Although seals are killed under controlled conditions, the outcome is not always successful in that regard. Improvements can be made, and those who oppose the hunt, should be heard.

However, Watson’s claim is patently false. Law requires that all seal carcasses be recovered and brought on board. There are also guidelines and “best practices” involved here. For some actual insight on these practices, see the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare’s 2012 study The Canadian harp seal hunt: observations on the effectiveness of procedures to avoid poor animal welfare outcomes, carried out by veterinary organizations.

Even more recently, those same organizations carried out a full literature review in 2013 – A review of animal welfare implications of the Canadian commercial seal hunt: A critique, in response to a sorry excuse for a scientific study, carried out by Butterworth and Richardson.

A quote from the former:

From an animal welfare perspective, the intense focus on the Canadian seal hunt is perplexing. Hunts for various species of wild animals are carried out worldwide and involve annual harvests of hundreds of thousands of animals […] Moreover, considerations for animal welfare and standards of practice in other hunts are similar to, or less than, those currently required during the Canadian seal hunt. […] close to 6.5 million white-tailed deer were killed by sport hunters in North America in 2011 [20], without explicit guidelines for humane killing methods […] tens of millions of game birds [in the UK] are reared and released for shooting each year [21] […] close to 100,000 deer of four species are shot annually […] In Australia, close to 1.5 million kangaroos and wallabies were killed for commercial purposes in 2010 [24].

So, while anyone is well within their right to oppose controlled conservation practices, they should also consider the millions of other animals killed each year in organized – and sometimes less humane – hunts. Otherwise, why the lack of consistency? Watson’s disinformation campaign maybe?

Graphic Pictures (below)

A brownstone is a type of housing structure typically found in urban areas. They are very popular in NYC, particularly in the most densely populated boroughs, Brooklyn and Queens.

Brownstone is also the name of an American female contemporary R&B group that was popular during the mid-1990s.

In this case, Russian natural gas, 80% of which travels through the Ukraine. Naturally, disputes between Russia and Ukraine over this arrangement have occurred off and on since the dissolution of the USSR.

Due to the fact that these disputes often lead to short-term gas crises in the EU, they obviously want to mediate as best they can. Also, it couldn’t hurt if they started running the show, right? The EU made a big move around 2005-2006, when they expanded their INOGATE initiative, which has 4 guiding principles:

1. Enhancing energy security.
2. Convergence of member state energy markets on the basis of EU internal energy market principles. [my emphasis]
3. Supporting sustainable energy development.
4. Attracting investment for energy projects of common and regional interest.

According to Marcon International:

Ukraine is important to world energy markets because it is a critical transit center for exports of Russian oil and natural gas to Europe, as well as a significant energy consumer. Ukraine’s geographic position, linking East and West, while also holding critical warm water ports on the Black Sea, has made the country a trade link of growing importance between the former Soviet Union and Europe for energy and other goods.

In the absolute simplest terms here, this is essentially a fight over the control of distribution. Russia desperately needs to maintain influence in Ukraine, and has invested billions in Ukrainian infrastructure. At the same time, the EU desperately needs natural gas at a low price. Whoever has the most influence in Ukraine will have leverage in any business dealings.

According to one of the most in-depth books on the subject, Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook, I think it’s safe to say that – given the claims are true – this would certainly be characterized as a coup.

The actors here use the term “midwife” due to the way in which the West view this opportunity, i.e. to hastily “birth” a pro-Western bureaucracy, primarily in order to secure natural gas infrastructure in the Ukraine. From Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook:

…If we were revolutionaries, wanting to destroy the power of some of the political forces, and the long and often bloody process of revolutionary attrition can achieve this. Our purpose is, however, quite different: we want to seize power within the present system, and we shall only stay in power if we embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy. Should we want to achieve fundamental social change we can do so after we have become the government. This is perhaps a more efficient method (and certainly a less painful one) than that of a classic revolution.

Although somewhat counter-intuitive, a coup d'etat does not actually require any military-type force to intervene (though, it helps..) in order for it to be characterized as such.

The U.S. has historically been the foremost organizer of regime changes around the world. While all coups have traditionally been thought of as a threat to regional stability, modern political “scientists” have challenged this thought with the notion of democratic coup d'etat.

Also, check out some of Cicero’s work here on site:

De Officiis (On Duties)

• Dedicated to his son, Cicero the Younger, the elder statesman gives his views on the duties of civilized man.

Against Catiline

• Arguably one of the most famous speeches ever given, Cicero brought back the philippic with this one, and fired some major shots!

De Republica (On the Commonwealth)

• As many Romans had the tendency to do, Cicero extols the virtues of Roman government, and examines just what kind of people it takes to make it all work.

While this author is probably referring to Tea-Party libertarianism, The Lowell Mill girls – 19th century social libertarians and OG feminists – would have definitely had something to say about selling your body to enrich your mind:

When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress.

The main beef that the gals from Lowell would have had with Knox isn’t necessarily that she is a sex worker. Rather, it is that she does not actually own what she is producing (porn flicks). She essentially sells her body to porn producers, who then claim sole ownership of the fruits of her labor.

Playboy knows how to make something sound dirty, but this view fits in with the social exchange theory of sex:

By applying economic principles to social rewards, one can make predictions about how social behavior will proceed […] Interactions are only likely to continue if each
party gains more than it loses […] The value of what is gained and exchanged depends in part on the preferences of the individuals and in part on the broader market.

In other words, by all indications, sex is a female resource which is shared with men depending on what they offer in return. An argument could be made that what Knox does is much more honest than what many women do.

However, Knox presents a bit of a double standard, as she rejects the idea of sex as a predominantly female resource, while simultaneously getting paid way more than her male cohorts:

The most striking view I was indoctrinated with was that sex is something women “have,” but that they shouldn’t “give it away” too soon

American politics prides itself on smoke & mirrors, so some of these political ideologies are hard to nail down. Still, it’s very difficult to see how feminist values fit within libertarian principles.

In fact, an easy argument could be made for just how incompatible the two ideologies are (source: x):

• P1: Libertarianism instructs states and individuals not to interfere with people’s free choices.
• P2: We currently live in a sexist culture where patterns of free choice continue to disadvantage women (e.g. employment discrimination, the gender wage gap and troubling patterns of socialization).
• C: Libertarianism instructs states and individuals not to interfere with the perpetuation of sexism.

In other words, the dilemma here is between:

(a) States and individuals must interfere with sexist people’s free choices (e.g. states should violate freedom of contract and association to promote equal pay and fair employment procedures.

OR

(b) States ought to respect people’s free choices and thereby tolerate sexism.