Don't Go In The Water

In 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service, with the full support of the United States Congress (which at that time was controlled by Democrats -- in both houses), implemented stringent new regulations regarding shark fishing. The management plan included 39 species and established a quota of 2,570 metric tons for two groups of sharks: large coastal (e.g. sandbar, blacktip, dusky sharks) and pelagic (e.g. blue, mako, thresher sharks). In addition, the management plan set up a system of catch reporting to stop overfishing and close federal waters when necessary. The federal regulations apply out to 200 miles off the coast of the United States. However, these regulations do not apply to the first three miles off the coast of the United States. This area is state coastal waters and is regulated by each state.

So what have the states done? Let's look at Florida as an example. Florida bowed to environmentalists and made sharks -- all sharks -- a protected species. Shark fishing in Florida waters is still allowed, but anglers are limited to one per day. One. And boats with multiple fisherman are limited to two per boat -- even if there are twenty people in the boat. How can anybody look at this ridiculous governmental intervention and be surprised that the excess sharks are killing our children? For what it's worth, this legislation was put into place under the regime of Democratic governor Lawton Chiles; incidentally, the Supreme Court of Florida is also controlled by Democrats (this is the same court that tried to steal the state of Florida for Al Gore, who is an admitted environmentalist and probable shark-lover.) It should come as no surprise that these draconian regulations and attacks on personal freedom came as a result of Democratic rule.

This legislation, both at the federal and state level, is complete leftivist horseshit -- I'm afraid there is no more diplomatic way to describe it. Now, the enviro-commies will call me an "Earth-hater", but I tend to be a bit more practical about things. I'm one of these weirdos who thinks that human life is more important than shark life. If I'm given a choice between having a shark on my grill or having it on my jugular, then pass me the salt and give me the goddamned tongs, because we're cooking this son of a bitch. And my Sarah's got an apple pie in the oven for dessert.

Naturally, the usual suspects in Washington, D.C. have been quite silent on this issue. In particular, the silence has been deafening from Tom Daschle, the Majority Leader of the Senate. Daschle is an old-school leftivist and a big advocate of government regulations on wildlife and the environment. Much the same can be said about Richard Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives; Gephardt is one of the most left-leaning congressmen in the history of this nation, and in the wake of all of these shark attacks, the man has blood on his hands. Or is that blood in his jaws?

And what was Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) doing at the same time that a man was killed and his girlfriend wounded in a horrific Monday shark attack near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina? He was at a $5,000-a-plate Democratic fundraiser intended to help the Florida gubernatorial campaign of ex-Attorney General Janet Reno. Guess what happens to Florida shark policy if Reno gets elected, friends? That's right .. it gets worse, and more innocent people will be eaten. Remember, this is the same Janet Reno that killed countless children at Waco and sent an innocent young boy away from freedom and into the claws of a bloodthirsty Communist butcher.

Here's an interesting factoid: One of the biggest individual contributors to the DNC is filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Spielberg, as you probably recall, made a little film in 1975 about shark attacks. Jaws went on to be one of the biggest blockbusters in history; in fact, it was just released last year in DVD format to celebrate the film's 25th anniversary. Spielberg probably is making quite a killing (pun intended) off of the latest wave of shark attacks; the media interest and resulting paranoia will obviously cause interest in his movie to increase. You can bet that the Democratic politicians that Spielberg has in his pocket aren't going to be lifting any fishing regulations anytime soon .. not as long as Jaws is still making money, that is.

This much is clear; the recent wave of shark violence is a direct result of the big government policies of the Democratic party and its organizational structure, the DNC. The evidence trail isn't obvious .. it's blatant. If ever there was a case study to demonstrate why government meddling doesn't work, this is it. You know what's funny? The liberals want me (and the rest of White America) to apologize to the blacks for something that happened centuries ago and that we had nothing to do with (slavery), but those same liberals refuse to apologize to shark victims for something that they (the liberals) directly caused. How's that for a double standard?

Nothing that these people do surprises me any more.

One thing is clear: leftivism's body count is quickly becoming incalculable. The type of politics that is practiced by the Democratic party and those loyal to it have resulted in the horrible deaths of countless innocent souls. How many more shark attacks will it take for us to realize that these monsters ought to be removed from offices? How many more Columbines, Wacoes, Ruby Ridges, and Chandra Levies will it take for people to stand up to the DNC's "politically correct" smokescreen and say "enough is enough?" Our founding fathers are turning in their graves as they survey the collectivist dead zone that we're turning this nation into; luckily, we can still stop them if we fight them, and fight them together.

	Sarah is a real pretty name. (4.75 / 4) (#3)
	by elenchos on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:32:17 PM PST

	I've always thought so. For a while there, I was thinking that the always reliable seventypercent had taken a sudden right turn and was attacking progressives! It worries me to see that kind of political shift, especially when it happens in such a short period of time. Often a person in the midst of a personal crisis will display those kinds of symptoms, and drastic actions, even harmful ones, often follow in the wake of these kinds of outbursts. Especially when they are a sudden shift to the right of the political spectrum. But when I saw how you kept trying to draw attention to Jeb Bush's upcoming defeat to retain the Governorship of Florida, I realized where you were going here. And THEN the kicker at the end sealed it for me: "we can still stop them if we fight them, and fight them together." Emphasis on "together" of course. Good one. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Beg pardon? (4.25 / 4) (#4)
	by seventypercent on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:49:02 PM PST

	Especially when they are a sudden shift to the right of the political spectrum. When have I been anything but to the right of the political spectrum? I have been both consistently and proudly conservative. If you're accusing me of leftivistism, I'd like to see what your evidence is. -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	Freedom (2.50 / 4) (#6)
	by kenshi on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 12:32:09 AM PST

	What this country needs is freedom. For the past few decades it's been headed towards dictatorship fast. Soon we won't be able to legally own guns or speak our mind in public and people will wonder how it ever got that way. It sickens me to see we're becoming everything we've stood against.

	Guns are dangerous (4.00 / 4) (#7)
	by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:30:58 AM PST

	Soon we won't be able to legally own guns or speak our mind in public and people will wonder how it ever got that way. Isn't it pretty obvious why the pro-gun rights people will eventually disappear? Darwin explained this over a century ago: survival of the fittest. In a nation that is not at war, it is simply not a good survival strategy to play with guns. The high rate of "accidents" will ensure that the pro-gun people will soon exterminate themselves.

	You're an ignorant idiot (3.00 / 2) (#21)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:55:51 AM PST

	My family owns guns. At least three guns per person (probably skewed upwards even more by my survivalist, dealer license holding uncle with the machine guns). In the decades and decades of owning and using guns, thousands of deer, rabbits, and quail have died, but not one person. Not one person has even been injured by a gun. If you know how to handle and treat a gun, no unintended injuries or fatalities will occur. Of course, the liberals and demorcrats would have you believe jsut being within 20 feet of a locked, unloaded gun is a danger. It is with such hysterical propaganda that they will attempt to disarm America, and turn us into sheeple, unable to resists any odious laws government imposes upon us. Apparently, this is fine, you will welcome your shackles. Not me. A. Rightmann

	Ignorant? Me? (3.66 / 3) (#23)
	by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:49:17 AM PST

	So tell me, how do you expect anyone to take the pro-gun lobby seriously, when they use this totally moronic argument, which they claim proves that physicians are 9000 times more dangerous than gun owners. And it's not even a sick joke, they're dead serious. The difference between you and me is that when our uncles get old and are suffering from dementia; my uncle won't be carrying a machine gun when he forgets who he is. Btw, calling me an idiot won't make your morbid hobby the least bit less dangerous. It especially scares the shit out of me when you admit that you fully intend to kill people who disagree with you.

	Substitute gun for hammer, or car (3.00 / 2) (#29)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:49:53 AM PST

	to see the foolishness of your argument. Part of being a responsible gun owner, and being responsible to your family, is watching out for them. I would no more allow a senile uncle to have a machine gun than allow my grandmother with macular degenaration a pistol. We don't allow said grandmother to drive, either. A. Rightmann

	Ha! (3.66 / 3) (#30)
	by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:04:08 AM PST

	"Responsible gun owner", now that's a killer oxymoron (pun intended).

	gun rights (1.00 / 1) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 05:11:27 PM PST

	Guns are dangerous, and they should be controlled, much like we license car drivers. But to argue that ALL gun owners are idiots is specious. Ive known idiots with guns (shot a jeep with antlers mounted on the front, mistaking it for a deer), but most gun owners are very careful with these dangerous tools. The problem is that it only takes one idiot to do extreme amounts of harm, especially if automatic weapons, or semi-auto with large magazines are involved. I'm all for gun control, not banning guns. Where I live gun control is quite strong, and enjoys popular support. But a government drive to register ALL existing gun owners run into quite a bit of resistance (it still went forward) as most people argued it was a waste of money that would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Guns are dangerous and should be tightly regulated, but responsible people should not be kept from owning non-automated long weapons, with limited size magazines.

	I applaud you sir, for your voice of sanity (5.00 / 2) (#57)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 05:33:35 PM PST

	relatively untainted by the liberal media. You may wish to reconsider your opposal to automatic weapons. In the fight against tyranny, our Second Amendment rights are best insured by having access to the same kind of weapons that our potential oppressors have. A. Rightmann

	Animal lovers to blame? (2.33 / 3) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 03:51:22 AM PST

	That's quite confusing to me, because I thought the increase in shark attacks was due to to decline in Christian moral values, in this great Christian nation. God is punishing us for not electing Pat Robertson.

	True (5.00 / 2) (#38)
	by nx01 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:36:29 PM PST

	But what if they were bad Christians, such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc... "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	Sheesh. :) (1.00 / 3) (#16)
	by William Jefferson Klinton on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:16:08 AM PST

	Aww, come on. Next thing we know, you'll actually tell us that smoking pot and enjoying oral sex is wrong. :)) wink :)) -- Amateur politician, liberal, and sex enthusiast. There is no contradiction.

	More than enough naivete to go around (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:45:39 AM PST

	Now you're just being foolishly paranoid I'm sorry. I forgot to add my sarcasm HTML tags to that last sentence so the sarcasm impaired could more easily understand. why it is they want our citizens so afraid of what lies beneath the calm blue ocean? Then how do you explain Free Willy, Flipper or 60's surfer movies?

	Illogical (4.00 / 4) (#11)
	by seventypercent on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:49:55 AM PST

	I thought the increase in shark attacks was due to to decline in Christian moral values That would only make sense if the victims of these shark attacks were enemies of Christ (i.e., atheists, homosexuals, Catholics, etc.) As it stands, the majority of the people who have been bitten are White Christians. This is inconsistent with the idea of divine vengeance. -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	Jaws marathon (4.00 / 3) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 05:01:29 AM PST

	Apparently, Mr. Spielberg can see into the future since there was a Jaws movie marathon on TV in NC just before the last attack. Hey, maybe this is all a big conspiracy and he planned it?

	Oh come now, don't be naive (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by manifold on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:50:34 AM PST

	Hey, maybe this is all a big conspiracy and he planned* it?* Now you're just being foolishly paranoid. Of course Stephen Spielberg didn't plan these shark attacks. However, the influence that films such as Jaws, The Abyss, Deep Rising, Sphere and Virus has played upon the public perception of the ocean is not to be dismissed, and the links between Hollywood and the military-industrial complex are well documented. It makes you wonder exactly why is it that the Government are trying to spread such fear-mongering memes throughout our population, why it is they want our citizens so afraid of what lies beneath the calm blue ocean.

	Free Willy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
	by bc on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:56:44 AM PST

	Is about a whale. Just an attempt to undermine the USA's economic competitors, Norway and Japan. As for flipper, I understand dolphin meat is popular in China, so they are just beginning the campaign to destroy their native industries too, and starve their burgeoning populations of protein. ♥, bc.

	ahah! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by alprazolam on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:03:40 PM PST

	Then how do you explain Free Willy, Flipper or 60's surfer movies? The first two, along with countless others, are subtly trying to convince people that the proper way to enjoy "sea life" is by seeing it at a corporately run aquarium, as opposed to buying beachfront property and claiming rights to the animals that visit. If you need explaining why the government doesn't want private individuals owning coastal property, I have a hunch you aren't reading the right website. Surfer movies can be directly linked to post traumatic stress syndrome and other War related brain deficiencies.

	I was going to ask (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:40:30 PM PST

	what why the government doesn't want private individuals owning coastal property means, but then I thought that it would be best for you to keep your paranoia to yourself.

	actually, you may have done (5.00 / 2) (#41)
	by jsm on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 05:26:18 AM PST

	<SARCASM> is not one of the permitted HTML tags on adequacy; they are automatically stripped out by the filters. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Hrm. (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:07:01 PM PST

	My guess would be an enormous pyramid with a glowing red eye. But maybe that's just me.

	blame electricity (5.00 / 2) (#10)
	by motherfuckin spork on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:02:11 AM PST

	it is well known that sharks are keenly attuned to electrical impulses, be those of nerves telling a muscle to contract, or those of a sporty underwater wrist-watch or a someone's PDA with wireless internet on the shore. It is a simple matter of human interference with the shark's ability to detect a fish's movement. We must lobby to have all electrical devices banned from use on or near the oceans. It is the only way to keep both us and the sharks safe. I am not who you think I am.

	I blame fishermen (5.00 / 3) (#12)
	by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:03:50 AM PST

	We're overfishing the waters, pure and simple. The sharks have to eat something, and if we eliminate their natural prey, they will just have to find something else. The poor guy was just hungry, not evil.... [rant on] Of course I find it silly that people are talking about this like it's a big deal. The reason you hear about a shark attack everytime you turn on the tv (a tool of the devil if there ever was one,) is because they keep going over and over and over and over and over the same one. The coverage on the little boy in VA beach (30 miles from here, in fact) really sickens me. It's terrible how badly they've commercialized their son's death. I'm tempted to go on a killing spree to give the reporters something else to cover. Even if you spend all day in the water, you're still more likely to spontaneously combust than be eaten by sharks. (mild exaggeration, I know, but there are so many other things that are more dangerous and more likely. ) Which brings me to the core of my rant. People are now afraid of sharks simply because the media said 'Sharks will kill you. Don't go in the water. Obey us. Sharks will kill you....etc.' They decide what they want us to think, and then look for stories to emphasize it. Everyone thinks it must be a real problem if it's on every channel, but you've got to remember that's just how they work. Hell, where I am there was an arson attack at a local high school. The reporting? "Attempted arson at school, but back to the shark story" "Film at 11, Leftist Propoganda at 11:01" [rant off] As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	Fishermen have to make a living too (5.00 / 3) (#14)
	by seventypercent on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:26:42 AM PST

	We're overfishing the waters, pure and simple. The sharks have to eat something, and if we eliminate their natural prey, they will just have to find something else. The poor guy was just hungry, not evil.... The problem is not overfishing. Fishermen are people too, and they (like a lot of people) have families to feed. In addition, they often have dogs, kittens, etc. to take care of as well. I don't know what you're advocating by suggesting that their livelihood be taken away from them, but I will say this: This is not Europe. The last thing that we need is a bunch of mile-long bread lines and burning trash barrels marring our cities. No, the problem is not overfishing; if anything, it is underfishing. The problems that you mention relating to the dietary needs of sharks would not exist if the liberals allowed fishermen to fish for sharks! When you consider the current liberal policy that allows fishermen to yank metric tons of everything except sharks, it's no wonder that there is such an imbalance. Let the fishermen equally fish for everything; this is an effective way to guarantee that the existing ecological balance is maintained, and that sharks do not have to wander into bathing areas to feast on human beings when they could be munching on their natural prey. Of course, the enviro-commies will start throwing around phrases like "endangered species" and "extinction", but come on .. how stupid do they think we are? How many shark attacks are there on innocent people each day? These animals certainly don't seem to be "endangered" to me. Honestly, even if we were to somehow wipe out the entire specifies, if God was such a big fan of these animals He couid just make some more of them. Nobody has died or been seriously injured by the fact that there are no more dodo birds or passenger pigeons. There's no reason to assume it would be any different for sharks, which are viscious and unredeeming predators. -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	Taste like chicken (none / 0) (#17)
	by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:39:10 AM PST

	Sorry, didn't mean to speak against fishermen. I really did mean fishing, not fishermen. Your solution sounds great to me. After all, the sharks like to eat us, so why not return the favor? I hear it tastes pretty good. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	actually (none / 0) (#18)
	by motherfuckin spork on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:42:40 AM PST

	I've been told shark tastes like crap - not litterally, mind you, but shark meat is not very tender and the flavor is fairly nasty. But, as seeing how I despise seafood, I'm probably slightly biased. I am not who you think I am.

	Don't tell the UKians (none / 0) (#19)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:48:21 AM PST

	for apparently there national dish, fish and chips, is typically made with dogfish, which is a kind of shark. Say what you want about those British folk, but they are refreshingly free of any kind of sentiment towards lesser life forms. A. Rightmann

	Shark fin (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by specom on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:08:48 AM PST

	The fin makes tasty soup. Throw the rest away. Unless you want to start a quack remedy company, then save the cartilage. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

	Skinny europeans (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:50:16 AM PST

	This is not Europe. The last thing that we need is a bunch of mile-long bread lines and burning trash barrels marring our cities. It never occured to me before, but in Europe people starve to death, while in the US people die of obesity. This is probably why Europe don't have a shark problem. Europeans are too skinny and tasteless!

	Good point (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:29:40 AM PST

	After all, the attack that's been getting most of the press around here was on a pudgy little boy. Although I'm guessing he was pretty short (he's only 10 after all) he sure had some meat on them bones... Of course that's another reason I haven't been to worried about getting in the water. After all, the shark is probably full right now, so it should be safe for a few days still. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	over fishing (1.00 / 1) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 04:59:18 PM PST

	Are you insane! You truly think that more fishing is required? And what will all these fishermen catch once all the fish are gone? Only 400 years ago the Grand Banks had so many fish (cod) that you could lower a basket into the water, and pull it out full. Now there is not enough cod to support a commercial fishery. Fisherman have every right to fish, but it is short sighted to have so many fishermen, using such efficient means that you catch so many fish that they can not replenish themselves. Would you tell a rancher having a hard year to slaughter all his cattle, thus ensuring the end of his business? Shark attacks are DOWN, world-wide, compared to last year. The only difference is that photogenic american children were bitten instead of smarmy surf bums.

	Too true (3.66 / 3) (#13)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:23:33 AM PST

	like the Communists in Russia, the Democrats won't be happy until every last private fisherman is ruined, and there are no more sea-worthy boats in private hands. It's all about control, masquerading as earth-friendliness. A. Rightmann

	Hey, back off there. (1.00 / 2) (#15)
	by William Jefferson Klinton on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:55:23 AM PST

	I don't see anything wrong with Communism. I've been to Russia in the swingin' 60's, (while evading the draft :)) and it seems to me like a really nice place. The people there seemed really tolerant, and laid-back. I think our nation really has something to learn from those "communists", as you call them. -- Amateur politician, liberal, and sex enthusiast. There is no contradiction.