campaign receives is, in fact, of the "look at the adorable white seals-you can't kill them" variety. Of course, you can't legally kill the whitecoated pups. But you'd never know that from the images of the seals you see in anti-sealing advertisements, which are invariably the most plush-toy-like whitecoat the photographers can find.
Point four: The hunt is an economic necessity for a number of families in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's one thing to be opposed to bull-fighting or bear-baiting and so forth. They're not economic drivers. The seal hunt is. And the sight of one of the world's richest men airily telling impoverished Labradoreans that they can make it up with "eco-tourism" is frankly revolting. Aside from the fact that they can't (apparently, tourists would disturb the calving female seals too much, and besides who the hell wants to go to Labrador in late February or early March?) it's very easy to be pious when it's not your daily crust that's on the line.
So there. It's not just the terrible music of late ("Freedom," anyone?) or his bland public persona. Paul McCartney hasn't given us anything good since Let It Be.
And I'll admit that his Super Bowl halftime appearance was less cringe-inducing than most.
But his deciding to join the parade of celebrities decrying the seal hunt is really grinding my gears, as Peter Griffin would say.
Point one: The seal population is three times what it was when annoying celebrities deciding that Harp seal pups (pedantic grammatical aside: they are not baby seals. Only humans have babies.) were too cute, of all bloody things, to be killed. I've interviewed fishermen who blame the exploding seal population entirely for the complete collapse of the Atlantic Canadian fishery, and while I've no doubt that they're exaggerating, I don't think a three-fold increase in the population of a predator will have no impact on the population of prey.
Point two: The methods used to kill the seals are far more humane today than when, as mentioned above, annoying celebrities began to protest the seal hunt.
Point three: I give Paul McCartney credit for being consistent in his opposition to animal cruelty-he is, after all, the world's most famous vegetarian. But I would wager that a lot of the support his campaign receives is, in fact, of the "look at the adorable white seals-you can't kill them" variety. Of course, you can't legally kill the whitecoated pups. But you'd never know that from the images of the seals you see in anti-sealing advertisements, which are invariably the most plush-toy-like whitecoat the photographers can find.
Point four: The hunt is an economic necessity for a number of families in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's one thing to be opposed to bull-fighting or bear-baiting and so forth. They're not economic drivers. The seal hunt is. And the sight of one of the world's richest men airily telling impoverished Labradoreans that they can make it up with "eco-tourism" is frankly revolting. Aside from the fact that they can't (apparently, tourists would disturb the calving female seals too much, and besides who the hell wants to go to Labrador in late February or early March?) it's very easy to be pious when it's not your daily crust that's on the line.
So there. It's not just the terrible music of late ("Freedom," anyone?) or his bland public persona. Paul McCartney hasn't given us anything good since Let It Be.
posted by Ian Gray | 9:57 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home