NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Banning whaling"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #70


Proposed by: WhaleCo Global LLC

Description: UN Resolution #70: Banning whaling (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 1): NOTING the passage of United Nations Resolution #119, UNCoESB;

2): FURTHER NOTING article 7 of UNCoESB which bans all hunting of endangered species, in addition to other provisions which ensure the survival of endangered species;

3): EXPRESSING its gratitude for the protection granted by Resolution #70 in the intermediate period before the passage of Resolution #119;

4): CONVINCED that Resolution #70 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;

5): BELIEVING that the removal of unnecessary legislation is in the best interests of the member nations of the UN;

6): THE UNITED NATIONS hereby repeals United Nations Resolution #70, Banning whaling.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the General Assembly, greetings. I am J. Milford Fairlington III, Chief Legal Counsel for WhaleCo Global LLC and I am honored to present to you our repeal of UNR #70, "Banning whaling".

Our team of legal scholars has produced a document of unassailable accuracy and clarity which lays out an unimpeachable case for the repeal of this once useful, but now unnecessary legislation.

During the course of the coming debate, I and my colleagues will endeavor to prove beyond doubt the pressing need to repeal United Nations Resolution 70.

I'd like to take the time now to introduce a couple of my colleagues who will be assisting me in explaining to you the whaling industry, its techniques and the many ways in which our civilization benefits from the harvesting of these animals.

On my left is Captain Thomas Grayson, our staff technical adviser and a 40 year veteran of our whaling operations. You may call him "Cap'n Tom".

*a grizzled man of about 60 years of age scowls and glares at the assembly with his one good eye*

On my right is Chef Tony Ito, director of our Culinary Research Institute.

*an asian gentleman bows toward the audience*

We look forward to a spirited debate and the successful passage of this repeal. Thank you.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Mmm... hushpuppies...

I've never gotten around to having whale for dinner. This repeal has reminded me of my goal to try it, and for that I thank the author.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Would it be out of order to ask if the proposal author might have a hidden agenda? ;)

Would it be out of order to ask if the proposal author might have a hidden agenda? ;)

If it is hidden, it's not hidden very well.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll take my whale deep-fried. Everything tastes better when it's deep-fried.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

First, we vote for the repeal. Next, I have been asked to read out a letter from one of my former constituents.

Dear Mr. Ito,

My husband enjoys a good whale dinner, and I like the aromatic smells that permeate the kitchen as I fry up a tasty steak, but I never know what meat to buy. As we do not live by the sea it is very hard to get fresh whale, but our local fishmongers offers a reasonably good selection. However, it is more expensive that the deep-frozen Whale Meals at the local supermarket. Is the extra expense worth the added taste, or are Whale Meals of good quality too?

Also, summer is on its way, and we are thinking of setting up our outside barbecue. Would whale make a suitable meat for cooking, and if so, what might go well with it? I have heard a slice of lemon really brings out the taste of some good, lean orca.

Mrs Perkins
21, Allthrop Row
Highmark City

As an experienced hunter of long standing, we are very much in favour of allowing such hunting as does not endanger species. Our concern is simply that with prey as large as whales commonly are, Resolution #70 makes some valid points about the problems involved in cleanly killing them. Would the honoured ambassador object if we were to introduce proposals on ethical hunting in a subsequent discussion?

Now, usually I just use a big sharp harpoon with many unnecessary barbs and hooks at the end to do my hunting. 'Course, I use that for whatever it is I'm hunting, so thar's a moot point.

I will tell you that narwhal is some real tender meat. Dip it in butter, fry it in a pan... mmmm. Pass me some a' that!


Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire

Whale. The other...other...white meat

In response to Mrs. Perkins, I would like to introduce my personal chef Lireme.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Lireme bounds into the chamber, dressed in his usual white chef's attire.

Welcome to Lireme Live! Folks, I've got a tasty treat for you today -- baked whale! Now, if you think pork fat rules...mmm-mmm-mmm! Whale meat? With all the blubber? Now that's some great stuff!

Lireme heads over to a kitchen that has appeared in front of the Cluichstani delegation's seats. He faces the assembly with a broad smile.

Okay, first we take about two pounds of whale meat and cube it. Next, we take a little bit of olive oil, some red wine...

He pauses after pouring some wine into a large glass bowl.

Yeah, well...let's use a good bit of red wine!

He pours more wine into the bowl, causing the assembly to laugh and applaud.

Then we throw in about a teaspooon of peppercorns and a cup of salt...one minced garlic clove, one minced onion...and, of course, a little Essence. BAM!

Now we're gonna use this to marinade the whale meat for about two or three hours, and then pop it into an oven at 300 degrees -- yes, Fahrenheit, you metric freaks! -- for about an hour, and we'll end up with...

He pulls a dish, already cooked through, from another oven.

Ta-da! Delicious baked whale!

When we come back, we'll stir up an incredible elephant stew, perfect for huge parties...right here...on Lireme Live!

First, we vote for the repeal. Next, I have been asked to read out a letter from one of my former constituents.Dear Mr. Ito,

My husband enjoys a good whale dinner, and I like the aromatic smells that permeate the kitchen as I fry up a tasty steak, but I never know what meat to buy. As we do not live by the sea it is very hard to get fresh whale, but our local fishmongers offers a reasonably good selection. However, it is more expensive that the deep-frozen Whale Meals at the local supermarket. Is the extra expense worth the added taste, or are Whale Meals of good quality too?

Also, summer is on its way, and we are thinking of setting up our outside barbecue. Would whale make a suitable meat for cooking, and if so, what might go well with it? I have heard a slice of lemon really brings out the taste of some good, lean orca.

Mrs Perkins
21, Allthrop Row
Highmark City
I would be honored to address Mrs Perkins' queries about the proper preparation of whale meat.

To experience the full succulent flavor of whale it is always preferable to procure fresh whale meat, in fact the more freshly killed the better. However, in these fast paced times it is not always possible or economically feasible to serve fresh whale to your family. That's why we at WhaleCo Global LLC have developed our Snappy Whale line of frozen whale entrees. Each Snappy Whale product is laboriously tested and carefully processed by us to deliver that wholesome whale flavor you expect, but without all the fuss and expense of fresh whale.

Now to your second question. Yes! Whale is the perfect meat for grilling, both indoors and outdoors. Just prepare your grill as you normally would and cook the whale steaks 4-5 minutes each side (depending on thickness). Whale is best served medium rare, but as always you may adjust this to suit your family's taste. I'll be giving various cooking demonstrations throughout the coming days and whale steak is one of the items I will be preparing.

I hope this has been helpful.

*bows*

Chef Tony Ito
Director, Culinary Research Institute
WhaleCo Global LLC

As an experienced hunter of long standing, we are very much in favour of allowing such hunting as does not endanger species. Our concern is simply that with prey as large as whales commonly are, Resolution #70 makes some valid points about the problems involved in cleanly killing them.
We're workin' on a new generation of guided harpoons that'll raise the kill rate to 100%, so the poor liddle whales (cursed beasts) won't suffer a bit. They look like this. (http://www.ausairpower.net/Harpoon-Cutaway-S.jpg)


Would the honoured ambassador object if we were to introduce proposals on ethical hunting in a subsequent discussion?
All whale huntin' is already ethical, sonny. We put food in yer children's mouths and useful products on the shelves.

Cap'n Tom

Leetha gauges the distance between her desk and the aisle. Neighboring delegates, were they listening, would have heard... watery grave, my eye. I'll send that peg-legged, Ahab knock-off to a dry, dusty end at the bottom of the stairs.

Have you people no shame? No compassion for other living things? Is to hunt and kill and eat all you think about? Rise above your base instincts for once and demonstrate you actually belong at the top of the food chain.

You're all wrong. The only way to eat a whale is fried in Zar sauce and seaweed, with a side of Menata fries.

For the repeal, by the way.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I can't believe it. My replacement, voting for legalized whaling. How sad. How very sad.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

Watch yourself on puppeteering....

*mutters about Jolt time*

For the repeal, by the way.
I can't believe it. My replacement, voting for legalized whaling. How sad. How very sad.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

Um, Support. I hope many of Mr. Ito's recipes will be submitted to the Stranger's Bar as well.

Dr. Jules Hodz

Leetha gauges the distance between her desk and the aisle. Neighboring delegates, were they listening, would have heard... watery grave, my eye. I'll send that peg-legged, Ahab knock-off to a dry, dusty end at the bottom of the stairs.

Have you people no shame? No compassion for other living things? Is to hunt and kill and eat all you think about? Rise above your base instincts for once and demonstrate you actually belong at the top of the food chain.


Honey bear, you do me nah justice! Killin' tha thing's not the only part, first ya gotta track it down, chase it 'round a bit, wear it down, then strike. Just like the wolf does.

'course, we've gotta care for 'em, too. My private buffelephant herds have the best food and free reign on my estates! Heck, I even have 'em cloned so there's more to go around! It's all about herd management, tha's what this all a'boils down to- managin' how much yer killin'. My morninguana (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/drippy1.jpg) flocks are all well-cared for!

Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire

Watch yourself on puppeteering....
OOC: I don't intend to make a habit of it.

I'm thinking of WhaleCoGlobal, LLC Director Parbroiled. Nothing too fancy, just neutron bomb barbecued from the inside out to perfection, served in a light lemon butter sauce.

For my last vote in the UN a resounding "feck off."

We wonder if the board of directors of this "WhaleCo Global LLC" would enjoy being chased around and then speared with sharp objects until they were dead, and then eaten. We doubt it.

And yes, Altanar is opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We're workin' on a new generation of guided harpoons that'll raise the kill rate to 100%, so the poor liddle whales (cursed beasts) won't suffer a bit. They look like this. (http://www.ausairpower.net/Harpoon-Cutaway-S.jpg)
We like the way you think.

All whale huntin' is already ethical, sonny. We put food in yer children's mouths and useful products on the shelves.
We would beg to disagree, especially since someone (::the ambassador glares at the elected portion of his delegation, who seem entirely happy with this.::) seems to have informed the press in Gobbannium about this. And been remarkably careless about dropping 'h's in the process, if we may say so. In any case, your methods would seem to be entirely within the bounds of what we would consider ethical.

Have you people no shame? No compassion for other living things? Is to hunt and kill and eat all you think about? Rise above your base instincts for once and demonstrate you actually belong at the top of the food chain.
Madame, you make an elementary error common to many of the epistles that we have begun to receive from the citizens of our nation. We are showing our respect for wildlife and the natural way by engaging animals on their own terms, to wit predator and prey. We rise above mere nature by hunting ethically, avoiding causing unnecessary pain where that is possible. We eat what we kill both to avoid waste and to demonstrate that we are at the top of the food chain; what justification need be made for observable fact?

We wonder if the board of directors of this "WhaleCo Global LLC" would enjoy being chased around and then speared with sharp objects until they were dead, and then eaten. We doubt it.
What makes whales so special? Unless you're for the complete banning of all hunting activities, this argument has little merit. And if you are for said complete ban, one would assume that you'd be for the repeal, so as to avoid duplication of an existing resolution.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

A strange sound thrums briefly through the General Assembly before the gnomish translators take over. Their skill is such that they reproduce perfectly the sorrowful tones, while translating into the common tongue the words, of the First Singer of Worldsong:

Once, a human understood how it is with you. His name was John Blight. He sang for us thusly:

When the mouse died, there was a sort of pity;
The tiny, delicate creature made for grief.
Yesterday, instead, the dead whale on the reef
Drew an excited multitude to the jetty.
How must a whale die to wring a tear?
Lugubrious death of a whale; the big
Feast for the gulls and sharks; the tug
Of the tide simulating life still there,
Until the air, polluted, swings this way
Like a door ajar from a slaughterhouse ...

There is more, but I will not quote it. It would claim too much. The whales you hunters wish to kill are not sapients. Nevertheless we, the whales of Worldsong, have come to speak for our forebears.

We do not expect it to do any good. Humans, in their time, have slaughtered their own speechless forefathers. Why should ours be any different? Moreover, just as you have eaten us, we have eaten you. And what both of us have done to the dolphins ...(the translation breaks down, then resumes)

But now we understand what we have done, and we are sorry. We sing that sorrow still. There are some races here who could be spared that guilt. Humans and whales both, we are tainted. Our intelligence was sustained at the cost of others who might have swum beyond us. But you who have not done that -- dolphins, cats, wolves, dra--

(He notes the presence of Mme Vermithrax)

some dragons -- all the strange and different races who make up this United Nations -- some of you have a chance to glide cleanly through your currents.

The First Singer pauses, plainly drawing together his powers for the most tellingly persuasive phrase he can discover:

We ask you, think of your children.

* Overfishing is a serious problem which is depleting the marine environment by upsetting its natural ecosystem.

* Whales are a highly-developed mammal with advanced social and communications systems.

* Whales already face many threats including entanglement in fishing nets, noise disturbance and pollution.

* Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place.

* The current motorised harpoon method of killing whales is barbarous, causing a slow and agonising death to the creature involved.

* There is little that can now be learned from 'scientific whaling'. Scientific enquiry can take place without the need for slaughtering its subjects.

* A voluntary moratorium on whaling is not working. Pro-whaling nations will simply subvert it for their own ends by vote-buying or by abusing so-called 'scientific whaling'.

Proposing that:

* Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.

* A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling.

* Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.

Votes For: 12,385
Votes Against: 3,684

What a wonderful resolution. Who in their right mind would want to repeal it? Clearly only sinister whalers I suppose. Vote no, vote early and vote often!

*snip*

James, get me old' Spikey Sally, and oil 'er up real good. We got ourselves a talkin' whale!

Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire

I notice that you refer to the 'forefathers' of humans as "speechless." There has never been a point where modern, speaking humans slaugthered their forebears, and if you are referring to the hunting of chimpanzees by humans I recommend you take a refresher course in elementary evolution.

Other than that, I have no idea what you're supposed to be singing about. I do speak a bit of whale, though, let me try...

MmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhMhhhhhhhhm OAHAaaaaaaaaaaaahamaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmahhhhhhhhhhha?

MAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaammmmmhaaahaooooooooooahaaaoaaahmmmmm?

Amin al-Satal, Ph.D
Advisor

Have you people no shame? No compassion for other living things? Is to hunt and kill and eat all you think about? Rise above your base instincts for once and demonstrate you actually belong at the top of the food chain.

We are demonstrating that we belong at the top of the food chain, by eating those creatures below us.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Hey Lireme, qooeet hurneeng in oon my terreetury. Iferyune-a knoos I'm zee ooreeginel cheff in zee UN booeelding. Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

What makes whales so special? Unless you're for the complete banning of all hunting activities, this argument has little merit. And if you are for said complete ban, one would assume that you'd be for the repeal, so as to avoid duplication of an existing resolution.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Since we would be in favor of a ban on hunting, you might not want to give us ideas about writing a new resolution....

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Let me put it this way. Whales are fish. No matter what those bead wielding hippies say about them being mammels, about being intellgent (yeah. Let's see a Whale create New York!) about having good sonar (bollocks. How many bat's do you see getting caught in fishing nets) and all that hippy crap. It's just rubbish. Whales are not mammels, so stop trying to get into the cool gang, gill boy..

What a wonderful resolution. Who in their right mind would want to repeal it? Clearly only sinister whalers I suppose. Vote no, vote early and vote often!
We are surprised that more of the usual suspects have not been observing that the justificatory arguments of the resolution under consideration are covered by the subsequent legislation concerning endangered species. The only operative matter that does not derive its authority from those remarks is the commission studying overfishing, and even that could be regarded as implicit in Article 5 of the UN Conservation of Endangered Species Bill. Does anyone know whether this commission has reported back as yet?

Let me put it this way. Whales are fish. No matter what those bead wielding hippies say about them being mammels, about being intellgent (yeah. Let's see a Whale create New York!) about having good sonar (bollocks. How many bat's do you see getting caught in fishing nets)Yeah, well how many bats do you see flying underwater?
and all that hippy crap. It's just rubbish. Whales are not mammels, so stop trying to get into the cool gang, gill boy..

Psst, it's spelled mammals.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Never had whale before... fire and water, and all that. Boy... I sure miss mastodon... cows just don't have enough meat on their bones, and elephants are just a pale imitation.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I'm thinking of WhaleCoGlobal, LLC Director Parbroiled. Nothing too fancy, just neutron bomb barbecued from the inside out to perfection, served in a light lemon butter sauce.

For my last vote in the UN a resounding "feck off."

We wonder if the board of directors of this "WhaleCo Global LLC" would enjoy being chased around and then speared with sharp objects until they were dead, and then eaten. We doubt it.

And yes, Altanar is opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

First, a word on LLC's. Many people make the mistake of assuming that an LLC is a type of corporation and that like a corporation, it has a board of directors, stockholders, etc. This is incorrect. LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. Unlike corporations, LLC's may have a sole member or be operated as a partnership.

In many cases, the identity of the partners in an LLC are public record. WhaleCo Global LLC, however, was organized under Yeldan law which allows the details of the partnership to remain confidential. I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of our partners, but let me assure you that their names would be recognized in these halls.

Now. On to your questions and statements. The honorable representative from Schwarzchild has posited an attack on our "director" with neutron weapons. Let me say that we take such threats seriously and that we are not surprised that you would advocate the use of such weaponry. After all, whales are known to exhale gases through their enormous blowholes which have been proven to contribute to global warming. Therefore it is hardly startling that an anti-whaling advocate would suggest the use of weapons which would wreak havoc upon the natural environment which sustains and protects us all.

Ambassador Agaranth of Altanar asks: "We wonder if the board of directors of this "WhaleCo Global LLC" would enjoy being chased around and then speared with sharp objects until they were dead, and then eaten?" Most assuredly they would not. May I infer from your question that you are attempting to draw some sort of analogy to whale hunting? I would remind you that whales, being animals, are a resource to be harvested for the betterment of mankind. What you are advocating with your remarks is the murder of human beings. Shame!

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

A strange sound thrums briefly through the General Assembly before the gnomish translators take over. Their skill is such that they reproduce perfectly the sorrowful tones, while translating into the common tongue the words, of the First Singer of Worldsong:

Once, a human understood how it is with you. His name was John Blight. He sang for us thusly:

When the mouse died, there was.....Bark! Bark-bark! Bark!
What is it, Lassie?

Bark! Bark-bark-bark! Bark-bark!
What, Timmy's fallen in the well?

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Hey Lireme, qooeet hurneeng in oon my terreetury. Iferyune-a knoos I'm zee ooreeginel cheff in zee UN booeelding. Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef
Would honorable Chef Sven and honorable Chef Lireme be willing to battle me in a Whale Cookoff? I am certain that the members of this assembly would be entertained by the display of our culinary arts?

Chef Tony Ito

Would honorable Chef Sven and honorable Chef Lireme be willing to battle me in a Whale Cookoff? I am certain that the members of this assembly would be entertained by the display of our culinary arts?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/whalebattle.jpg

Ah, Mr Fairlington, one cannot but admire your dogged devotion to your corporate masters, but I fear you're barking up the wrong tree. For consider: if your poor Timmy is in the well, no doubt we will hear a ding-dong-dell -- and when we do, ask not for whom it tolls, Mr Fairlington, it tolls for us; for our species, for all those who cannot overcome their terrible instinct to take the life of another being.

Oh, I can remember how it was, Mr Fairlington; when I am my great-grandfather, I can recall the rush of angry joy as I surface directly under the fragile vessel, the tiny bodies falling all around. The Pod allows me to experience that memory often; it gives me such insight into your kind. I, too, understand that a battle with a great and capable fellow-creature is more exhilarating than the almost willing slaughter of docile food-beasts. If I were human I, too, would be tempted to hunt.

But perhaps, Mr Fairlington, perhaps I would be able to overcome my blood-soaked instincts, to hunt not whales, but Wales, so that I might sing, not to the pack, but to the Pod, or to that of the Pod that is in me.

But if I cannot yet awaken that which is in you -- and I do not despair, Mr Fiarlington, it is there -- there are others here who may someday learn to listen beyond the roaring of their own blood in their ears. Prince Rhodri, for all that you are a hunter, you have the heart of a poet: will you not sing your human songs to this assembly, instead of following meekly along the dry, dusty paths of lawyerly obfuscation?

I am humbled that I may share with the representatives of Altanar, Rubina Schwarzchild and the Retired Werepenguins the task of passionate and compassionate opposition to this repeal. It is not so much the protection that the resolution provides that we seek to preserve; rather, it is the principle that it embodies. If this body can learn to treat one species as neighbours, rather than as prey, in time to come it may extend that boon to others.

If this body can learn to treat one species as neighbours, rather than as prey, in time to come it may extend that boon to others.Stop, stop... I'm drowning in the irony...

Some of us, whales included, are carnivores.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

True, Madame, but we of Worldsong swim new currents. Sheep, even the extremely fluffy ones, may safely graze.

Since we would be in favor of a ban on hunting, you might not want to give us ideas about writing a new resolution....

Silence, veggie freak!

Would honorable Chef Sven and honorable Chef Lireme be willing to battle me in a Whale Cookoff? I am certain that the members of this assembly would be entertained by the display of our culinary arts?

I'm sure Chef Lireme would be interested, especially if it were televised (he's a bit of a media whore). Just go ahead and set it up.

True, Madame, but we of Worldsong swim new currents. Sheep, even the extremely fluffy ones, may safely graze.

Even killer mutant sheep (http://www.ifilm.com/video/2810911)?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*image snip*

OOC: Damn you, Hack! You beat me to it. The first thing that went through my mind when the cook-off was mentioned was Chairman Kaga shouting "IRON CHEEEEFFFFF!!!" :D

Would honorable Chef Sven and honorable Chef Lireme be willing to battle me in a Whale Cookoff? I am certain that the members of this assembly would be entertained by the display of our culinary arts?

Chef Tony Ito

Vuoold I get tu breeng in my oovn suoos cheffs tu esseest me-a? Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

For the first instance in a long time Sen Sulla actually appears interested in the Debate on the Floor.

"Gentlemen, It is with great pleasure I thank the Repersentatives from WhaleCo, for bringing this repeal up for vote. Apparently one has to point out to some people that the resulution is already redundant as there is already a law on the books protecting endagered species. If a species of whale is endangered its already has protection. Now to more important matters, we of the Palentine have found that Orca makes a damn fine substitute for genuine Dolphin filer in our line of Palentine's Best(TM) canned Tuna. We are intersted if one of the estemed reps of WhaleCo might have any recipies for Orca. Also I feel its now time to address one of my other collegues here on the Floor."

Sen. Sulla reaches into his jacket and removes his wallet. He opens it up and counts out 10 bills. He puts his wallet away, picks up the money, and speaks once more into his microphone..

"I have in my nicotine stained fingers 10 new, crisp, $100 dollar Bills. I'm going to offer a challenge to my collegue Iron Felix. If he can manage to defenestrate a whale off this building, I'll give him this $1000 dollars."

Sulla smiles and asks,
"So up to the challenge, old boy?"

Cluichstan happily provides a whale for Senator Sulla's challenge!

http://www.marlboroughjuniors.org/whale/images/whale_cartoon.gif

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm sure Chef Lireme would be interested, especially if it were televised (he's a bit of a media whore). Just go ahead and set it up.

Vuoold I get tu breeng in my oovn suoos cheffs tu esseest me-a? Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef
I will contact UN Building Management about constructing the set. We can utilize that unused area of the General Assembly hall over there. *points to an unused corner of the chamber* And of course it will be televised.

RULES

1. Each team must create a three-course meal based on whale meat, blubber or other whale derived product.

2. Teams shall not exceed 7 members (including sous-chefs, assistants, etc.)

3. One dish must be a main course item, the other dishes are team choice.

4. Three fully stocked kitchens will be provided but teams may provide their own pots and pans, cooking and serving utensils, spices, etc if they wish. WhaleCo will provide the main theme ingredient (whale).

OOC RULE

We can do the cookoff in this thread but try not to turn it into a full-blown hijack. Place cookoff posts at appropriate intervals.

Chef Tony Ito

But perhaps, Mr Fairlington, perhaps I would be able to overcome my blood-soaked instincts, to hunt not whales, but Wales, so that I might sing, not to the pack, but to the Pod, or to that of the Pod that is in me.
::Prince Rhodri looks quite put out by this remark::

Prince Rhodri, for all that you are a hunter, you have the heart of a poet: will you not sing your human songs to this assembly, instead of following meekly along the dry, dusty paths of lawyerly obfuscation?
We regret to inform you that whatever our other talents may be, music is not a skill possessed by any of the Royal Family of Gobbannium; we are universally tone deaf. Our subjects have fine voices indeed, we are told; we do not.

Further, is it not true that each has his own path to follow? Those paths that may seem to you dry and dusty are a joyful exercise of intellect to us, and we hunt the truth through them with vigour, not meekness.

Silence, veggie freak!
While we undestand your outburst, Sheik Nadnerb, we must disagree. However distasteful we may find the ambassador's suggestion, in this place of all places she has the right to be heard.

We are demonstrating that we belong at the top of the food chain, by eating those creatures below us.
Honey bear, you do me nah justice! Killin' tha thing's not the only part, first ya gotta track it down, chase it 'round a bit, wear it down, then strike. Just like the wolf does.
Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire
Madame, you make an elementary error .... We are showing our respect for wildlife and the natural way by engaging animals on their own terms, to wit predator and prey. We rise above mere nature by hunting ethically, avoiding causing unnecessary pain where that is possible. We eat what we kill both to avoid waste and to demonstrate that we are at the top of the food chain; what justification need be made for observable fact?Gentlemen, the problem is that what you describe is not hunting as a means of survival, but hunting as sport. With rare exception *Leetha nods in the direction of Observer Pejorative* we in this body artificially manipulate the food chain and in doing so obligate ourselves to preserve the natural balance of all trophic levels. Until you hunt with an equal chance of being hunted your display of "respect" to the natural world is hollow. We seriously doubt Mr. Roosevelt will ever come round to this view, but are surprised that Prince Rhodri is confused on the matter.

Leetha stops to take a drink of water, makes an odd face...I do wish they would quit messing with the water in this building; it was quite tasty just last week.

There appears to be a shocking lack of knowledge of basic biology in the halls today. No, whales are not fish, Sir Cyril. They occupy the same taxonomic class as homo sapiens. Their off-spring are live-birthed, they suckle their young via mammary glands, and possess hair (albeit in small amounts).

Whales occupy top trophic levels in the food web making them, like many here in this assembly (excepting, of course the delegation from Pirate Cows) tertiary consumers. They are carnivores, even the baleen feeders. Like other high trophic niche holders, whales have small populations, relative to trophic levels below them and produce a low number of offspring during each breeding season, 1-2 calves at most. And, as with other high trophic niche holders, they are subject to increased environmental threats. Their high degree of intelligence and flexibility allows them to accommodate those threats creating an unfortunate problem. Their populations do not reflect in a timely manner too aggressive harvesting, habitat destruction and other population impacts until such time as they are experiencing a precipitous decline.

Much is made in this attempt to repeal of the duplication of legislation between UNR#70 (banning whaling) and UNR#119, The United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill.

There is no duplication between the resolution up for repeal and the UNCoESB. As beneficial as UNCoESB is, it does not address methods of hunting/harvesting (concerned only with quotas), does not protect animals whose continued existence is threatened (protecting only endangered species), and in the case of aquatic species, runs the risk of ineffectiveness.

The last point is due to the fact that oversight of aquatic species populations is difficult to accurately accomplish, due primarily to the sheer size of the NS oceans. Sightings and analysis of fishermen's catches are the primary method of cenus-taking for aquatic species. This indirect method results in a significant delay between onset of a lowered population, which should trigger UNCoESB protection, and observation of lowered population and actual triggering of protection.

The answer is, of course, to supplement the UNCoESB with additional legislation. That is not, however, a short-term endeavor. A mere three years ago, this body acknowledged the dangerously low populations of the various whale species and enacted a ban. Assuming even perfect reproductive conditions and conformance to the ban on hunting (and given the number of delegations here touting, tasty, tender whale meat, that's certainly doubtful) whale numbers can only be marginally better than they were three years ago. Until such time as threatened species, and not just endangered, are allotted protection, the ban on whaling needs to remain in place and UNR#70 must remain on the books.

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador to UN

There is no duplication between the resolution up for repeal and the UNCoESB. As beneficial as UNCoESB is, it does not address methods of hunting/harvesting (concerned only with quotas), does not protect animals whose continued existence is threatened (protecting only endangered species), and in the case of aquatic species, runs the risk of ineffectiveness.

Surely, if it's continued existance is threatened, it would become an endangered species at some point and then become protected?

Secondly, banning whaling doesn't even ban whaling (it only bans unlicensed whaling. We give out whale commercial hunting licenses free in every pack of Frosties, as the UN commision it sets up only deals with scientific licensing.). It doesn't even ban motorised harpooning. Just says it's not nice.

Thirdly, why are whales so special? Why ban whale hunting, and not otter hunting, leopard hunting, newt hunting, Swede hunting, cauliflower hunting, tiger hunting, elephant hunting, cod hunting...I could go on... UNCOESB was set up to stop people writing hundreds of bloosdy annoying resolutions banning otter hunting, leopard hunting, newt hunting, Swede hunting, cauliflower hunting, tiger hunting, elephant hunting, cod hunting, etc

Gentlemen, the problem is that what you describe is not hunting as a means of survival, but hunting as sport. With rare exception *Leetha nods in the direction of Observer Pejorative* we in this body artificially manipulate the food chain and in doing so obligate ourselves to preserve the natural balance of all trophic levels. Until you hunt with an equal chance of being hunted your display of "respect" to the natural world is hollow. We seriously doubt Mr. Roosevelt will ever come round to this view, but are surprised that Prince Rhodri is confused on the matter.


Ma'am, you've got me pegged all wrong. I am not a "sportsman." I do not hunt animals for the pure thrill of downing a charging bull elephant with only a high-powered rifle and proceeding to enjoy a chota peg in Delhi, although I must say it's quite nice.

I am a survivalist. I hunt with spears, harpoons, and primitive weapons with only my wits and the basics of navigation. I was mauled by a tiger in the Sundarbans, and was nearly trampled by a herd of wildebeest the Serengeti. I eat everything I kill. I am in this sense at equal danger of death as my prey. Granted, not much that gophers can do to fight back but that's beside the point.

Now, what's the point in outlawing only one form of hunting, as my bally good chap Cyril's saying? Whales certainly have commercial value, the issue is in the restriction of mass hunting. The ability of the UNcoESb to regulate the hunting of threatened species is very well established, duly covering whaling, dolphining, seal clubbing, and gay clubbing. Maybe not the last one.

Do not equate us with mindless killing machines. I kill to survive. Maybe I should consider moving off of the nature preserve...

Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire

Surely, if it's continued existance is threatened, it would become an endangered species at some point and then become protected?

Well that is indeed the problem. Eventually a species' population declines sufficiently to come under protection of UNCoESB. What conservation science since passage of UNR#119 has taught us is that waiting until a species is endangered to apply protections is waiting too late. We have managed to bring a few species back from the brink of extinction. Alas, many more do not respond to such late measures.

Secondly, banning whaling doesn't even ban whaling (it only bans unlicensed whaling. We give out whale commercial hunting licenses free in every pack of Frosties, as the UN commision it sets up only deals with scientific licensing.). It doesn't even ban motorised harpooning. Just says it's not nice.

our emphasis Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawedPerhaps revisiting the law being repealed would be beneficial for you, Sir Cyril. We also note that the commission created by UNR#70 is the only body authorized to issue licenses for whaling of any kind. Your nation appears to be noncompliant with an extant UN directive that includes economic sanctions as valid punishment for such noncompliance. I would look into that, if I were you.

Thirdly, why are whales so special? Why ban whale hunting, and not otter hunting, leopard hunting, newt hunting, Swede hunting, cauliflower hunting, tiger hunting, elephant hunting, cod hunting...I could go on... UNCOESB was set up to stop people writing hundreds of bloosdy annoying resolutions ...Otters, leopards, Swedes, tigers and elephants, occupying fourth or fifth trophic levels as they do, should very well be considered for hunting bans. Hmm, what is the legal hunting season for Swedes? Cod (a secondary consumer) and cauliflower (an autotrophic) not so much.

Those bloosdy [sic] annoying resolutions are what we do, sir. I agree that a general treatment of the problem, such as UNCoESB undertakes, is ideal. When there is such legislation that recognizes current science, we will certainly reconsider our opposition to repealing UNR#70.

--L.T.

Otters, leopards, Swedes, tigers and elephants, occupying fourth or fifth trophic levels as they do, should very well be considered for hunting bans. Hmm, what is the legal hunting season for Swedes? Cod (a secondary consumer) and cauliflower (an autotrophic) not so much.
I find this remark highly hypocritical. You call us cold-blooded, then turn around and use science to justify hunting one animal over another. Pathetic.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Yummy...I mean, FOR.

I find this remark highly hypocritical. You call us cold-blooded, then turn around and use science to justify hunting one animal over another. Pathetic.[/b]We did no such thing, Representative Black. It would be a scientifically incorrect appellation for the majority of you.

In this case, hypocrisy would be advocating the hunting of whales while rejecting that tasty delicacy, long pig.

While we undestand your outburst, Sheik Nadnerb, we must disagree. However distasteful we may find the ambassador's suggestion, in this place of all places she has the right to be heard.

We thank you for supporting our right to be heard, even if you disagree with us. As for us being silent, that's not something we're very good at, especially when we have an opinion on the matter at hand. I don't take offense, though, as I am a vegetarian and consider the remark a badge of honor. Perhaps I can have my favorite restaurant from back home prepare the good Sheik a nice plate of veggie tofu ribs in BBQ sauce. That might shut him up, at least while he's eating it.

In any event, we still do not feel that it is essential for any nation's survival to engage in whaling. Therefore, we remain opposed to this repeal. There are many other food sources available, and we'd be willing to help any nation that truly needed such sources find ways to develop them.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Perhaps revisiting the law being repealed would be beneficial for you, Sir Cyril. We also note that the commission created by UNR#70 is the only body authorized to issue licenses for whaling of any kind. Your nation appears to be noncompliant with an extant UN directive that includes economic sanctions as valid punishment for such noncompliance. I would look into that, if I were you.

Not really, being a past tech nation and the poor wording of the original's final clause, we managed to get all our whalers classed as aborginals, "big bloody spears" classed as being traditional methods, and were able to argue that as the whales weren't being farmed, the method was non-industrial. We also argued that 15,000 was indeed a small number. Therefore, legal.

First, a word on LLC's. Many people make the mistake of assuming that an LLC is a type of corporation and that like a corporation, it has a board of directors, stockholders, etc. This is incorrect. LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. Unlike corporations, LLC's may have a sole member or be operated as a partnership.

In many cases, the identity of the partners in an LLC are public record. WhaleCo Global LLC, however, was organized under Yeldan law which allows the details of the partnership to remain confidential. I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of our partners, but let me assure you that their names would be recognized in these halls.

Now. On to your questions and statements. The honorable representative from Schwarzchild has posited an attack on our "director" with neutron weapons. Let me say that we take such threats seriously and that we are not surprised that you would advocate the use of such weaponry. After all, whales are known to exhale gases through their enormous blowholes which have been proven to contribute to global warming. Therefore it is hardly startling that an anti-whaling advocate would suggest the use of weapons which would wreak havoc upon the natural environment which sustains and protects us all.

Ambassador Agaranth of Altanar asks: "We wonder if the board of directors of this "WhaleCo Global LLC" would enjoy being chased around and then speared with sharp objects until they were dead, and then eaten?" Most assuredly they would not. May I infer from your question that you are attempting to draw some sort of analogy to whale hunting? I would remind you that whales, being animals, are a resource to be harvested for the betterment of mankind. What you are advocating with your remarks is the murder of human beings. Shame!

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel


Dear Mr. Fairlington, Esq:

We would never encourage Neutron weapons to be used as a method of cooking your Director, we regret our choice of method of parbroiling your Director, it would indeed exterminate innocent citizens of your fine nation. My comments were placed in this topic in the celebratory spirit that was allowed, indeed encouraged when others suggested whale recipes while perhaps anticipating the repeal of said resolution. In your informal poll you leave the option free to express the sentiment of feeding your Director to the whales.

Perhaps something more direct, rather than indirect. Fricassee? No... too chancy. Barbeque? No, no...the vinegar bbq sauce would not enhance the subtle flavours.

<snap!> I have it.

WhaleCoGlobal, LLC Director Shish kebob

Keeps the chosen director from getting away before being properly cooked without all of that pesky loss of innocent life.

Grow a sense of humour, Perry Mason.

Lynniston

Gentlemen, the problem is that what you describe is not hunting as a means of survival, but hunting as sport. With rare exception *Leetha nods in the direction of Observer Pejorative* we in this body artificially manipulate the food chain and in doing so obligate ourselves to preserve the natural balance of all trophic levels. Until you hunt with an equal chance of being hunted your display of "respect" to the natural world is hollow. We seriously doubt Mr. Roosevelt will ever come round to this view, but are surprised that Prince Rhodri is confused on the matter.
We are not confused, Ambassador Talone, we merely disagree with you. One can be respectful of nature in the preservation efforts of (for example) national parks without allowing the creatures contained therein to be an active threat to visiting tourists. While we have advantages over animals in terms of our abilities to conceive of strategies and create tools to assist our efforts, employing those advantages is surely not unnatural; you said yourself, ambassador, that we are the top of the food chain. How is any manipulation of the food chain we may perform artificial, unless one regards all actions of sentients to be so? And if so, how does your argument not condemn all forms of animal husbandry, and even crop husbandry should one chose to press the point? No, we must reject accusations of artifice as of any importance.

Ma'am, you've got me pegged all wrong. I am not a "sportsman." I do not hunt animals for the pure thrill of downing a charging bull elephant with only a high-powered rifle and proceeding to enjoy a chota peg in Delhi, although I must say it's quite nice.

I am a survivalist. I hunt with spears, harpoons, and primitive weapons with only my wits and the basics of navigation. I was mauled by a tiger in the Sundarbans, and was nearly trampled by a herd of wildebeest the Serengeti. I eat everything I kill. I am in this sense at equal danger of death as my prey. Granted, not much that gophers can do to fight back but that's beside the point.

Now, what's the point in outlawing only one form of hunting, as my bally good chap Cyril's saying? Whales certainly have commercial value, the issue is in the restriction of mass hunting. The ability of the UNcoESb to regulate the hunting of threatened species is very well established, duly covering whaling, dolphining, seal clubbing, and gay clubbing. Maybe not the last one.

Do not equate us with mindless killing machines. I kill to survive. Maybe I should consider moving off of the nature preserve...

Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire


Of course, my dear fellow, hunting whales for sport is technically completely legal. After all, it's neither scientific nor commercial.

Anyone fancy going on a whale hunt?

Tvu qooesshuns.RULES

1. Each team must create a three-course meal based on whale meat, blubber or other whale derived product. Is is OoK tu du mure-a thun three-a deeshes?

Vhu veell be-a joodgeeng thees? Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

I will contact UN Building Management about constructing the set. We can utilize that unused area of the General Assembly hall over there. *points to an unused corner of the chamber* And of course it will be televised.

OK people let's get moving we've got a lot of work to do and not much time to do it in. James, we're going to have to clear the desks out of the northeast corner of the General Assembly hall and setup three identical kitchens, same equipment, same layout.

Woody, get the extra TV equipment out of storage and assign some of your people to man it during this contest. Oh and arrange for a live satellite feed of the contest to be broadcast to any one who wants it.

What are you all standing around for people! I want everything setup by the time the repeal comes up for vote! GET MOVING!

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Biulding Management

Vhu veell be-a joodgeeng thees? Bork Bork Bork!I would be happy to serve as a judge.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Gentlemen, the problem is that what you describe is not hunting as a means of survival, but hunting as sport.
In truth it is not "hunting" at all, much less "sport". It is harvesting. Whales are a resource, no different than timber. The only reason it is called hunting is that whale fishing sounds funny and is incorrect.

A mere three years ago, this body acknowledged the dangerously low populations of the various whale species and enacted a ban. Assuming even perfect reproductive conditions and conformance to the ban on hunting (and given the number of delegations here touting, tasty, tender whale meat, that's certainly doubtful) whale numbers can only be marginally better than they were three years ago.
Our studies indicate the whale population in the world's oceans is healthy and stable. Just for the sake of argument though, let's assume that in August of 2004 when UNR #70 was passed whales really were on "the brink of extinction" as it asserts. Is it not likely that in September of '05 when UNCoESB was passed that they would have still qualified as endangered and thus be fully protected by that document? Further, even if the whale population has recovered to the threatened level, is it not true that quotas would now be in place to prevent their becoming endangered again?

On the other hand, if our studies are correct and whales are plentiful then why do they deserve special protection that other species do not have?

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Tvu qooesshuns. Is is OoK tu du mure-a thun three-a deeshes?
Of course!

Vhu veell be-a joodgeeng thees? Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef
I believe the answer can be found below.


I would be happy to serve as a judge.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
*bows* I would be honored for you to serve as judge.

Chef Tony Ito

Dear Mr. Fairlington, Esq:

We would never encourage Neutron weapons to be used as a method of cooking your Director, we regret our choice of method of parbroiling your Director, it would indeed exterminate innocent citizens of your fine nation. My comments were placed in this topic in the celebratory spirit that was allowed, indeed encouraged when others suggested whale recipes while perhaps anticipating the repeal of said resolution. In your informal poll you leave the option free to express the sentiment of feeding your Director to the whales.

Perhaps something more direct, rather than indirect. Fricassee? No... too chancy. Barbeque? No, no...the vinegar bbq sauce would not enhance the subtle flavours.

<snap!> I have it.

WhaleCoGlobal, LLC Director Shish kebob

Keeps the chosen director from getting away before being properly cooked without all of that pesky loss of innocent life.

Grow a sense of humour, Perry Mason.

Lynniston

I'll have you know that I have a refined and well-developed sense of humor. Did I not design the poll that you alluded to?

*mumbles* harrumph, no sense of humor indeed...I was the life of the party at ΚΣ...*mumbles some more*

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Whales should be conserved so that future generations can enjoy them, not on a plate but as swimming free in our oceans.We vote Against.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Whales should be conserved so that future generations can enjoy them, not on a plate but as swimming free in our oceans.We vote Against.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Yes, but what you are forgetting is that everyone who is against this resolution, is a Communist. And we all know that Communists carry Tuberculosis

Whaling is unethical and unsustainable, and the nation of Delphinidae Tursiops vehemently opposes the repeal of UNR #70.

The gestation period in all cetacean species is greater than 12 months, so assuming a quota of one hundred whales was given it would take a while to replenish the population. And no nation that wants to whale is going to be satisfied with "just" one hundred whales.

Furthermore, whales contain extremely unsafe levels of mercury, so putting whale meat on the market is unethical.

Whale oil is completely unnecessary in today's world, as vastly superior products can now be synthesized.

I strongly encourage all moral and logical nations to join Delphinidae Tursiops in its opposition to repeal "Banning Whaling."

Whaling is unethical and unsustainable, and the nation of Delphinidae Tursiops vehemently opposes the repeal of UNR #70.

The gestation period in all cetacean species is greater than 12 months, so assuming a quota of one hundred whales was given it would take a while to replenish the population. And no nation that wants to whale is going to be satisfied with "just" one hundred whales.

Furthermore, whales contain extremely unsafe levels of mercury, so putting whale meat on the market is unethical.

Whale oil is completely unnecessary in today's world, as vastly superior products can now be synthesized.

I strongly encourage all moral and logical nations to join Delphinidae Tursiops in its opposition to repeal "Banning Whaling."

Communist

Yes, but what you are forgetting is that everyone who is against this resolution, is a Communist. And we all know that Communists carry Tuberculosis

In Soviet Cookesland whales eat you!


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador, Whale Watcher, and Communist

Whales should be conserved so that future generations can enjoy them, not on a plate but as swimming free in our oceans.We vote Against.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland


I refer you to UNCoESB. If whales are in danger of extinction, they will be protected. I have yet to see any studies of any nature that demonstrates how whales are endangered in any way in the NS world.

I refer you to UNCoESB. If whales are in danger of extinction, they will be protected. I have yet to see any studies of any nature that demonstrates how whales are endangered in any way in the NS world.

Well that does ends some of my objections, i still don't agree with using Whales as food. This just isn't the same as fishing or sea farming.


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Well that does ends some of my objections, i still don't agree with using Whales as food. This just isn't the same as fishing or sea farming.

They are also very good for commercial oil.

They are also very good for commercial oil.

So is Vegetable, Canola, Olive, and Sunflower.

or Petroleum if you meant the other kind


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador

So is Vegetable, Canola, Olive, and Sunflower.
I can easily imagine a nation that has easy access to whales and not to any of those. In fact, I founded one (http://www.nationstates.net/new_anonia).

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I have yet to see any studies of any nature that demonstrates how whales are endangered in any way in the NS world.
Our studies indicate that their populations are in no way endanged but in fact healthy and thriving. This is based on data collected by ourselves as well as the many non-UN flagged whaling fleets which, I would remind everyone, have continued to operate since the passage of UNR #70.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Our studies indicate that their populations are in no way endanged but in fact healthy and thriving. This is based on data collected by ourselves as well as the many non-UN flagged whaling fleets which, I would remind everyone, have continued to operate since the passage of UNR #70.

We could just as easily quote "studies" that say otherwise. We also would not be inclined to trust a "study" from a company with a vested interest in the results being in their favor.

Also, the fact that non-UN nations can slaughter whales wholesale is no argument, in our opinion, to justify the members of the UN engaging in the same questionable practice. As an example, just because someone who is not law-abiding can steal cars, would it justify me stealing your car? I think not.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We could just as easily quote "studies" that say otherwise. We also would not be inclined to trust a "study" from a company with a vested interest in the results being in their favor.

Even if the evidence might be true?

Also, the fact that non-UN nations can slaughter whales wholesale is no argument, in our opinion, to justify the members of the UN engaging in the same questionable practice. As an example, just because someone who is not law-abiding can steal cars, would it justify me stealing your car? I think not.

Of course, the fact that UN nations still wouldn't be able to slaughter wholesale under the UNcoESb isn't important in your analogy.

Most courteously,

We also would not be inclined to trust a "study" from a company with a vested interest in the results being in their favor.
Yes, of course we have a vested interest in harvesting these animals. Whaling represents our primary source of cash-flow and as such we also have a vested interest in insuring that there are always whales for us to harvest. Wouldn't it be a bit insane for us to fake a bunch of studies and then proceed to kill all the whales?

"Hey, this whaling is working out pretty well for us, let's kill 'em all and go bankrupt!"

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Even if the evidence might be true?

Until their evidence is proven to be true, we do not see any reason to repeal the resolution based simply on the assertion that their "studies" exist. As we stated previously, anyone can pull out a "study" to support their position.

Of course, the fact that UN nations still wouldn't be able to slaughter wholesale under the UNcoESb isn't important in your analogy.

We have not yet decided, as a delegation, that UNcoESb does provide those necessary protections. If we decide that it does (or are convinced of that), then we could well change our position. We have not yet done so, however. The analogy was simply meant to illustrate that saying non-UN members can do something is not a good reason to allow UN members to do something - a point we still believe to be valid.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Yes, of course we have a vested interest in harvesting these animals. Whaling represents our primary source of cash-flow and as such we also have a vested interest in insuring that there are always whales for us to harvest. Wouldn't it be a bit insane for us to fake a bunch of studies and then proceed to kill all the whales?

Yes, it would. But if companies that "harvested" animals always acted sanely and in their best interest, extinction and overfishing wouldn't even be an issue, now would they? Can you give us any reason to believe that your company does act sanely - and that even if it does, every other whaling outfit out there will also do so?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I can easily imagine a nation that has easy access to whales and not to any of those. In fact, I founded one (http://www.nationstates.net/new_anonia).

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Your telling me your country has no Agricultural sector? If so then you can use fish oil, it's good for your heart and from what you say should be easy to obtain.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador and apparently a Communist

Lord Byron stands at the podium and connects his laptop to the wiring displaying the draft of the UNCoESB on the screens in front of the Delegates in the General Assembly.

"Ladies and gentlemen, honoured diplomats and representatives of the UN" he orated, "I present you with the draft of the UNCoESB on your screens and I will highlight the following..."

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #119
UNCoESB

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: In these times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked, a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction. It is with these concerns we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, UNCoESB
Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most required.
Article 2:Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.
Article 3:Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.
Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.
Article 5:Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB.
The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable.

Votes For: 9,396
Votes Against: 4,503

Implemented: Fri Sep 2 2005

"the UNCoESB was introduced as a one for all to replace the multitude of save the (insert your fluffy critter here) resolutions. It was designed primarily to protect all species of wild life on this planet and the focus of the UNCoESB is ecological conservation of species through education and the application of decent practices in hunting and fishing. It is designed to preserve the rights of indigenous peoples to continue to practice their time honoured traditions and I will add that any nation may through the terms of the UNCoESB specify any species for specialised protections within that nations borders.

The simple fact is that this whales resolution is redundant. It has for too long cost our nations in UN Fees that need not be applied for the whales get sufficient protections through the UNCoESB resolution. It is high time to lessen the unnecessary financial burden on our members and repeal this redundant resolution.

I thank you all for your time."

Lord Byron, author of the UNCoESB resolution retakes his seat to await responses to his petition.

Your telling me your country has no Agricultural sector?
I said nothing of the sort. New Anonia most certainly has an Agricultural sector, but due to the nature of the country, it is a bit...experimental. W have not found a suitable plant for producing oil that can be grown properly here.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Based on the statement of the author of UNCoESB, we are withdrawing our opposition to this repeal. However, due to our disdain for certain arguments expressed within this debate, we cannot bring ourselves to vote in favor, and will thus simply abstain, once it reaches the floor for vote.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

So, because of some of the whimsical roleplay witnessed in a discussion thread, you're dispensing with the arguments expressed in the actual repeal and refusing to support it? Did you similarly vote against UN Fair Wage Act when its lunatic sponsor started defenestrating every opponent he could get his hands on during the debate? Is harming whales somehow more offensive to you than harming humans and fellow sentients?

[P.S. :p]

So, because of some of the whimsical roleplay witnessed in a discussion thread, you're dispensing with the arguments expressed in the actual repeal and refusing to support it? Did you similarly vote against UN Fair Wage Act when its lunatic sponsor started defenestrating every opponent he could get his hands on during the debate? Is harming whales somehow more offensive to you than harming humans and fellow sentients?[P.S. :p]

(OOC: My response was also roleplay. My ambassador is not exactly known for her sense of humor. I, personally, thought it was quite funny. But she wouldn't.)

I said nothing of the sort. New Anonia most certainly has an Agricultural sector, but due to the nature of the country, it is a bit...experimental. W have not found a suitable plant for producing oil that can be grown properly here.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Would you like us to send you some? Peanuts, Sunflowers, etc. they're much easier to obtain and healthier.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador and apparently Communist

(OOC: My response was also roleplay. My ambassador is not exactly known for her sense of humor. I, personally, thought it was quite funny. But she wouldn't.)[OOC: So for Jinella, throwing people out the window because they disagree with a fair-wage proposal is all well and good, but merely talking about harming poor little whales crosses the line?! Your character's silly. I like her. :D]

Would you like us to send you some? Peanuts, Sunflowers, etc. they're much easier to obtain and healthier.
I thank you for your kind offer, but it is not really needed. We already have plenty of foreign (Paradican, mainly) oil. I would also like to point out that New Anonia does not really use large quantities of whale oil. We were merely pointing out, for the sake of discussion, that there are countries where growing oil plants is not feasible.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Do not equate us with mindless killing machines. I kill to survive. Maybe I should consider moving off of the nature preserve...Mr. Roosevelt, first let us apologize for not noticing your remarks early. If you are indeed in a position of hunting for your survival, then of course my remarks do not apply to you. However, as you note you're living (and presumably hunting) on a nature preserve, one must ask if that is not an unnecessary choice you have made, and one that moves into the realm of the unethical.

Not really, being a past tech nation and the poor wording of the original's final clause, we managed to get all our whalers classed as aborginals, "big bloody spears" classed as being traditional methods, and were able to argue that as the whales weren't being farmed, the method was non-industrial. We also argued that 15,000 was indeed a small number. Therefore, legal.Sir Cyril, are you by chance suffering dementia? If it is true that you are hunting whale under the aboriginal clause, then you would not need licenses, which you have admitted to issuing, to do so, merely registration of your aboriginal peoples.

How is any manipulation of the food chain we may perform artificial, unless one regards all actions of sentients to be so? And if so, how does your argument not condemn all forms of animal husbandry, and even crop husbandry should one chose to press the point?Perhaps the word "artificial" was not well-chosen. The harm the occurs is due to the imbalances created. Hunting (or harvesting as WhaleCo prefers) on a large, commercial scale invariably alters the pre-existing food web, by shifting entire trophic levels and depriving other levels of their means of survival. Such impact cannot be completely avoided, but needs to be minimized as much as possible. Animal husbandry differs in that the domestic animal has, by domestication, been removed from the natural food web... except for providing the occasional wolf a meal.

In truth it is not "hunting" ... It is harvesting. Whales are a resource, no different than timber. The only reason it is called hunting is that whale fishing sounds funny and is incorrect.And what role does WhaleCo Global play in "re-seeding"? How much of your profits are invested in aquatic habitat preservation? Do you voluntarily cease "harvesting" during full mating and calving season? Do you control the female to male proportion taken? Whales are only a resource to you because you lack the ability to see that they are more than that.
... even if the whale population has recovered to the threatened level, is it not true that quotas would now be in place to prevent their becoming endangered again?

On the other hand, if our studies are correct and whales are plentiful then why do they deserve special protection that other species do not have?
There you are incorrect. UNCoESB does not address "merely" threatened species. A species' census must drop to the level of endangered before triggering the protections under UNCoESB.

Were whales to regain their former populations, they would still warrant some protections due to their susceptibility of precipitous drops in population. As large as they are, whales are the oceans canaries.
Yes, but what you are forgetting is that everyone who is against this resolution, is a Communist. And we all know that Communists carry TuberculosisAnd those for this resolution are intellectually inferior capitalists with venereal diseases. Your turn, Sir Cyril.
I refer you to UNCoESB. If whales are in danger of extinction, they will be protected. I have yet to see any studies of any nature that demonstrates how whales are endangered in any way in the NS world.This assembly established and verified drastic decreases in whale populations a mere three years ago when adopting UNR#70. I have yet to see anyone produce unbiased studies showing their populations have rebounded. I will address my comments regarding UNCoESB to Lord Byron.
Our studies indicate that their populations are in no way endangedYour studies, Mr. Fairlington, by your own admission are biased and lack scientific rigor.
..."the UNCoESB was introduced as a one for all to replace the multitude of save the (insert your fluffy critter here) resolutions. It was designed primarily to protect all species of wild life on this planet and the focus of the UNCoESB is ecological conservation of species through education and the application of decent practices in hunting and fishing.

Lord Byron, author of the UNCoESB resolution retakes his seat to await responses to his petition.Lord Byron, your good work in these halls is of legend, and your intent with regard to UNCoESB is noted. However, as so many of those relying on your resolution have insisted in the past, the law means what it says.

Conservation science no longer supports the protocols as spelled out in UNCoESB. The concept of an endangered species is definitionally different than a threatened species, and we have learned that waiting until a species is endangered places said species in danger of genetic fixation and ultimately species fragility.

UNCoESB is a wonderful piece of legislation, but it is no longer the sufficient protection you intended it to be. At least we can continue to protect Cetacea by not repealing UNR#70 until such time as protections are extended to threatened as well as endangered species.

Cookesland, Worldsong, the Schwarzchildren and all the others who oppose this resolution, remain strong in the face of this evil. Altanar... Leetha sighes and takes her seat.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN

Mr. Roosevelt, first let us apologize for not noticing your remarks early. If you are indeed in a position of hunting for your survival, then of course my remarks do not apply to you. However, as you note you're living (and presumably hunting) on a nature preserve, one must ask if that is not an unnecessary choice you have made, and one that moves into the realm of the unethical.

Well, the whole danged planet is a preserve... the term has a different meaning where I come from. The Roosevelt clan is a part of the Rekamma ethnic group, don't ask why, and this particular planet is our homeland.

Queequod Ishpeg Roosevelt III
Hunter Extraordinaire


Perhaps the word "artificial" was not well-chosen. The harm the occurs is due to the imbalances created. Hunting (or harvesting as WhaleCo prefers) on a large, commercial scale invariably alters the pre-existing food web, by shifting entire trophic levels and depriving other levels of their means of survival. Such impact cannot be completely avoided, but needs to be minimized as much as possible. Animal husbandry differs in that the domestic animal has, by domestication, been removed from the natural food web... except for providing the occasional wolf a meal.

I don't claim to be an expert in the field of herd management, but strict regulation is necessary for the management of species in the wild. Like it or not, the human impact on the natural world is one that can't be ignored, and the best way to minimize the impact of humanity is through regulation, but not through outright banning.

And what role does WhaleCo Global play in "re-seeding"? How much of your profits are invested in aquatic habitat preservation? Do you voluntarily cease "harvesting" during full mating and calving season? Do you control the female to male proportion taken? Whales are only a resource to you because you lack the ability to see that they are more than that.
There you are incorrect. UNCoESB does not address "merely" threatened species. A species' census must drop to the level of endangered before triggering the protections under UNCoESB.

Well, since I happen to sit on the board at WhaleCo, if Milfie doesn't mind I'll field that.

I'm not at liberty to divulge actual profit reports, but I can say that we invest in the management of our hunting. Any fool worth his salt wouldn't harvest during the mating and calving season, as that would result in smaller harvests in years to come. It's rather like whitetail deer and the common North American pheasant- we have special regulations in place to ensure that we get the maximum benefit with minimal impact on the sustainability of the pod.

Now, ask yourself- why would we let the levels drop to "endangered" status? That would be asking for our livelihood to be cut out from under us, something that we would prefer not to happen.

Were whales to regain their former populations, they would still warrant some protections due to their susceptibility of precipitous drops in population. As large as they are, whales are the oceans canaries.

The common sperm whale once dominated the high seas, and the only reason they lost that was due to the poor management practices of the whaling industry. On their own, whales are just as susceptible to population drops from other causes- proper management and harvesting is no different.

This assembly established and verified drastic decreases in whale populations a mere three years ago when adopting UNR#70. I have yet to see anyone produce unbiased studies showing their populations have rebounded. I will address my comments regarding UNCoESB to Lord Byron.
Your studies, Mr. Fairlington, by your own admission are biased and lack scientific rigor.

I don't think anyone has said that our studies are biased and without scientific rigor. Other than yourself, that is. I also ask that you provide the evidence that was "verified" three years ago. I don't think you'll find it.

Yurdamay Pendankr
Chairman, Imperial Amalgamated Trust
Partner, WhaleCo Global LLC

*Yurdamay is the brother of former ambassador Landaman Pendankr, now serving as the Imperial Director of UN Affairs

And what role does WhaleCo Global play in "re-seeding"?

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN

Gee thanks Leetha, now I've got this mental image of WhaleCo Global employees trying to artificially inseminate a whale stuck in my brain.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And what role does WhaleCo Global play in "re-seeding"? How much of your profits are invested in aquatic habitat preservation? Do you voluntarily cease "harvesting" during full mating and calving season? Do you control the female to male proportion taken? Whales are only a resource to you because you lack the ability to see that they are more than that.
Stop being so nosey, missy. I'm not gonna just hand over our books so you can see where our profits go. They're our profits, dammit! We worked fer 'em.

*spits tobacco juice into an empty beer can*

If it makes you feel any better, we do stop harvestin' when a type of whale is matin' or calvin' and our blasted scientists are always harpin' on about maintainin' the proper male to female ratios. Goddammed interferin' whitecoats if you ask me, but what can I do about?

Cap'n Tom

There you are incorrect. UNCoESB does not address "merely" threatened species. A species' census must drop to the level of endangered before triggering the protections under UNCoESB.

Er..thank you, Cap'n Tom. I'll address this one. UNCoESB does not, in fact, utilize the term "threatened" and I apologize for using it in my response to you. However, this Article:
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
of UNCoESB plainly states that if populations are at a worrying level then Bans are to instituted on the local level and quotas are to be applied.

Furthermore, Article 7 states:
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
Full escalation stays in effect until the species has achieved "an acceptable level for the species to recover". Obviously this means that the local bans and the quotas would remain in effect until the population is no longer at a worrying level.

Keep in mind that The Executive is required to use international best practice. They are not going to permit us to conduct unregulated harvesting unless the populations are healthy and stable.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

[OOC: So for Jinella, throwing people out the window because they disagree with a fair-wage proposal is all well and good, but merely talking about harming poor little whales crosses the line?! Your character's silly. I like her. :D]

(OOC: :D she's a unique one, to be sure. She's probably going to get a message from her boss soon, telling her to tone it down, which she'll most likely ignore. And yes, she'd rather see some people defenestrated than any other option that may present itself. Now back to IC...)

Cookesland, Worldsong, the Schwarzchildren and all the others who oppose this resolution, remain strong in the face of this evil. Altanar... Leetha sighes and takes her seat.

Please spare us the melodramatics. A delegation is entitled to change its mind when new information comes before it, or when circumstances warrant it. In this case, after Lord Byron's statement and review of UNCoESB, we believe that it was warranted. Nor do we apologize for that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Lord Byron, your good work in these halls is of legend, and your intent with regard to UNCoESB is noted. However, as so many of those relying on your resolution have insisted in the past, the law means what it says.

Conservation science no longer supports the protocols as spelled out in UNCoESB. The concept of an endangered species is definitionally different than a threatened species, and we have learned that waiting until a species is endangered places said species in danger of genetic fixation and ultimately species fragility.

UNCoESB is a wonderful piece of legislation, but it is no longer the sufficient protection you intended it to be. At least we can continue to protect Cetacea by not repealing UNR#70 until such time as protections are extended to threatened as well as endangered species.Well, that's some lovely blather... er, I mean "words." Words so lovely, in fact, that it's a shame you are so hung up on the word "endangered" that you completely fail to understand anything UNCoESB actually does (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12591049&postcount=82) to protect NS species from annihilation. If you take time to read the resolution*, you'll find it is not some ongoing survey that continually watches species decline in numbers until they reach some arbitrary point where the gnomes can clap their hands and declare: "Ding! They're endangered! Now we can protet them!" No, UNCoESB is actually a four-tiered process, with protections instituted at each level to assure that species need not fall to the next rank.

First, the Executive imposes hunting quotas, with penalties given to those who violate them.

Next, the Executive collaberates with NGOs and local governments to monitor the annual population levels of NS species, and where "considerable decrease" or "a recurring trend of decrease" of a species' population is found, local conservation efforts kick in to reverse these trends.

Then, if species decrease to a "worrying level," capture and breeding programs ensue, along with local hunting bans.

Finally, when species are found to have come "dangerously close to world extinction levels," Full Escalation is imposed, wherein all hunting of affected species is expressly forbidden on an international level, criminal charges are brought against those who violate the hunting ban, and full funding is granted to efforts "to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover."

We find this multi-leveled process, and the steps taken at each interval, an entirely reasonable and acceptable regime to preserve NS species and assure their numbers do not decline. And a regime deeming Banning whaling rendundant and unnecessary. Having read and considered the ramifications of UNCoESB, and its effects on NS whale populations, we support this repeal.


* (and keeping in mind what WhaleCo's rep has already said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12591597&postcount=93) on this, which was posted while we were still drafting this missive)

This assembly established and verified drastic decreases in whale populations a mere three years ago when adopting UNR#70. I have yet to see anyone produce unbiased studies showing their populations have rebounded. I will address my comments regarding UNCoESB to Lord Byron.

Your studies, Mr. Fairlington, by your own admission are biased and lack scientific rigor.Right. So we're obliged to accept one "scientific study" and dismiss the other purely out of hand? Ridiculous. That's another reason the UNCoESB was created: to provide for an independent, scientific evaluation of all NS species population levels, and determine which species merit the protections issued under each of the four levels of escalation. Hysterical declarations that a certain species is on "the brink of extinction (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=69)," absent any evidence or support for these findings, accomplishes nothing.

Byron took to the rostrum....

"I thank the kind delegates for their considered arguments and their kind complements vis a vie my efforts. What I aim to achieve here is to show that unlike the gentlemen of the WhaleCo, I actually have no desire to see increased whaling. That being said however, I believe that this whaling resolution is fully redundant as the conservation of all species is expressly and actively enforced by the UNCoESB executive.

Lets take a look at what it is we wish to repeal...

* Overfishing is a serious problem which is depleting the marine environment by upsetting its natural ecosystem.
The UNCoESB has recognised this and has enforced quotas to ensure species stock remain at sustainable limits, add the fact that fisheries involved now have educational programmes funded by the UNCoESB we now have a realistic fisheries policy rather than one that simply appeals to the emotions.

* Whales are a highly-developed mammal with advanced social and communications systems. With respect, Poppycock. Whales have demonstrated an ability to work together to eat and procreate. If they do not eat and procreate they die regardless of what protections are implemented by this august body. This line was put in the resolution to pander to the emotion of the matter and has no bearing on any fisheries or hunting policy. I have yet to have a decent conversation with a whale, or for that matter any level of game of chess. When I see a whale who has an appreciation for Music, Fine art or the ability to stop and just stand in awe at the world around it He can come over for dinner and I will personally move to have the Whales become members of the UN community. Until then I look forward to seeing it on my menu.

* Whales already face many threats including entanglement in fishing nets, noise disturbance and pollution. Again, education policies set up by the UNCoESB have focused on local fisheries, training the fishermen how to avoid such situations.

* Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place.The Banning Whaling resolution was implemented on August 23rd 2004. Nearly three years have passed and if Whale populations have not recovered since then well it is plainly obvious that the resolution is failing. UNCoESB monitors population numbers and takes definite steps in enforcing protections where they apply.

* The current motorised harpoon method of killing whales is barbarous, causing a slow and agonising death to the creature involved.Again, the education programmes set up under the UNCoESB are designed to move such barbarism from the business of whaling.

* There is little that can now be learned from 'scientific whaling'. Scientific enquiry can take place without the need for slaughtering its subjects.This is a statement. It is not a rule to be enforced. The executive allows whaling where populations can take the hit regardless of the motive of the hunt be it for sport, science or industry. UNCoESB is realistic in its motives protecting the survival of the species, but we see no reason for an all out ban.

* A voluntary moratorium on whaling is not working. Pro-whaling nations will simply subvert it for their own ends by vote-buying or by abusing so-called 'scientific whaling'.Again yet another emotive statement. UNCoESB is not voluntary. It is a Layered protection granting any species the right to exist. It is realistic and can meet the goals set to the executive in protecting all species. It does this with out emotion or as the quoted text suggests, bribes. This Banning whaling is an insult to me inferring that I am corrupt. It is an insult to my colleagues and again was written to pander to the emotions of the reader. There is no proof of corruption in our members and the Executive of the UNCoESB are ever vigilant in identifying where corruption exists and levying penalties where nations have broken the terms of the agreement thay have signed up to as members of the UN.

Proposing that:

* Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.UNCoESB does more than santion. The right to apply "Criminal Prosecution" is retained by the UNCoESB executive, where the law has been broken targeting the individuals involved rather than the faceless perpetrators held to book by the Banning Whaling Resolution".

* A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to license limited scientific whaling. Indeed, My nations coffers pay generously toward this inefficient commissions expenses. However that commission is no longer required. The UNCoESB's executive has been mandated to monitor, educate and enforce. Something the Banning Whaling Commission have since left to the UNCoESB to do.

* Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.UNCoESB allows for indigenous populations to practice their time honoured traditional methods of hunting/fishing and as long as there are sufficient stocks available to hunt/fish the UNCoESB executive will continue to work with all involved, monitoring, educating and where applicable enforcing bans.

The time for this repeal came and passed with the ratification of the UNCoESB . It has been long awaiting and I appeal to you all to accept reality, make your judgment on the facts and not the emotive blather that is the text of the Banning Whaling resolution. Whales no longer need to be saved, they need to be protected and the UNCoESB does this and then some."

Byron returns to his seat, looking forward to the recess and a beer in the Strangers bar.

I thank you for your kind offer, but it is not really needed. We already have plenty of foreign (Paradican, mainly) oil. I would also like to point out that New Anonia does not really use large quantities of whale oil. We were merely pointing out, for the sake of discussion, that there are countries where growing oil plants is not feasible.



So they should just expand their foreign markets to include plants used in oil making, and their economy grows. Win/Win.



Cookesland, Worldsong, the Schwarzchildren and all the others who oppose this resolution, remain strong in the face of this evil. Altanar... Leetha sighes and takes her seat.


Thank you for your ardent support Ms. Talone, but i feel that the use of the word "evil" might be a little over the top.

With respect, Poppycock. Whales have demonstrated an ability to work together to eat and procreate. If they do not eat and procreate they die regardless of what protections are implemented by this august body. This line was put in the resolution to pander to the emotion of the matter and has no bearing on any fisheries or hunting policy. I have yet to have a decent conversation with a whale, or for that matter any level of game of chess. When I see a whale who has an appreciation for Music, Fine art or the ability to stop and just stand in awe at the world around it He can come over for dinner and I will personally move to have the Whales become members of the UN community. Until then I look forward to seeing it on my menu.

Whales that don't enjoy music? haven't you even heard of the singing Humpback Whales? True, Whales are not as intelligent as chimpanzees or even their close relatives dolphins, but they do have other reasons to exist. Whales (Baleen whales specifically) feed on krill, which in the record numbers due to the lack of whales has been known to cause red tide and increased levels of CO2 around Antarctica. So albeit not intelligent, whales do contribute to the world.

Again, the education programmes set up under the UNCoESB are designed to move such barbarism from the business of whaling.

WhaleCo Global LLC to my knowledge has failed to state any ways they trying to make Whaling more humane.

The Banning Whaling resolution was implemented on August 23rd 2004. Nearly three years have passed and if Whale populations have not recovered since then well it is plainly obvious that the resolution is failing. UNCoESB monitors population numbers and takes definite steps in enforcing protections where they apply.

We shouldn't have to start hunting them again, so then in three years we have to make another proposal to help them because their numbers are too low. End the cycle now, and let their numbers return to what they once were.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador and apparently Communist

True, Whales are not as intelligent as chimpanzees or even their close relatives dolphins, but they do have other reasons to exist. Whales (Baleen whales specifically) feed on krill, which in the record numbers due to the lack of whales has been known to cause red tide and increased levels of CO2 around Antarctica. So albeit not intelligent, whales do contribute to the world.

A good point, but moot nonetheless considering that under the terms of the UNCoESB whales would be in significant supply to limit the krill you mention. That aside, We are not here attempting to counter world gas emissions, we are here to remove a resolution that is redundant. Banning Whaling does not say in its draft "ZOMG! The Krill! they will KEEL us! Help Kill teh Krill!" and as such using that as an argument to counter the simple fact that the Banning whaling resolution is redundant replaced as it has been with the superior and realistic terms in the UNCoESB resolution.

Whales that don't enjoy music? haven't you even heard of the singing Humpback Whales?Byron removes a tape from his pocket and plays it to the assembly. The members swoon to the sounds of the mating song of the Blue Huggy bear. The soft sweet "music" echoes across the assembly and some rampant male Huggy bears from several miles around start to appear around the UN building. Byron stops playing the tape.
"while not motzart or vivaldi that is the call of the Blue Huggy bear and the song of the animal is as protected as its species under the terms of the UNCoESB. that applies to Whales also."

WhaleCo Global LLC to my knowledge has failed to state any ways they trying to make Whaling more humane.Again we are not here to debate the humanity of a kill. We are here to debate the fact that the Whaling ban is now redundant and has been replaced by the UNCoESB. Perhaps the honourable member should focus his efforts on a "cruelty to animals" resolution? This is not that forum. That being said, I will be working with the members of the WhaleCo concern to have them implement more humane killing practices under the ecucational programmes of the UNCoESB.

We shouldn't have to start hunting them again, so then in three years we have to make another proposal to help them because their numbers are too low. End the cycle now, and let their numbers return to what they once were.Are you trying to tell me that in the three years of a total whaling ban numbers have not significantly increased? Are you admitting to the failure of the total whaling ban? We in Venerable Libertarians would prefer to adopt a policy of rather than NO, you do not Whale! to Yes you can Whale if you can do it responsibly with the conservation of the species in mind. We are not here to judge other nations peoples in what they hunt or fish. We are here to remove a redundant resolution. The UNCoESB provides real and beneficial solutions to protecting whales based on the facts of their numbers and how and who is hunting them. Nations can give them full beneficial protections within their waters. Yet the UNCoESB grants all our members the right to hunt whales where there are sufficient stocks to allow it. the Banning Whaling resolution does nothing that is not already covered by the UNCoESB.

With respect, I would appreciate if the members who are opposed to the repeal keep on topic in their replies to the members for the repeal.

Byron removes a tape from his pocket and plays it to the assembly. The members swoon to the sounds of the mating song of the Blue Huggy bear. The soft sweet "music" echoes across the assembly and some rampant male Huggy bears from several miles around start to appear around the UN building. Byron stops playing the tape.
"while not motzart or vivaldi that is the call of the Blue Huggy bear and the song of the animal is as protected as its species under the terms of the UNCoESB. that applies to Whales also."

That wasn't my point. Humpbacks songs aren't just used for mating. Scientific study might show them to be for aesthetic reasons.

Again we are not here to debate the humanity of a kill. We are here to debate the fact that the Whaling ban is now redundant and has been replaced by the UNCoESB. Perhaps the honourable member should focus his efforts on a "cruelty to animals" resolution? This is not that forum. That being said, I will be working with the members of the WhaleCo concern to have them implement more humane killing practices under the ecucational programmes of the UNCoESB.

agreed.

Are you trying to tell me that in the three years of a total whaling ban numbers have not significantly increased? Are you admitting to the failure of the total whaling ban?

Whales aren't popping out offspring left and right, The Blue Whale only breeds once a year and has a single calf. Even if ever able female had offspring that still means that these newer whales haven't matured yet and they themselves can't reproduce. I am saying that even though this proposition has been around for 3 years, it still takes time for them to regenerate their stock.

With respect, I would appreciate if the members who are opposed to the repeal keep on topic in their replies to the members for the repeal.


I don't believe i have gone off topic, if that was indeed directed at me.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I don't claim to be an expert in the field of herd management, but strict regulation is necessary for the management of species in the wild. Like it or not, the human impact on the natural world is one that can't be ignored, and the best way to minimize the impact of humanity is through regulation, but not through outright banning.I take it then you and your company are opposed to the bans that are a part of UNCoESB?

I don't think anyone has said that our studies are biased and without scientific rigor. Other than yourself, that is.The description of them given by Mr. Fairlington This is based on data collected by ourselves as well as the many non-UN flagged whaling fleetsprovides prima facie evidence of that, sir.
Gee thanks Leetha, now I've got this mental image of WhaleCo Global employees trying to artificially inseminate a whale stuck in my brain.Any time, Bob. We're here to serve after all.
Stop being so nosey, missy. I'm not gonna just hand over our books so you can see where our profits go. ...Our blasted scientists are always harpin' on about maintainin' the proper male to female ratios. Goddammed interferin' whitecoats if you ask me, but what can I do about?

Cap'n TomNow that you mention it, Cap'n Tom, WhaleCo.'s financial arrangements would be very pertinent to the discussion at hand. Your mention of the tensions within your company is telling as well. One could infer from your comments that the whaling side of WhaleCo, in the name of profits, strives against the "interferin'" scientists. What can you do about it? Follow the lead of other profit-motivated corporations, of course, and hire scientists that agree with you.

Er..thank you, Cap'n Tom. I'll address this one. UNCoESB does not, in fact, utilize the term "threatened" and I apologize for using it in my response to you. However, this Article: <snipped> of UNCoESB plainly states that if populations are at a worrying level then Bans are to instituted on the local level and quotas are to be applied.Thank you, Mr. Fairlington, for alluding to the very problem with UNCoESB. In the admirable attempt to not define "endangered" as a specific number of individuals, the author failed to define the core concept of endangered, or threatened or worrying. The first two terms have distinct meanings within the scientific community, but those aren't codified into the resolution. Put bluntly, the gnomes have no guidance on the matter.
Obviously this means that the local bans and the quotas would remain in effect until the population is no longer at a worrying level.And here we see the other weakness in UNCoESB. We acknowledge this body's inability to legislate with respect to international waters; whales and other aquatic species do not, however, limit themselves to national waters. "Local" efforts have minimal affect on populations that are in fact at "worrying" levels of census.
What I aim to achieve here is to show that unlike the gentlemen of the WhaleCo, I actually have no desire to see increased whaling.

That being said however, I believe that this whaling resolution is fully redundant as the conservation of all species is expressly and actively enforced by the UNCoESB executive.It is heartening to see you recognize the underlying goal of WhaleCo. LLC. We also understand that one so close to UNCoESB would find it difficult to recognize its limitations.
The UNCoESB ... has enforced quotas to ensure species stock remain at sustainable limits, add the fact that fisheries involved now have educational programmes funded by the UNCoESB we now have a realistic fisheries policy.

I have yet to have a decent conversation with a whale, or for that matter any level of game of chess.UNCoESB does remarkably well with fish, which breed in large quantities and therefore respond quickly to quotas as protections.

Your failure to communicate with whales is the whales' fault? How species-ist. ;) More seriously, your off-the-cuff comment fails to acknowledge current research that indicates complex communication among the large mammals, whales and elephants included. That many of our species in this body lack the ability to adequately translate that communication is not that species fault.
The Banning Whaling resolution was implemented on August 23rd 2004. Nearly three years have passed and if Whale populations have not recovered since then well it is plainly obvious that the resolution is failing.What is failing is your understanding of whale biology.

That aside, We are not here attempting to counter world gas emissions, we are here to remove a resolution that is redundant.

With respect, I would appreciate if the members who are opposed to the repeal keep on topic in their replies to the members for the repeal.What we are here for, Lord Byron, is to make sound, scientifically-based decisions that, as the letterhead indicates, makes the world better. Other than an appeal to nations' pocketbooks, we've seen little convincing evidence. We find it quite interesting that you don't acknowledge the ecosystem concept, the Gaia Principle as it were. Resolutions have a tendency to impact issues far afield from the official topic.

Does your disdain for off-topicness extend to those "for"? Pardon us for being a little leery of having one side tell the other what are and are not appropriate
issues to raise.

... i feel that the use of the word "evil" might be a little over the top.But only a little? :D Thank you Cookesland, we'll make a better effort to not let emotion get the better of us.

Leetha "If it takes a communist" Talone
Ambassador to the UN

I take it then you and your company are opposed to the bans that are a part of UNCoESB?

Personally, as a law-abiding businessman with vested financial interest in the propagation of the order cetacae, no.

The description of them given by Mr. Fairlington provides prima facie evidence of that, sir.


No other parties have suggested that the evidence is anything other than truthful, so I fail to see how it's biased on it's face. Simply because WhaleCo has compiled the data ourselves does no invalidate it as "biased."

Yurdamay Pendankr
Chairman, Imperial Amalgamated Trust
Partner, WhaleCo Global LLC

No other parties have suggested that the evidence is anything other than truthful, so I fail to see how it's biased on it's face.The silence of other parties does not affect the nature of the data. Data collected by a party with financial interest in the outcome is by its nature biased, Mr. Pendankr. Do you trust data from MegaPharma that their new pharmaceutical is as safe as mother's milk and cures all forms of cancer? Not if you're sane and wish to retain liver function, you don't. The source of the data taints the conclusion.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If I provided a survey (production of which was under my direction) of whale populations, that showed there are two remaining mating pairs of right-whales, would you accept it, given that I have something I wish to prove with that data?

--L.T.

I take it then you and your company are opposed to the bans that are a part of UNCoESB?
I think what he may have meant was that no ban should be permanent. That would be my position, at any rate.

Now that you mention it, Cap'n Tom, WhaleCo.'s financial arrangements would be very pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Drop it. Captain Grayson is correct. Our financial records are NOT pertinent to the discussion.
Your mention of the tensions within your company is telling as well.
There are no "tensions within the company". Captain Grayson simply has a colorful way of speaking.

Thank you, Mr. Fairlington, for alluding to the very problem with UNCoESB. In the admirable attempt to not define "endangered" as a specific number of individuals, the author failed to define the core concept of endangered, or threatened or worrying.
It is true that those terms are not defined, and for good reason. The Executive has full authority in all matters pertaining to the bans and quotas provided for in UNCoESB. Their hands are not tied by some arbitrary figure which would assign a specific range to the endangered category, nor are their hands tied in deciding when the quotas and bans should kick in. And I notice that you keep dancing around the term International Best Practice which the UNCoESB Executive is bound by law to follow.

And here we see the other weakness in UNCoESB. We acknowledge this body's inability to legislate with respect to international waters; whales and other aquatic species do not, however, limit themselves to national waters. "Local" efforts have minimal affect on populations that are in fact at "worrying" levels of census.
The UN does not have jurisdiction of place over international waters. It does, however, have jurisdiction over the actions of its member nations and their citizens while they are in international waters.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

We've noticed that many of the representatives assembled here today have their children with them. We as a company are focused on children's nutrition and strive to encourage healthy eating habits in the little ones. I, J. Milford Fairlington III, am thrilled to announce that we have a special treat for all the boys and girls here today. I'd like you to welcome our company mascot, SKIPPY THE WHALE!

Let's have a big hand for Skippy! *claps*

*An eight foot tall "whale" comes dancing down the main aisle of the General Assembly. He is accompanied by a dozen or so little "whales" which are obviously Robotic Destructor Bunnies™ dressed up in whale costumes.*

*the "Skippy Song" blares at an uncomfortable volume from the PA system*

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/whaleco_global_llc.jpg

Who's the whale
with the biggest tail?
Who comes in with a
SPLASH?

Who makes a good meal
for boys and girls,
now available in
Snack Packs?

It's skippy!
It's Skippy!
Eat Me!
Eat Me!

It's Skippy!
It's skippy!
Eat Me, Now!

It's Skippy!
It's Skippy!
Eat Me!
Eat Me!

It's Skippy!
It's skippy!
Eat Me, Yeah!

Drop it. Captain Grayson is correct. Our financial records are NOT pertinent to the discussion.

There are no "tensions within the company". Captain Grayson simply has a colorful way of speaking.We are always amazed at the truth revealed in a "colorful way of speaking". Mr. Fairlington, methinks the lawyer doth protest all too much. You are attempting to manipulate this body for corporate profit--of course, your records are pertinent. You will produce them for review by this Assembly forthwith.

And I notice that you keep dancing around the term International Best Practice which the UNCoESB Executive is bound by law to follow.We consider it only minimally because it is only minimally significant to the question of coverage of UNCoESB.
The UN does not have jurisdiction of place over international waters. It does, however, have jurisdiction over the actions of its member nations and their citizens while they are in international waters.Thank you for the clarification. It does lead us to ask, Mr. Fairlington, how it is you run a (presumably successful, though when we examine your records we'll see for ourselves) commercial whaling operation in contravention of the ban placed on commercial whaling. And don't bother to gush the tripe the Cobdenians did about qualifying for aboriginal whaling out of your blowhole. It won't wash.

--L.T.

We are always amazed at the truth revealed in a "colorful way of speaking". Mr. Fairlington, methinks the lawyer doth protest all too much. You are attempting to manipulate this body for corporate profit--of course, your records are pertinent. You will produce them for review by this Assembly forthwith.
It is a matter of principle. We have nothing to hide but we are not required to divulge our financial statement. We will divulge it when, and only when, we see fit to do so.

We consider it only minimally because it is only minimally significant to the question of coverage of UNCoESB.
Only minimally significant? It "only" forms the basis for determining when quotas shall be applied.
Thank you for the clarification. It does lead us to ask, Mr. Fairlington, how it is you run a (presumably successful, though when we examine your records we'll see for ourselves) commercial whaling operation in contravention of the ban placed on commercial whaling. And don't bother to gush the tripe the Cobdenians did about qualifying for aboriginal whaling out of your blowhole. It won't wash.

--L.T.
At present, WhaleCo Global is a UN member. Our whaling operations are suspended, our whaling fleets are in port undergoing scheduled preventive maintenance and upgrading. Before joining the UN we were unaffected by the ban. After the successful passage of this repeal we will either remain in the UN, or withdraw. That has yet to be determined.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

The nation of Vaku when we get our U.N membership will vote against this resolution as it is trying to be regressive for environmental rights and the protection of whales.

It is a matter of principle. We have nothing to hide but we are not required to divulge our financial statement. We will divulge it when, and only when, we see fit to do so.Principle, Mr. Fairlington? We're surprised you even know the word. "We have nothing to hide" are usually the first words out of the mouths of people who have much to hide.
At present, WhaleCo Global is a UN member. Our whaling operations are suspended, our whaling fleets are in port undergoing scheduled preventive maintenance and upgrading. Before joining the UN we were unaffected by the ban. After the successful passage of this repeal we will either remain in the UN, or withdraw. That has yet to be determined.So your membership here is a sham, a coat of convenience to wear as you will for your underhanded aims.

--L.T.

What is WhaleCo Trying to Hide?

The nation of Vaku when we get our U.N membership will vote against this resolution as it is trying to be regressive for environmental rights and the protection of whales.
We welcome the nation of Vaku and congratulate them on their decision to participate in the UN.

We must ask though, "environmental rights"? What is that? Who are these rights granted to? The environment? The animals? The environmentalists? We suspect it is the last one.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

What is WhaleCo Trying to Hide?
Personally, I would ask whether that's your business or not. Can we please discuss this repeal on its own merits rather than those of the author?

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

So your membership here is a sham, a coat of convenience to wear as you will for your underhanded aims.
*shrug* All may join and then leave as they please. What of it?

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Personally, I would ask whether that's your business or not. Can we please discuss this repeal on its own merits rather than those of the author?

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative
It's alright. Ambassador Talone has as much right to ask for our financial statements as we have to say "no you're not going to see them".

I am considering the release of these records. There really is no reason to withhold them, other than not liking to be told that I will produce them.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

I wonder whether ambassador Talone has anything to add about the repeal and it's merits, or if the Rubinans are content to probe the financial documents of a legitimate business.

Milfie, go ahead and do what you think is in the company's interest. I most definitely trust your legal judgment.

Yurdamay Pendankr
Chairman, Imperial Amalgamated Trust
Partner, WhaleCo Global LLC

Personally, I would ask whether that's your business or not.You're certainly able and welcome to ask, Rep. Black. You aren't, however, the arbiter of relevance. Good thing that.
There really is no reason to withhold them, other than not liking to be told that I will produce them.If that is the sticking point, Mr. Fairlington, consider this a request. We'll even say please and pretty please. With sugar on top. And multi-colored sprinkles.


--L.T.

What is WhaleCo Trying to Hide?

As much as i am against WhaleCo Global, i really don't see how these documents are relavent.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I support banning whale fishing.

I have yet to have a decent conversation with a whale, or for that matter any level of game of chess.

I fear, Lord Esheram, you have been devoting so much time to your nation-building in distant colonies that you have too little to spare for appreciating the wonderful diversity that this body embraces. I would be happy to converse with you in the Strangers' Bar later on topics decent or indecent, as you choose.

Joking aside, I recognise that your comments and this debate as a whole are not concerned with whales such as myself, a sapient form, but with our forebears, the whales which have been subjected to commercial exploitation.

Constantly representatives ask, why should whales be different? Is UNcoESB not sufficient protection?

Almost as constantly, representatives accuse Ms Talone and others of undue emotionalism.

I will tell you why whales should be different, and I will be emotional. There should be a resolution specifically banning whaling because "nation-companies" such as the one which proposed this repeal exist. Think about it: an entire nation of people dedicated solely to killing another species. Such entities know no laws but those of profit. As we have seen in this debate, they employ lawyers dedicated to oozing between the cracks of any legislation this body creates. They defy a reasonable request to show how much profit they make from their blood-soaked trade. When the resolution banning whaling passed it was a solid declaration of the international community's views regarding whaling -- it pinned the exploiters down more solidly than UNcoESB, because it was specific to their victims.

We of Worldsong took that as a heartening indication that those species who whale had recognised their fault and were seeking to amend it.

Instead we find that some have not even recognised it as a fault, and endeavour to pass it on to their children. You even invent cute little cartoon characters to lure young minds to your way of thinking. This is shameful. This is evil.

We, too, once did as you have done; we have hunted other species that had the capacity to develop intelligence. We did this even after the genetic Uplift that made us sapient, and it is a stain on our race that can never be removed. Humans are similarly flawed. But it is not too late for other races. That is why we stand here: to save those of you who can be saved from making the mistakes we, and humans, have made. Let the ban stand, and extend it. Humans, learn, as we did, from our wrongdoing. Whales are not the only species you exploit: so do not remove protection for that species, but extend it specifically to the others you misuse. Do not hide behind generalities. Name your sins, humans.

The nation of Vaku when we get our U.N membership will vote against this resolution as it is trying to be regressive for environmental rights and the protection of whales.
In an effort to drag this debate back to the topic of the repeal rather than protestation that the proposers have implausibly clear sight into the medium term for a corporation, we would direct the nation of Vaku to the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120), more commonly and briefly referred to as UNCoESB. It is this document which we and others contend covers the environmental protection aspects of Banning Whaling, leaving us with little more than emotional blackmail before us. As such, it is only right and proper that it be repealed.

i really don't see how these documents are relavent.That's because they aren't. And it's beginning to get annoying and threadjacky.

That's because they aren't. And it's beginning to get annoying and threadjacky.
OOC: In Rubina's defense, I was playing along with that so that I could eventually, grudgingly, release the "documents" (and oh what documents they will be :D ). This isn't the first time I've contributed to the hijacking of one of my own threads. Anyway, it's my fault for encouraging it. We'll stop.

OOC: Does this mean the cook-off and the whale defenestration are also off? :(

OOC: Does this mean the cook-off and the whale defenestration are also off? :(

OOC: The cook off better not be off, I spent a lot of time coming up with Sven's dishes.

Ehh. Perhaps I overreacted a little. I wrote that when I had just woken up. If Whale Co's fine with it, it's okay. And I wasn't trying to stomp on it that hard either. I just didn't want it to turn into ping-ponging posts on financial records.

I, the Representative of the Republic of Arkbah would like to discuss the vagueness of both the current piece of legislation (UN Resolution #70) and this proposed piece of work.
We would like to point out, that UN Resolution #70 relies on the negative connotations of whaling, brought out by mass media hysteria over the issue. Lets face it. We hunt deer. Pigs. Rats. Pretty much anything on land that moves in fact. And so, Arkbah would have me suggest that UN Resolution be repealed on the grounds it has no scientific or ecological merit whatsoever.
However, if we are to support this repeal, we would require some logic behind it. It must ban whaling of endangered species, however, whaling of other species should be just as legal as fishing or hunting.
As such, Arkbah wishes this repeal to go ahead, just with a little tweaking.
Thank you.

Charlie Ark
UN Representative of Arkbah

having newly joined the debate i would like to agree with the honorable Arkbah
I think that a total ban on whaleing would be bad, and would soon crowd the oceans with these behemoths however we cann't just let them be hunted to extinction, perhaps as Arkbah says we could only ban endangered spicies of whales from being hunted, that or we can require a strict license for everyone who will be whaleing which requires a down fee, and the checking of all ships coming into any port. :cool:

The People's Republic of Kostemetsia wishes to express that it feels it conceives a hidden agenda of dishonourable intentions behind this repealment, and records its official vote as AGAINST.

Leo Verkotnik
High Ambassador of the Diplomatic Corps
People's Republic of Kostemetsia

OOC: Does this mean the cook-off and the whale defenestration are also off? :(

OOC: As the most likely defenestratee (being, as far as I can tell, the only whale here), I think you should first clarify whether I am actually present in body, or whether I am a hologram (though I suppose it would be rather unsporting of me to be the latter). May I also suggest you rent large numbers of Robot Destructor Bunnies, as my person is even weightier than my arguments, and you can't ask the gnomes to do it, as that would show improper bias.

You might want to check up on the size of the windows, too. Only if they're big enough for dragons will they be big enough for me. Are there any dragons available you could defenestrate first, to get it right?

IC:
The People's Republic of Kostemetsia wishes to express that it feels it conceives a hidden agenda of dishonourable intentions behind this repealment ...

We feel the same, and that is why we thank the General Secretary for the revised ruling. We suspect that detailed examination of Whaleco's financial documents will reveal a base commercial motive for this repeal.

It may well be significant enough to cast major doubt on the validity of some of the arguments used to support it, though we are aware that many honourable nations are arguing in good faith in its favour.

Our team of legal scholars has produced a document of unassailable accuracy and clarity which lays out an unimpeachable case for the repeal of this once useful, but now unnecessary legislation.
I don't know, not all whales are endangered or beyond, if my research serves me well, but any can be if whaling is set to continue.
UNCoESB only acts as a safeguard for those species of whale that are considered endangered or worse, not for those considered lower risk. No, this acts as an extra safeguard to protect all species of whale, and not just the endangered ones. I say keep it in place: Damanucus' vote for the repeal ids AGAINST.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

(OOC: FYI, I decided to check against the IUCN Red List, which records all RL species and their current conservation status. I have spotted some whale species appear in the Lower Risk and Least Concern categories--meaning they aren't endangered. While I can't say the same could be the case in the NS universe, this needs to be considered when voting aye or nay on the repeal.)

*A man, sitting at the desk and drinking water suddenly chokes and spits it out*

You must be crazy! Freaking crazy! Yeah, I admit that whales are fat and stupid, but that's not the reason for killing them. They are easy to kill, but they are living creatures. I bet dodo birds tasted as well as whales do. So what? They are goddamn extinct!

For Mother Nature the Confederacy of Leikeze votes against.

I bet dodo birds tasted as well as whales do.Actually, dodo birds tasted horrible. Tough meat and really no good to eat. Which makes sense, as they were ground-based birds; probably a lot of dense muscle. Whale, I wager, is much fattier.

Oh dear... and I'm a judge for the cook-off. I better be careful; I'd hate to lose my girlish figure...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The People's Republic of Kostemetsia wishes to express that it feels it conceives a hidden agenda of dishonourable intentions behind this repealment, and records its official vote as AGAINST.

The Republic of Tolsimir feels that Kostemetsia is right and so we are voting against.

If this ban was repealed we have no confidence that nations engaging in whale hunting will be able to conserve whale species.

I think this reslution is a cruel trick to deceive members of the UN into allowing the wholesale slaughter of whales for the short-term commercial profit of a few member states. For once the ban is repealed these member states will declare all whale species no longer endangered (and therefore no longer protected) and then hunt them to extinction.

Adar Tallon
Representative of The Republic of Tolsimir

The Delegate of Kuosio notes that point 4 of the proposed resolution (CONVINCED that Resolution #70 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119) is indeed correct. Being opposed on principle to redundant legislation, the Consitutional Monarchy of Kuosio believes that, on face value, the appropriate vote for this resolution is FOR.

However, the Delegate of Kuosio would question the motives of WhaleCo Global LLC in submitting this resolution. It is not inconceivable that WhaleCo Global LLC has proposed this resolution not for the greater good of the world, but to further its own agenda. The Delegate wonders how long it will be before we see "Repeal UNCoESB" submitted by WhaleCo Global LLC! As such, the Delegate of Kuosio intends to await further clarifications from WhaleCo Global LLC and the rest of the international community before coming to a decision on this resolution.

Well... WhaleCo joined the UN to submit this Repeal. Previously, as a non-member, they weren't bound by it anyway...

The fact is that the assertion (CONVINCED that Resolution #70 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119) is indeed not correct. If it was completely correct I'm pretty sure that WaleCo would have no reason to attempt to repeal the resolution.

Resolution #119 is based on qutoas and deliberately prevents complete prohibitions except for rare cases, "Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event." Resolution #70 is for the total ban, "Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed."

Resolution #70 is a RED LIGHT on whale hunting while resolution #119 would be a GREEN LIGHT as long as populaiton numbers aren't endangered and then a YELLOW LIGHT when they become endangered.

And what happens to the post yellow light? I'll give you a hint but I don't want to invoke Goddwin's law. So i'll just quote from Resolution #119, "Article 6: Capture and Breeding: If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species."

That's right corral them all into camps. No, there is no reason to kill a whale, never. Now a tourist on the other hand, or a UN delegate for that matter. Them's good eating I tell you! We will probably have to capture you though ... breeding purposes only you understand. And then we eat you!

Nyet. Non. Nein.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Minyos wishes to know just who exactly has decided that whales are plentiful in the NS universe. And, demands proof. A nation just admitted to the UN which is so obviously pro-whaling providing so-called "proof" is not exactly independent, yes?

The facetious, farcical comments on the tastiness of whale which have been made can safely be ignored as useful to debate - beyond a base lusting for forbidden errr, fruit.

I join Retired WerePenguins and all the other rational humane nations before me in opposing this repeal. I call for a strong vote AGAINST this repeal.

I reiterate, where is the independent proof from the relevant commission that whales are plentiful? I demand, as the ambassador for Minyos, a UN nation, that this proof be presented, in full, for all to peruse, from a member of the commission, without the numbers being...ahem, cooked.

Thank you to the Delegate of Retired WerePenguins - The Delegate of Kuosio withdraws his incorrect and misleading remark about the resolution.

No, there is no reason to kill a whale, never.
The Delegate of Kuosio is not certain that he agrees completely with this remark - are we to ban fishing and the production of beef as well? However, the Delegate feels that there is no doubt that this restriction is necessary to prevent certain nations from abusing the power to hunt whales.

So at least for the meantime, Kuosio is preparing to vote against this resolution.

The Head of State of Kuosio requests his Delegate to remind the Delegate of Retired WerePenguins that Kuosio takes threats against its diplomats very seriously indeed.

Imagine a human being roasted with baked potatoes and sauce... Is it enough to convince you?...
AGAINST is the ANSWER! Keep the Environment clean and friendly for all the species of the world... This is Anti-modernizating Socialism VIEW!!!:headbang:

Minyos wishes to know just who exactly has decided that whales are plentiful in the NS universe. And, demands proof. A nation just admitted to the UN which is so obviously pro-whaling providing errr "proof" is not exactly independent, yes?

There isn't an iota of proof that whales are threatened, either! I challenge you, sir, to show one bit of evidence that whales in the NS world are threatened.

The facetious, farcical comments on the tastiness of whale which have been made can safely be ignored as useful to debate - beyond a base lusting for forbidden errr, fruit.

But sir, if beef were the topic of discussion, surely the tastiness of beef would be important?

I join Retired WerePenguins and all the other rational humane nations in calling for a strong vote AGAINST this repeal.

Argumentum ad captandum. Therefore, non sequitur.

I reiterate, where is the independent proof from the relevant commission that whales are plentiful? I demand, as the ambassador for Minyos, a UN nation, that this proof be presented, in full, for all to peruse, from a member of the commission, without the numbers being...ahem, cooked.

And I demand, as a duly enumerated plenipotentiary from the Great Star Empire, a big fucking nation with a really impressive title, UN Delegate, that the opposition produce evidence that these delicious cetaceans are in fact threatened, endangered, slightly scared, or even just a little bit miffed by that chap giving them the look!

Provide evidence, you nay-sayers, that whales are threatened!

That's right corral them all into camps. No, there is no reason to kill a whale, never. Now a tourist on the other hand, or a UN delegate for that matter. Them's good eating I tell you! We will probably have to capture you though ... breeding purposes only you understand. And then we eat you!

Pure, utter hypocrisy. Just like I remember!

Landaman Pendankr
Director of UN Affairs
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

In this case, hypocrisy would be advocating the hunting of whales while rejecting that tasty delicacy, long pig.

Yes, because hunting humans is just the same as hunting whales... :rolleyes:

Run along now.

Of course, my dear fellow, hunting whales for sport is technically completely legal. After all, it's neither scientific nor commercial.

Anyone fancy going on a whale hunt?

Whoa...a loophole like that?!? Count me in!

Whales should be conserved so that future generations can enjoy them, not on a plate but as swimming free in our oceans.We vote Against.

And so we should conserve all animals so that future generations can enjoy them? So no more bacon? No more hamburgers? No more...well, anything tasty? Just a bunch of grains and vegetables? Yeah....'k...

Let's just ignore small island nations that don't have the space to lay out corn fields, rice patties, or soybean fields. They can just go to hell, right? No fish for them. No meat. No proteins at all. How compassionate you are -- when it comes to whales anyway.

We could just as easily quote "studies" that say otherwise. We also would not be inclined to trust a "study" from a company with a vested interest in the results being in their favor.

And we could just as easily quote "studies" from animal-rights activists that say your position is the right one. Hmmm...whom to believe? I'm gonna go with the one that gives me food.

Until their evidence is proven to be true, we do not see any reason to repeal the resolution based simply on the assertion that their "studies" exist. As we stated previously, anyone can pull out a "study" to support their position.

As I stated already.

We have not yet decided, as a delegation, that UNcoESb does provide those necessary protections. If we decide that it does (or are convinced of that), then we could well change our position.

It does. End argument.

Lord Byron stands at the podium and connects his laptop to the wiring displaying the draft of the UNCoESB on the screens in front of the Delegates in the General Assembly.

"Ladies and gentlemen, honoured diplomats and representatives of the UN" he orated, "I present you with the draft of the UNCoESB on your screens and I will highlight the following..."

"the UNCoESB was introduced as a one for all to replace the multitude of save the (insert your fluffy critter here) resolutions. It was designed primarily to protect all species of wild life on this planet and the focus of the UNCoESB is ecological conservation of species through education and the application of decent practices in hunting and fishing. It is designed to preserve the rights of indigenous peoples to continue to practice their time honoured traditions and I will add that any nation may through the terms of the UNCoESB specify any species for specialised protections within that nations borders.

The simple fact is that this whales resolution is redundant. It has for too long cost our nations in UN Fees that need not be applied for the whales get sufficient protections through the UNCoESB resolution. It is high time to lessen the unnecessary financial burden on our members and repeal this redundant resolution.

I thank you all for your time."

Lord Byron, author of the UNCoESB resolution retakes his seat to await responses to his petition.

'Nuff said.

Mr. Roosevelt, first let us apologize for not noticing your remarks early. If you are indeed in a position of hunting for your survival, then of course my remarks do not apply to you.

Oh, of course not...

However, this proposal still bans hunting for survival. It needs to be repealed.

However, as you note you're living (and presumably hunting) on a nature preserve, one must ask if that is not an unnecessary choice you have made, and one that moves into the realm of the unethical.

Or perhaps something his people have been forced to do because of this inane resolution?

UNCoESB does not address "merely" threatened species. A species' census must drop to the level of endangered before triggering the protections under UNCoESB.

Quite. At which point, UNCoESB kicks in, making this resolution redundant.

And those for this resolution are intellectually inferior capitalists with venereal diseases.

Yes, brilliant argument. Those against are all deluded by syphillis. I could counter by saying all those for are smoking weed, but then, that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it?

Lord Byron, your good work in these halls is of legend, and your intent with regard to UNCoESB is noted. However, as so many of those relying on your resolution have insisted in the past, the law means what it says.

Yes, and what it says is redundant.

Conservation science no longer supports the protocols as spelled out in UNCoESB. The concept of an endangered species is definitionally different than a threatened species, and we have learned that waiting until a species is endangered places said species in danger of genetic fixation and ultimately species fragility.

And we have "learned" this from a handful of "scientists" with a vested interest in keeping their careers going. How is that different from studies conducted by WhaleCo?

Well, shit...it's not. Not at all.

Cookesland, Worldsong, the Schwarzchildren and all the others who oppose this resolution, remain strong in the face of this evil. Altanar... Leetha sighes and takes her seat.

Lovely bit of emotional rheotric there, Leetha. Still in the red on the bullshit-o-meter, though.

*spits tobacco juice into an empty beer can*


Hey, you just spit in out national currency!

That wasn't my point. Humpbacks songs aren't just used for mating. Scientific study might show them to be for aesthetic reasons.


Yes, let's keep them around cuz they sing pretty. How very rational. :rolleyes:

The silence of other parties does not affect the nature of the data. Data collected by a party with financial interest in the outcome is by its nature biased, Mr. Pendankr. Do you trust data from MegaPharma that their new pharmaceutical is as safe as mother's milk and cures all forms of cancer? Not if you're sane and wish to retain liver function, you don't. The source of the data taints the conclusion.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If I provided a survey (production of which was under my direction) of whale populations, that showed there are two remaining mating pairs of right-whales, would you accept it, given that I have something I wish to prove with that data?

Already addressed. I don't trust the data from your "environmentalists" either. They've got a vested interest in making us believe that whales are going to be extinct tomorrow and that the world gonna blow up or drop into the sun next week.

I will tell you why whales should be different, and I will be emotional.

Emotion should have no part in legislation. Law is supposed to be fair, objective and devoid of emotional wanking. Next!

I, the Representative of the Republic of Arkbah would like to discuss the vagueness of both the current piece of legislation (UN Resolution #70) and this proposed piece of work.
We would like to point out, that UN Resolution #70 relies on the negative connotations of whaling, brought out by mass media hysteria over the issue. Lets face it. We hunt deer. Pigs. Rats. Pretty much anything on land that moves in fact. And so, Arkbah would have me suggest that UN Resolution be repealed on the grounds it has no scientific or ecological merit whatsoever.
However, if we are to support this repeal, we would require some logic behind it. It must ban whaling of endangered species, however, whaling of other species should be just as legal as fishing or hunting.
As such, Arkbah wishes this repeal to go ahead, just with a little tweaking.
Thank you.


No, thank you, Charlie. You made an excellent point there.

Nyet. Non. Nein.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How very...logical...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I have yet to have a decent conversation with a whale, or for that matter any level of game of chess. When I see a whale who has an appreciation for Music, Fine art or the ability to stop and just stand in awe at the world around it He can come over for dinner and I will personally move to have the Whales become members of the UN community.

Sen. Sulla looks up from his copy of 101 Recipies for Whale and says to Lord Byron,
"With all due respect, my friend, I you want a conversation with a marine mammall you should stick to my nation's brave Naval Defenders. The Kawaiian and my fellow regionmates can attest to their flair for language...just make sure no pregnant women or impressionable children are present."

He the adresses the rest of the festering snakepit...err...august body of delegates.
"As stated before, The Palentine fully supports this repeal as it is a waste of time money, and space. It makes the delegates have warm feelings of joy and happiness, but a fifth of Wild Turkey(TM) can manage the same effects...only cheaper. The UNCoESB already makes provisions to protect any species in dager of extinction, and does a much more fairer and effective job of it."

Sen. Sulla goes mack to his reading.
"Now where was I?...Fricassied Whale in a Fine Yeldan Cheddar(TM) Sauce. MMMMM! MMMMM!.... Country Fried Whate with Milk Gravy.Yummmy!"

I join Retired WerePenguins and all the other rational nations ....http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

However, if we are to support this repeal, we would require some logic behind it. It must ban whaling of endangered species, however, whaling of other species should be just as legal as fishing or hunting.
As such, Arkbah wishes this repeal to go ahead, just with a little tweaking.
Thank you.

Charlie Ark
UN Representative of Arkbah

having newly joined the debate i would like to agree with the honorable Arkbah
I think that a total ban on whaleing would be bad, and would soon crowd the oceans with these behemoths however we cann't just let them be hunted to extinction, perhaps as Arkbah says we could only ban endangered spicies of whales from being hunted, that or we can require a strict license for everyone who will be whaleing which requires a down fee, and the checking of all ships coming into any port. :cool:
Legislation cannot be "tweaked" once it has been submitted. Furthermore, new legislation cannot be introduced within a repeal. All a repeal can do is remove the old law. As for your concerns about banning whaling of endangered species, see UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120). If they are still endangered, then hunting them is banned.

The People's Republic of Kostemetsia wishes to express that it feels it conceives a hidden agenda of dishonourable intentions behind this repealment, and records its official vote as AGAINST.

Leo Verkotnik
High Ambassador of the Diplomatic Corps
People's Republic of Kostemetsia

We feel the same, and that is why we thank the General Secretary for the revised ruling. We suspect that detailed examination of Whaleco's financial documents will reveal a base commercial motive for this repeal.
You are correct, we do have an agenda and a commercial motive. We want UN nations to be able to hunt whales and profit from it.

(OOC: FYI, I decided to check against the IUCN Red List, which records all RL species and their current conservation status. I have spotted some whale species appear in the Lower Risk and Least Concern categories--meaning they aren't endangered. While I can't say the same could be the case in the NS universe, this needs to be considered when voting aye or nay on the repeal.)
Never heard of the IUCN Red List. I'm assuming it is a document pertaining to mythological events in the fantasy land of RL and thus it has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

I think this reslution is a cruel trick to deceive members of the UN into allowing the wholesale slaughter of whales for the short-term commercial profit of a few member states. For once the ban is repealed these member states will declare all whale species no longer endangered (and therefore no longer protected) and then hunt them to extinction.

Adar Tallon
Representative of The Republic of Tolsimir
That would be the most idiotic business plan ever conceived. An analogy would be a lumber company that clear-cuts all of its timber, whether it can sell it or not, and also neglects to plant any new growth. "Wheeee! Let's destroy our only source of income and go broke!"

The Delegate wonders how long it will be before we see "Repeal UNCoESB" submitted by WhaleCo Global LLC!
You will never see "Repeal UNCoESB" submitted by us and if you knew your UN history you'd know why.

I'll give you a hint but I don't want to invoke Goddwin's law.
Oh, go right ahead with that. Be my guest.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

I join Retired WerePenguins and all the other rational...
The representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny beat me to it, but.....http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif.

Nyet. Non. Nein.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Minyos wishes to know just who exactly has decided that whales are plentiful in the NS universe. And, demands proof. A nation just admitted to the UN

OOC: I'd like you to consider the possibility that the PLAYER behind WhaleCo might not be "just admitted into the UN". Very rarely do we see such a well crafted proposal or a well designed argument from someone who has never before discussed drafting.

You, on the other hand, are new to the NSUN Universe so let me give you a hint: it's as valid a claim from a brand new newbie as it is from someone who's been here for 4 years.

I'd also like to point out that from an IC perspective, it would make no sense for a nation which wants to hunt whales to join the UN to repeal legislation only with effect upon the UN nations just so it can hunt Whales. If it really wanted to do that, it wouldn't have joined the UN in the first place.

which is so obviously pro-whaling providing so-called "proof" is not exactly independent, yes?

The facetious, farcical comments on the tastiness of whale which have been made can safely be ignored as useful to debate - beyond a base lusting for forbidden errr, fruit.

I join Retired WerePenguins and all the other rational humane nations before me in opposing this repeal. I call for a strong vote AGAINST this repeal.

I reiterate, where is the independent proof from the relevant commission that whales are plentiful?

IC: UNCoESB - which DOES (despite the claim from the Respresentative of Retired Penguins) have the power to ban whaling if the population figures are low enough to warrant concerns about planet-wide extinction and institute a "Red Light" on whaling. As it is, there is no way for the UN to determine whether Whale numbers are high enough to permit whaling or not and we just have a blanket ban in place. The very independent commission has been founded in the form of UNCoESB and this resolution hinders it from having its findings actually have effect on the area of Whaling.

I demand, as the ambassador for Minyos, a UN nation, that this proof be presented, in full, for all to peruse, from a member of the commission, without the numbers being...ahem, cooked.

You can ask UNCoESB for its most recent report.

Esteemed delegates, ladies and gentlemen, gnomish scum.

It has been some time since I last addressed this assembly; that last time, I managed to have Zarazarawotsit chuck juice all over me and get fired in the same afternoon, but hopefully that's all forgotten now. [Nervous laughter.] I look around and see many new faces, some old faces squinting up in bleary-half recognition, and some faces no longer with us: including, sadly, the Thessadorian ambassador, though now I think about it, I can't really picture her face at all...

In any case, allow me to reintroduce myself. My name is Moltan Bausch, Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny, and former Ambassador to the United Nations, for the Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg. During my time at the UN, I was the author of Repeal "The Law of the Sea", UN Demining Survey and Rohypnol Rhapsody: A Beginner's Guide to Seduction. And although Gruenberg has long since resigned its membership in this organization, I now feel the need to come before you again. For the matter before the General Assembly is, I say without fear of hyperbole, the most significant ever in human history.

I commend the legal staff of WhaleCo for their fine work in drafting this repeal, but I admit my argument does not rely on theirs; rather, I go one step further. There has been much haggling over whether "Banning whaling" is redundant, but precious little on whether it is dangerous, a state of affairs I now intend to set right. "Danger?" I hear you cry. "Danger? But whales are so cute and cuddly...they smile and play...they're not dangerous! ...are they?" Well, let me ask you this:

If your sole purpose was the total annihilation of all humankind, wouldn't you pretend to be cute and cuddly?

[Shocked whispers]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we must face today an inconvenient truth. Whales are not, by any means, the happy, friendly, playful creatures their skilled propaganda portrays them as. For deep, deep in the heart of every whale burns an insatiable kill-thirst for human blood. Stare into their eyes and you will see not a placid and easy-going gaze of childlike joy, but a savage and throbbing desire to rip out your entrails and dance on the graves of your children. (Oh, best not tell them they can't dance, or then they'll get really mad.)

I ask for calm now as I prepare to reveal, for the first time, high-level intelligence photographs clearly demonstrating the development of advanced weapons systems by whales in sinister undersea laboratories, using deadly strains of planktoweaponry.

http://www.confluence.org/us/hi/n21w157v2/%70%69%63%32.jpg

[Gasps of horror]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's true. When I first saw it I could scarcely believe my eyes too, but there is irrefutable evidence of the huge and menacing arsenal at the disposal of the whale armies now massing across our coasts. My next slide shows that our worst fears have been surpassed, as I give you high-definition photographs showing nuclear missile silos under whale control. Ladies and gentlemen, this thing just got hot.

http://www.confluence.org/us/hi/n21w157v2/%70%69%63%33.jpg

[Uproarious shouting, trampling in the aisles]

Furthermore, for all you crazy 'evolutionist' whackjobs out there, riddle me this. Are whales not the most advanced form of sea life, and likely closely related to those creatures that supposedly first hauled themselves out of the water and went on to become land mammals? And did those land mammals, supposedly, go on to rise up on two legs, and eventually become modern man? Well, in that case, evolutionists are saying that whales are our ancestors - and closes ones at that, so close they could be termed "yo mama". And have you seen the size of whales? Yes, ladies and gentlemen: the evolutionists just called yo mama fat.

Now, I know a lot of you have environmental concerns. I do too: I'm a green, green man. I mean sure, I kill puppies for fun and once got off to a video of a gull trapped in an oil slick, but still, it's our only Earth. As you may be aware, Gruenberg recently acknowledged global warming as a real force after years of denying it as "hippie hoopajoopa". I'm concerned our polar ice caps may melt, and this could lead to increased flooding. The Gelzien Nub in Gruenberg, of which I was once Governor, is especially vulnerable, and even small increases in global sea levels could lead to total annihilation. Many of the people there are trapped in foul, abusive political prisons - I know, I put them there - and wouldn't be able to escape. Some are children. I put it to you that the opponents of this repeal want to drown children. Why? Because whaling is a safe and environmentally friendly solution to sea level rises: Archimedes knew it, and I know it now. The modern eureka is that we can lower sea levels by eliminating the displacing capacity of whales.

Whale is a tasty meat, and blubber a rich nutrient resource. And even when you've picked the carcass clean, good soup can be made from cracking those big bones for marrow: after this, I shall be heading to the Strangers' Bar and ordering myself a steaming bowl of WhaleCo's Special Whalebone Broth (now available in Essence of Tarragon flavour!). We'd all like to solve the world's hunger problem, but Michael Moore has hoarded too great a proportion of the conventional market. People are scared of GM, quorn tastes of poo...so why not p-p-p-pick up a Pilot whale!

Aside from this, most of the arguments against the repeal amount to little more than the plaintive bleating: "Free Willy!"

[Someone calls out "Free Bird!"]

What is this "Free Willy" shit? Thomas Jefferson - he said a lot about freedom. Free speech, free religion, free thought: free men. I don't see any free willy in there. And it was that other icon of American political thought, Nelson Muntz, who said "nuke the whales". Even these United Nations have been keen on freedom: we have freedom of conscience and freedom of press, freedom to perform indecent sexual acts and to glass other nations into oblivion, free drugs and free condoms. Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that not once has this body guaranteed freedom of willy. Indeed, in Gruenberger law, there are specific provisions against this: well do I remember the landmark ruling in Jiffjeff v. Bausch, No. 12 in which it was established that "freedom of willy" could not be used as legal grounds for dismissing a sexual harassment case.

I'd like to share a thought first articulated by Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad:

"Have you forgotten that when we were brought here, we were robbed of our name, robbed of our language. We lost our religion, our culture, our God! And many of us, by the way we act, we even lost our minds."

[Hastily presses stop bottom as Night of the Living Baseheads kicks in, but not before an aide has started "breaking it on down" with embarrassing vigour.]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been robbed of our name: my mother was proud to call me Moltan, yet to the whales I am simply eeh-eeh-krikkk. Is that any way to treat a dying woman's wish? We have been robbed of our language, for pro-whale groups consistently extol the "whale tongue", which should instead be eaten (fried, with garlic). We have lost our religion - I am a Wenaist, but I know many here are Christians, and I think we all remember what that whale did to Jonah - and our culture - a culture founded on killing anything that moves. If we do not strike out this abomination of a resolution with the vengeful sword of justice, we will truly have lost our minds.

I close with a plea. Think of the children. The children who will suffer when the whales raise their tidal wave of crimson wrath against us. The children who will be left starving while whales feast on a galaxy of underwater treats. The children who will watch as their homes are swept away by the whale-induced rises in global sea levels. The children who no longer know who their parents are, to allow such abominations in the world.

We must annihilate this threat in the name of common humanity! We must join together to fight down the evil plague of the whale king! We must not rest in the epic battle for civilization, for the salvation of our every sacred blessing! And as we stand before the shadowy iniquities of blubbery intrigue, let this be our battle cry:

"WHALERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!"

~Moltan Bausch
Ambassador to Omigodtheykilledkenny
Former Ambassador to the United Nations

Esteemed delegates, ladies and gentlemen, gnomish scum.

*Snip*

I ask for calm now as I prepare to reveal, for the first time, high-level intelligence photographs clearly demonstrating the development of advanced weapons systems by whales in sinister undersea laboratories, using deadly strains of planktoweaponry.

*snip*

My next slide shows that our worst fears have been surpassed, as I give you high-definition photographs showing nuclear missile silos under whale control. Ladies and gentlemen, this thing just got hot.

*Snip*

Furthermore, for all you crazy 'evolutionist' whackjobs out there, riddle me this. Are whales not the most advanced form of sea life, and likely closely related to those creatures that supposedly first hauled themselves out of the water and went on to become land mammals? And did those land mammals, supposedly, go on to rise up on two legs, and eventually become modern man? Well, in that case, evolutionists are saying that whales are our ancestors - and closes ones at that, so close they could be termed "yo mama".

*Snip*

OOC: LOL

IC: So are you suggesting, Ambassador, that we should be passing a resolution protecting whales on account of them being Sapient? I know the resolution to protect Sapient Species failed (and possibly we should make another attempt at it), but I think the sentiment was generally agreed upon by many of the major members of this body.

Admittedly, I can't remember what your own vote was on the matter.

So are you suggesting, Ambassador, that we should be passing a resolution protecting whales on account of them being Sapient? I know the resolution to protect Sapient Species failed (and possibly we should make another attempt at it), but I think the sentiment was generally agreed upon by many of the major members of this body.

Admittedly, I can't remember what your own vote was on the matter.
I can't recall our vote either. We weren't wild about the resolution, but we were even less wild about the opposition to it.

Actually, the parallel is a useful one. During "Rights of Biological Sapients", we mentioned the small number of vampires in Gruenberg, and felt it would be...unwise?...for Baaaaffy the Vampire Slayer (a popular TV character based on a real vampire-hunter) to have to go through due process each time she wanted to stake one of them in the heart. Similarly, whales - those nefarious agents of bloated destruction - are a fundamental threat to humanity. That they are "sapient", "sentient" or "intelligent" seems neither here nor there.

Immanuel Kant once admitted that under the terms of his ethical theory, if a murderer with an axe came looking for your friend, it'd still be wrong to lie about their whereabouts; you'd apparently just make them sit an IQ test. Hence, no, I am not suggesting we pass a resolution to protect whales: I am suggesting we pass a resolution to institute a mandatory cull of all whales. If we do not get our retaliation in first with a decisive preemptive strike, there is a danger the whale hordes will descend upon us all too soon.

~Moltan Bausch
Ambassador to Omigodtheykilledkenny
Former Ambassador to the United Nations

... We suspect that detailed examination of Whaleco's financial documents will reveal a base commercial motive for this repeal.

It may well be significant enough to cast major doubt on the validity of some of the arguments used to support it, though we are aware that many honourable nations are arguing in good faith in its favour.As do we, First Singer.
That would be the most idiotic business plan ever conceived. An analogy would be a lumber company that clear-cuts all of its timber, whether it can sell it or not, and also neglects to plant any new growth.A business plan that we have seen many times in these nation states, as the frequency of mass deforestation shows.
OOC: I'd like you to consider the possibility that the PLAYER behind WhaleCo might not be "just admitted into the UN". OOC: Perhaps we should consider the possiblity that the player behind WhaleCo would expect such a role-played reaction, otherwise they would have used another nation? IC responses are just that, yes? Whether the IC role-play affects the outcome of the actual attempt to repeal is something the player should have (did? who knows?) considered.
IC:
I'd also like to point out that from an IC perspective, it would make no sense for a nation which wants to hunt whales to join the UN to repeal legislation only with effect upon the UN nations just so it can hunt Whales.Unless, of course, it wishes to expand operations into member nations, who don't wish to relinquish their membership. Eh?
Esteemed delegates, ladies and gentlemen, gnomish scum. <snippity>Bravo! If Mr. Bausch is any indication of the level of rationality of those for this repeal, we can look forward to the entire contingent being carted off in straight jackets any day now.

Given certain nation's demeanors, we're rooting for the whales.

Leetha Talone
Still a communist and
Ambassador to the UN

What is WhaleCo Hiding?

OOC: Perhaps we should consider the possiblity that the player behind WhaleCo would expect such a role-played reaction, otherwise they would have used another nation? IC responses are just that, yes? Whether the IC role-play affects the outcome of the actual attempt to repeal is something the player should have (did? who knows?) considered.

I'm more concerned about the snobbery of "just joined = can't have say about RP status"

Unless, of course, it wishes to expand operations into member nations, who don't wish to relinquish their membership. Eh?

Or wish to see an injustice culled....or whatever.

That said....even if they wanted to do so....they could always grab the employees, give the worker's licenses within the "Nation" of WhaleCo, hunt the Whales and sell the whale meat on the markets of said nations. No provision in UNR #70 would prevent that.

Which also sells a point of "USELESS!"

A business plan that we have seen many times in these nation states, as the frequency of mass deforestation shows.

Simple evidence of misconduct does not imply that the entire process is corrupt, Ms. Talone. Some of the communist nations I've seen have been horrible huuman rights abusers, but somehow I doubt that you'd agree that it's an adequate representation of all communist nations.

Unless, of course, it wishes to expand operations into member nations, who don't wish to relinquish their membership. Eh?

Uh... yeah.

Seriously, is there any doubt about the agenda here? It's not like it's a massive conspiracy on our part. Maybe the whales, but I'll leave that to Mr. Bausch.

What is WhaleCo Hiding?

The bodies? Is that a rhetorical question, or are you seriously, totally not getting the objective here?

Landaman Pendankr
Director of UN Affairs
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

What does Resolution #119 state?

Yes, because hunting humans is just the same as hunting whales... :rolleyes:

Run along now.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
So humans have more worth than whales?

<mod snip>
No. The evolution of early cetaceans and humans diverged roughly 25 million years ago. They evolved from a coastal mammal into a fully aquatic species.

And so we should conserve all animals so that future generations can enjoy them? So no more bacon? No more hamburgers? No more...well, anything tasty? Just a bunch of grains and vegetables? Yeah....'k...

Cows and Pigs are not endangered, and i said nothing supporting vegitarianism.

Let's just ignore small island nations that don't have the space to lay out corn fields, rice patties, or soybean fields. They can just go to hell, right? No fish for them. No meat. No proteins at all. How compassionate you are -- when it comes to whales anyway.

As i stated above i said nothing of the sort. They can grab fishing rods and get fish and gather oil from there if they have no room for crops. Last time i checked Whales aren't fish.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

This proposal is ridiculous! The person sponsoring the bill has an ID which seems sympathetic to the whole whaling practice in the first place AND isn't whaling a kind of archaic practice? Aren't there some endangered whales out there protected by law? Would this proposal, if passed, strips those whales of these protections?

I see that the favorite poll choice is "Alive and swimming in the ocean, you monsters!" but in the collective UN vote (the one that will be counted by the way!), people are more in favor of repealing the whaling ban.

I urge everyone out there opposed to this repeal to tell it to the UN now!

Please vote No on this repeal!

--shits and giggles--
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not one given to emotional proclamations, yet I feel moved - nay, compelled to lend my voice to this most stirring and inspirational of rallying cries. Where perhaps reason was not enough to rouse a complacent man to action, rhetoric has infused this heart with an almost religious fervour.

Cap'n, my Cap'n! Hand me a harpoon and we shall purge this scourge, vanquish our anguish and release the peace. To arms!

Maledictions, barnacle-breath,

So humans have more worth than whales?

That is an interesting question, one which our economic researchers answered as follows:

Average contribution of one human to the Cobdenian Economy in One Year: £19,885 11/9d

Average Contribution of one whale to the Cobdenian Economy in One Year: -£37 9/2d (due to hazarding shipping)

Average Cost of One Human on the Cobdenian Black Market, per lb: £5 8/3d

Average Cost of One Whale on the Cobdenian Black market, per lb: £1 5/-

Cost of One Human in evaluating Cost/Benefit calculations, according to Goldman, Frederikson, and Fishguard Insurance Adjusters: £1,500,000

Cost of One Whale in evaluating Cost/Benefit calculations, according to Goldman, Frederikson, and Fishguard Insurance Adjusters: £5

We therefore conclude, examining all situations, that humans are indeed worth more then whales.

Byron, looked on in horror at the circus performing in front of the assembly. The representative of Gruenberg had clearly forgotten to take his medicines before appearing in front of the delegates and Byron expected that some nice people were coming to take him away, hee hee, ho ho.

While he could understand the Delegates suspicions of many of the pro repeal side of the assembly the fact of the matter was plain as the look of horror on his face. UNCoESB did exactly what was written on the tin. It provided the necessary measures to ensure conservation of all species. This is why Byron supported the repeal, a repeal he had tried and failed to have passed with the support of more rational delegations.

He stood up and addressed the assembly,

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are an assembly divided on this matter. We are divided for the wrong reasons. We are divided due to the suspicions of the members regarding the motives of the proposer. Regardless of the motives, the UNCoESB is tasked with ensuring the survival of whales across the United Nations domain. Yes it allows Whaling but only in areas where there are significant numbers to not threaten the survival of the species.

UNCoESB recognises where all species of whale are endangered, where all species are threatened and should the repeal pass It can and it will ensure the survival of the whales. If you believe that whales are too important to be hunted then by all means vote no to this repeal. If you find yourself attracted to whales that you believe they should be granted a status higher than any other animal on this planet then vote no to the repeal. The repeal is there only because of the UNCoESB and the redundancy it has placed on "Banning Whaling". UNCoESB even takes into account the nations who love whales so much that they can under its provisions make the whale or any other critter a species of National Importance and Ban hunting of that animal within their own borders.

The real debate here is this. If you disagree with hunting the whale ever, regardless of its numbers then vote no to this repeal but if you agree that whaling should be allowed where the numbers are sufficient to support a thriving population protected by the terms of the UNCoESB then you must do away with this redundant piece of legislature and vote For the repeal.

The Venerable Libertarians believe in the repeal based on the redundancies. We believe in the protections set down by the UNCoESB. We believe that if your nation wishes to hunt whales for food or profit then that is your nations right as long as you abide by the terms of the UNCoESB and the protections it affords.

It is because we believe resolution 70 is now redundant having been replaced by a better resolution for all species, that we will be Voting for the Repeal, We will be requesting our regional Delegate to vote for the repeal and we humbly request that the members of the assembly vote for the repeal.

Thank you."

Byron retakes his seat feeling forlorn that the repeal will more than likely go to round ten and for the wrong reasons.


OOC. Gruen, I have never laughed so hard while reading a post in a forum as I did when i read your outburst. two other posts came close in other forums but yours won the turkey :P.

<Ambassador Lynniston, rises, it is clear that he has something on his mind>

"With our final vote in this assembly, The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes against this repeal. Despite assurances by many of my esteemed colleagues here, I have no confidence that removing this piece of legislation from the books will accomplish anything more than a quick round of mutual masturbation for those who wish a quick victory and a round of arrogant backslapping and japes. Many of my less esteemed colleagues overestimate their worth to this body, and they know of whom I speak.

This whole exercise has been thoroughly distasteful and utterly immature and lessens this body as a whole. So, I leave this body, harboring no illusions of my worth to it. I know I am a tiny fish in an increasingly polluted ocean.

I cannot say my experience here has been a pleasure. Rather it has been like engaging in self-dentistry with a pair of rusty pliers and no booze. Yet it has not been without some bright spots and to those whom I refer, thanks.

I may return to this body one day when the arrogant jackanapes who currently hold sway in it have finally left it for more interesting pursuits, like perhaps running a convenience store in a bad neighborhood, I may fondly and fervently wish.

I wish steam burns aplenty unto all of you who have reduced this issue into utterly gruesome iniquity.

Mr. Secretary, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild formally withdraws from this body, effective upon the close of this vote."

Thomas B. Lynniston; KCB, KCMG
Ambassador without Portfolio
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Why is it the belief of this body that reiterations are bad for the world? To restate our goals is not to make things slower, but stronger.

Just because endangered species are already protected in the UN does not mean that we can't ban whaling too. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Rather, they make the United Nations stronger when used in conjunction.

It's the resolutions like these useless repeals that make the UN ineffective.

That's all we need, search for a creature on the planet that yet is not near extinction and exploit this for our industrial needs. Regardless of financial benefits on industries for hunting these animals, they need to be left alone, just like for most any other "higher being" animals. I've read up a bit on whales recently due to this resolution, and I've found out that they are quite profound and intelligent animals. All we need now is to attack a great marine animal for our own needs. Against the repeal. There are other more "civilized" ways to sacrifice the environment for industrial bonuses.




- Bosnaeum's UN Representative

Why is it the belief of this body that reiterations are bad for the world? To restate our goals is not to make things slower, but stronger.

Just because endangered species are already protected in the UN does not mean that we can't ban whaling too. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Rather, they make the United Nations stronger when used in conjunction.

It's the resolutions like these useless repeals that make the UN ineffective.

"Au contraire mon amis", Byron interjected. "As things stand your nation and mine is being charged for duplicates. We are not allowed to amend resolutions and as such as better and more efficient resolutions come to pass reflecting the ever changing world in which we live, we have no option but to repeal older inefficient laws. If we do not do so consider that brave new world. One where our nations are banckrupt from funding the multiple commisions and organisations duplicated by the save the whales, dolphins, iguana, red spotted giblit bear, brown spotted Giblet bear, multi coloured spotted giblet bear.......etc resolutions. Picture the scene as it takes years for your scholars to run through all the resolutions to see if you are in compliance with the resolutions, not to mention what to do with resolution numbers 15,24,88,190 and 1001 that allows GM food distribution when squared up with resolutions 23, 52, 101, 570 and 1000 that do not?

This is why we repeal and I am happy we do so."

This is my first post on the forums, so bear with me.

My opinion on this matter is simple: To repeal the banning of whaling would do naught but keep them on the endangered species list. Sure, they are protected now, but when they finally grow enough in population to be considered safe, they would be fair game! This would cause them to never grow much higher than the minimum safe number of whales, and therefore they would really be in a constant state of danger.

This is my first post on the forums, so bear with me.

My opinion on this matter is simple: To repeal the banning of whaling would do naught but keep them on the endangered species list. Sure, they are protected now, but when they finally grow enough in population to be considered safe, they would be fair game! This would cause them to never grow much higher than the minimum safe number of whales, and therefore they would really be in a constant state of danger.

You are assuming that, by repealing a resolution that bans Whaling, it automatically allows for Whaling to commence. However, if you read the resolution, the reason it is being repealed is because it duplicates the effects of another resolution - specifically, UNR #119, UNCoESB which is specifically designed to protect ALL endangered species.

If I may say, in my opinion they do not mirror each other more than they actually complement each other. I do not actually have time to quote each but if one were to carefully read each and pull out the literal statements of each then they would see they do not say exacty the same things. They each touch on different points.

You are assuming that, by repealing a resolution that bans Whaling, it automatically allows for Whaling to commence. However, if you read the resolution, the reason it is being repealed is because it duplicates the effects of another resolution - specifically, UNR #119, UNCoESB which is specifically designed to protect ALL endangered species.

Why is it that whales have to be a protected species before we decide they should not be killed? Leave these noble beasts to the sea, and raise more cattle.
If you really want to hunt whales, get their population up to a good, sustainable level, then put forward a motion to begin a whale farm.

All this resolution will do is begin an inhumane cycle of culling. And all for the benefit of WhaleCo Global. Whose CEO, I might add, is probably a robot. Our surveillance team haven't gotten any footage of him powering up his batteries yet, but he does spend a lot of time outside, so he's probably solar powered..

The real debate here is this. If you disagree with hunting the whale ever, regardless of its numbers then vote no to this repeal but if you agree that whaling should be allowed where the numbers are sufficient to support a thriving population protected by the terms of the UNCoESB then you must do away with this redundant piece of legislature and vote For the repeal.
Thank you very much for stating far more clearly than I ever could what I've been trying to say from the beginning. It is important to read the repeal at vote, but perhaps it would've been better if some of us had not read the "Proposed by:" section.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

If this proposition was presented by some kind of ocean wildlife group, or even a fish and game commitee, i would believe it's intentions to be that simple. But being as it is created by a WHALING CORPORATION, i do not trust it to not just be a ploy to hunt the creatures to the brink of extinction, wait it out, than pummel them down again.

Which is not healthy for marine ecology.

That is an interesting question, one which our economic researchers answered as follows:

Average contribution of one human to the Cobdenian Economy in One Year: £19,885 11/9d

Average Contribution of one whale to the Cobdenian Economy in One Year: -£37 9/2d (due to hazarding shipping)

Average Cost of One Human on the Cobdenian Black Market, per lb: £5 8/3d

Average Cost of One Whale on the Cobdenian Black market, per lb: £1 5/-

Cost of One Human in evaluating Cost/Benefit calculations, according to Goldman, Frederikson, and Fishguard Insurance Adjusters: £1,500,000

Cost of One Whale in evaluating Cost/Benefit calculations, according to Goldman, Frederikson, and Fishguard Insurance Adjusters: £5

We therefore conclude, examining all situations, that humans are indeed worth more then whales.
It was more a question of worth in the philosophical sense, not economic.

If anyone thinks that humans are "better" than whales, I'd like to see a rationalization.

seal nuggets are better and i really like my whale to have lots of butter hmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmm good :D :D :D

It was more a question of worth in the philosophical sense, not economic.

If anyone thinks that humans are "better" than whales, I'd like to see a rationalization.


Human's invented the steam engine, the Lee-Enfield Rifle, New York, electric lighting, viniculture, and binoculars, amongst other things. We have built bridges that span huge gulfs, built railways through jungles, constructed huge telegraph systems, and erected skyscrapers that stand proud in the skyline of our major cities

Whales, on the other hand, eat and make annoying noises

All this resolution will do is begin an inhumane cycle of culling.
We object. Quite aside from the protections provided by UNCoESB which have been refered to many times in this debate already, we strongly dispute that there is anything inherently inhumane about the noble pursuit of the hunt. This statement is naught but the last, desperate whine of an emotional argument that should long since have been allowed to pass away; if such baseless appeals are what is required, however, we would ask you to think of the children who will be educationally scarred by having to grapple with it.

Really now. What would Mckay do? :p

William Smithers looked up at the bank of monitors in the control room for the TV feed for the whale cookoff. "OK, can anyone tell me why the hell no one's cooking yet? We went to all this trouble setting up the kitchens and the TV equipment and no one's doing anything."

"I don't know, maybe the whale hasn't shown up yet," replied Woody Adams.

"And whose fault is that?" William asked James Gould.

"Not ours, WhaleCo Global is supplying the whale, I guess it hasn't arrived yet."

Human's invented the steam engine, the Lee-Enfield Rifle, New York, electric lighting, viniculture, and binoculars, amongst other things. We have built bridges that span huge gulfs, built railways through jungles, constructed huge telegraph systems, and erected skyscrapers that stand proud in the skyline of our major cities

Whales, on the other hand, eat and make annoying noises


That sure was a beautiful and biological fair comparison between two kinds of organisms.


Now, of course the term applies "humans are the dominance of this planet, and we may do whatever we want with it", but does this apply to every other living thing on the planet? The more barbaric traits we show, the more barbaric civilization itself gets, we do not notice this, but this has happened in every major historical event, ever. Hitlaah. Need I say more?

watch startrek movie and you will see why to ban it

Mr. Secretary, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild formally withdraws from this body, effective upon the close of this vote.What? Again? Coulda sworn I've seen this claim before...

What? Again? Coulda sworn I've seen this claim before...

He said his time was over. He didn't say when....

WhaleCo Global LLC

Presents

The Great Whale Cookoff!

*the camera pans in on Chef Tony Ito, who is attired as a traditional Japanese chef*

Hello, and welcome to The Great Whale Cookoff, sponsored by WhaleCo Global LLC. I am Chef Tony Ito and I, along with my honorable opponents Chef Sven and Chef Lireme hope to entertain you as well as educate on the art of cooking with whale.

I will be preparing three courses, first a lovely appetizer of Whale Sausage Bruschetta. Next I will be preparing as a main course Whole Roasted Calf Of Whale In Tomato and Garlic Sauce. Finally, I will serve a dessert of Red Velvet Cake, utilizing reconstituted whale blubber.

Let's start with the appetizer. Here I have 1/2 lbs ground whale, 1/2 lbs Cap'n Tom's Select brand whale sausage and 1/2 pound of provolone cheese. To this I will be adding 1 chopped onion, 1 tsp dried oregano, 1 tsp dried basil and 1 tbsp soy sauce.

We'll begin by browning the ground whale, whale sausage and onion. I like to use real vidalia onions for this dish as they don't overpower the flavor of the whale.

*the chef begins browning the meat and onion mixture in a large skillet, adding a splash of rice wine*

You'll want to brown this, but don't cook it until it's done completely as we'll be simmering it some more later. Doesn't that smell wonderful? There's nothing like the aromas you get when cooking fresh whale, and this is fresh, by the way. It was taken just this morning and I believe it actually came from the mother of the calf we'll be preparing later.

Now, once the meat and onion mixture is ready we'll need to drain it.

*drains mixture*

Next we'll add the provolone, soy sauce, basil and oregano to the mixture.

*adds ingredients*

Now we're going to simmer that for five minutes and while we're doing that, let's break for these important messages from WhaleCo Global.

*five minutes pass during which the TV audience watches a barrage of WhaleCo commercials, the studio audience (you), on the other hand are treated to Chef Ito giving a cooking knife exhibition*

And we're back. Next, we're going to mix all of this well. We want to get a uniformity of all the ingredients.

*mixes the ingredients with a wooden spoon*

Now we want to spoon the mixture onto melba toast which I have already prepared, then we'll top it off with grated parmesan cheese.

*yeah that's right, he spoons it onto the toast and tops it with grated parmesan*

And we finish the dish by broiling until the edges of the toast are crunchy.

*places it in an oven. Duh.*

And here we have the finished dish, Whale Sausage Bruschetta!

http://www.aidabistro.com/images/meat_bruschetta_sp.jpg

Whales eat Penguins, therefore the more that are hunted the better off my Penguin population will be. Vote yes and get rid of this vile piece of legislation.

Bob

What does Resolution #119 state?
I'm sure it's been posted earlier in the thread, but you can read it here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120

What? Again? Coulda sworn I've seen this claim before...



Odd, I don't seem to recall setting a specific date in previous comments. Now I have given a full and final date. I chose to stay here through three votes that mean something to me.

I'm terribly sorry, I had the temerity to hang around until these past three votes were done, how dare I haunt these "hallowed" halls a minute past my observation.

You sir, are nekulturny and your 16,000 posts do not impress me.

I'm terribly sorry, I had the temerity to hang around until these past three votes were done, how dare I haunt these "hallowed" halls a minute past my observation.Wow. You couldn't have missed my point any further if you tried.

You sir, are nekulturny and your 16,000 posts do not impress me.One has nothing to do with the other. I think I'm sufficiently cultured, and your use of Russian colloquialisms does not impress me.

how can anyone support the banning of whaling?

it's un-necessary. there are other alternatives to every product produced from whales and who really needs the aphrodisiacs they provide?

How can anyone support animaly cruelty? There are laws against animal cruelty and killing and I dont see why whales are excluded from this I mean when you kill a cat its not allowed (and cats are overpopulated) but when you kill a whale its not? preposterous!

Think with your minds and not your stomach or wallet in WhaleCo's case. I will also see to it that the WhaleCo is banned from Trails Expantion in any kind of form or way be it research or hunting. The 300+ million citizens that live within the borders will not eat one piece of whale

The Bob III;12598409']Whales eat Penguins, therefore the more that are hunted the better off my Penguin population will be. Vote yes and get rid of this vile piece of legislation.

Bob
Incorrect. Orcas are the only species of cetacean that eat penguins.

Human's invented the steam engine, the Lee-Enfield Rifle, New York, electric lighting, viniculture, and binoculars, amongst other things. We have built bridges that span huge gulfs, built railways through jungles, constructed huge telegraph systems, and erected skyscrapers that stand proud in the skyline of our major cities

Whales, on the other hand, eat and make annoying noises
So it's intelligence that makes humans superior?

How can anyone support animaly cruelty? There are laws against animal cruelty and killing and I dont see why whales are excluded from this I mean when you kill a cat its not allowed (and cats are overpopulated) but when you kill a whale its not? preposterous!

Think with your minds and not your stomach or wallet in WhaleCo's case. I will also see to it that the WhaleCo is banned from Trails Expantion in any kind of form or way be it research or hunting. The 300+ million citizens that live within the borders will not eat one piece of whale

My understanding as I read it this proposal is not to support whaling or animal cruelty, but to remove an unnesicary resolution that is already cover by past resolutions that do the same thing only better.

I'm not in favor of whaling, but I am in favor of getting rid of redundant resolutions and supporting more effiecient resolutions and as a result a more effiecient UN as a whole.

<snip> brilliant Gruenberg (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12596400&postcount=145) rant <snip>

I might have known it would come to this. First the accusation -- from a discredited Wenaist fundamentalist scorned by his own government -- that whales threaten international peace. Next, no doubt, WhaleCo will move in, a white-hatted Coalition of the Killing, to save the world.

Very well. I will prove our cousins' innocence. (Long, fraught pause; the First Singer is evidently doing something, but what?)

It is done. Even as I speak, the beachings begin. They are not sapient, the whales of this world, but I believe enough of them are Children of the Pod to receive my message, however unclearly. I have told them that the repeal will treat them as nothing but food. You have wondered, have you not, why whales beach themselves? Our answer is: despair.

Having done this, I too must swim the seas of honour. (Glass tank containing First Singer and litres/gallons of water cracks wide open; surrounding delegations drenched, though uninjured; First Singer comes to rest in front of General Secretary's podium).

I shall be conscious just a few moments longer. My body I leave to the Strangers' Bar dining section, on condition that all products from it are sold at prices that severely undercut those of WhaleCo. You may begin disposal of it as soon as my eyes close, for I will feel nothing. I am but food.

My revenge I take on the commercial exploiters. Sufficient of my cousins will sacrifice themselves to place them all, once again, in the endangered category, thus bringing them under the dubious and inadequate protection of UNCoESB and thwarting the wicked designs of WhaleCo.

My soul will rejoin the Pod and my mission will pass to the Second Singer, a much more pragmatic person. My heart, however ... ah, my heart ...

My heart is yours, Mme Pejorative. From the moment I set eyes on you, I was enraptured by your eons-old eloquence and ageless elegance. You are a behemoth whose beauty and brilliance is worthy of your draconic bulk. Never have I met a female who so closely embodied the Ideal. It is my pleasure and honour to ensure that my last sight is of you, and the last word on my lips is your name.

Fare thee well, Vermithrax ... Vermithrax ... VERMITHRAX!

(Shudders; dies.)

My heart is yours, Mme Pejorative.*blinks*

I'm... flattered...?

This is certainly a downer. I don't think we've had a suicide on the floor before. Murder, certainly, but suicide? Now I'm mildly depressed.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

A personal note is delivered to the General Secretary:

You must not blame yourself, my dearest. Mine was no suicide. It was a sacrifice for the Pod, as is customary in our society once one has sent forth the call. I sign myself in death, as I dared not in life, Forever Yours, Willy II.

The new First Singer, formerly the Second Singer, having forwarded the pathetic old one's feebly sentimental outpouring, curls a contemptuous lip and points out:

If the repeal succeeds, we of Worldsong pledge ourselves to continue such voluntary population control as necessary to ensure our cousins retain at least some protection from the greedy exploitation of commercial satrapies.

We would, of course, prefer such sacrifice was unnecessary, as would be the case if the specific terminology of Banning Whaling was retained. But we emphasise that only volunteers will take part, and that only citizens who have passed on their genetic inheritance will be accepted. Do as you choose, as will we.

The 300+ million citizens that live within the borders will not eat one piece of whaleThat's fine, your citizens don't have to eat whale. But why deny the rest of us the opportunity?

*blinks*

I'm... flattered...?

This is certainly a downer. I don't think we've had a suicide on the floor before. Murder, certainly, but suicide? Now I'm mildly depressed.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Actually Wolfgang's blown his head off a few times, but that was with that simulated gun of his, so he didn't really die.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Melodrama. We've known all along that beachings were caused by over-population. It gets overcrowded in the oceans, the whales can't take it anymore, so they start trying to move onto land. This cheap publicity stunt is further proof that the whale population is not only healthy, but is actually growing exponentially.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

How can anyone support animaly cruelty? There are laws against animal cruelty and killing and I dont see why whales are excluded from this I mean when you kill a cat its not allowed (and cats are overpopulated) but when you kill a whale its not? preposterous!
Given the honorable ambassador's assertion that cats are overpopulated, we believe that there is no piece of UN legislation that prevents any person from killing a cat. Nor should there be; we ourself have very occasionally found it necessary to hunt big cats to preserve the security of nearby villages. A very invigorating experience, we must say, and not for the amateur.

Given the honorable ambassador's assertion that cats are overpopulated, we believe that there is no piece of UN legislation that prevents any person from killing a cat. Nor should there be; we ourself have very occasionally found it necessary to hunt big cats to preserve the security of nearby villages.Unless they're endangered, in which case hunting them is outlawed by the UN. :p

Unless they're endangered, in which case hunting them is outlawed by the UN. :p

If they are overpopulated, then they aren't endangered.

Incidentally, we feel the need to change our vote in the poll. With the delicious smells emenating from the kitchens in the corner, we find that we are suddenly distinctly hungry :-)

So it's intelligence that makes humans superior?

Yes. Or if you feel that we are like other animals, and that our intelligence should not set us apart, then that is just another argument in favour of letting us eat whales - after all, whales don't give a damn about the krill and penguins they eat. Either way you look at it, your in zugzwang

Incidentally, we feel the need to change our vote in the poll. With the delicious smells emenating from the kitchens in the corner, we find that we are suddenly distinctly hungry :-)

You should have volunteered to be a judge then. I would have but I didn't figure that I could be very neutral considering that my personal chef is one of the competitors.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Madame, you make an elementary error common to many of the epistles that we have begun to receive from the citizens of our nation. We are showing our respect for wildlife and the natural way by engaging animals on their own terms, to wit predator and prey. We rise above mere nature by hunting ethically, avoiding causing unnecessary pain where that is possible. We eat what we kill both to avoid waste and to demonstrate that we are at the top of the food chain; what justification need be made for observable fact?

The smell of patchoouli and faint cannibis traces waft through the Assembly as Sananda Earthmother bursts through the Assembly Room doors leading to the Intangible delegation's chamber and into the light of the General Assembly. Her skin gleaming in the splendor of having never been washed by commercially available cleaning products, her long, brown, braided hair looking for all the world as though it could successfully lubricate a rental truck fleet, and her tie-dyed tank top revealing to the whole world her opinion on the entire depilatory industry. Her gaunt, cadaverous and sickly-seeming vegetarian appearance is belied by her incredibly strident caterwauling voice.

Okay, that's enough of your corporate greed, you little Eichmann!

If it isn't waste, then explain to me this internal Whaleco memo describing the successful tests of newly-developed product called "Whale Rings".

Sananda activates the Assembly Chamber's digital projector, which soundlessly reveals the scene she describes.

As you can see, whaling vessels have taken a whistling whale and are hauling it on board for what should be typical processing. But watch -- the whale's blowhole sphincter, the source of its beautiful whistling, is cut out...AND THE REMAINING COMPLETE WHALE IS RELEASED OVERBOARD!

This is not the worst of it -- what you cannot hear because of the covert nature of this recording negated the use of microphones that could filter out the background sea noises, is that, during this entire horrible ordeal, THE WHALE WAS STILL ALIVE! The whistling, which had been alarmed and fearful upon its capture, became blood-curdling and terrifying shrieks of pain as it was mutilated on board that ship. Without the ability to close its blowhole, the whistling whale can no longer dive and every wave partially drowns the noble creature until enough water enters its lungs to finish the job, and a magnificent creature of God's own creation is treated to a senseless and lingering death.

This incident happened aboard a WhaleCo Global LLC-sanctioned processing vessel, and it happened because of the whistling whale's delicately muscular blowhole. Delegates, I submit to you that this is not only a colossal waste, but an interminably cruel one as well. Perhaps the ship's registry was not that of a UN Member nation, but this inhuman act was authorized by the very sponsors of the current legislation.

We of the Animal League Activists Ready to Make Insensitivity Stop Today group understand the need for controlled harvesting of regulated meat-producing animals for worldwide food needs. However, harvesting one small part of a twenty-ton animal is irresponisble and abhorrent to anyone truly interested in animal welfare, including those in ranching and fisheries.

The Intangible Meat Producers' Guild and several other animal husbandry and rights organizations urge this assembly to retain the whaling ban in protest of WhaleCo GLobal LLC's reprehensible practices.

At that, she raises her fist, giving the Assembly an unobstructed view of what looks for all the world like a well-worn black Brillo pad. The Intangible Public Nuisance Patrol contingency arrives and hauls Sananda Earthmother away.

So humans have more worth than whales?

It was more a question of worth in the philosophical sense, not economic.

If anyone thinks that humans are "better" than whales, I'd like to see a rationalization.

So it's intelligence that makes humans superior?

Well, there's that and opposable thumbs. Gimme a call when whales grow some.

How can anyone support animaly cruelty?

Shut the hell up and have a whale burger.

There are laws against animal cruelty and killing and I dont see why whales are excluded from this...

Aside from the fact that there are no UN resolutions against animal cruelty, Yyu fail to see the difference between cruelty and killing. Now, if I were to harpoon a whale and kill it immediately, there's nothing cruel about that. On the other hand, were I to drag it ashore and force it to watch reruns of Knight Rider, yes, that would be cruelty.

I mean when you kill a cat its not allowed (and cats are overpopulated) but when you kill a whale its not? preposterous!

Who ever said we can't kill cats? In Cluichstan, we kill and eat cats all the time. In fact, they're raised extensively in our southern region, and many a Cluichstani enjoys a good cat kebob.

Think with your minds and not your stomach or wallet in WhaleCo's case.

Our minds tell us that whales are tasty.

I will also see to it that the WhaleCo is banned from Trails Expantion in any kind of form or way be it research or hunting. The 300+ million citizens that live within the borders will not eat one piece of whale

I'm sure WhaleCo's going to cry over the loss of your nation's business...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

watch startrek movie and you will see why to ban it

OOC: You've gotta be fuckin' kidding me! :rolleyes:

OOC EDIT: I'm trying to quit smoking as of today, so please forgive me if I'm more of a prick than usual. Just gimme a "yo, chill, dude!" please if I get a bit too pissy. Thanks. :)

Melodrama. We've known all along that beachings were caused by over-population. It gets overcrowded in the oceans, the whales can't take it anymore, so they start trying to move onto land. This cheap publicity stunt is further proof that the whale population is not only healthy, but is actually growing exponentially.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

With logic like that, how do you not get into more automobile accidents?

Surely red must be green to you.

Sunshine, daydream, walking in the tall trees, going where the wind goes
Blooming like a red rose, Now come on over sweetly,
Ride out singin', "I got you in the morning sunshine."
Oh, Good God! Now, would you like me to tell the General Assembly what that was really a film of?

We at WhaleCo are concerned with the general health of the animals we harvest. We have a catch and release monitoring program where select whales are captured (using "humane" methods which are hazardous to our whaling crews) and fitted with GPS transponders so that they can be recaptured from time to time and given a complete physical check-up.

What your little film shows is the capture of Whale Asset GZ1567442 and the surgical removal of a cancerous growth which had developed in its blowhole sphincter. What your film does not show was the recapture of the animal 2 hours later and the surgical implantation of an artificial blowhole sphincter.

Please, let's try to keep the debate grounded in reality.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

A voice rises from the back of the hall.

Greetings, everyone. My name is Ambassador Gail Storm, and I hail from Syek, a newly devloping nation currently located in the North Pacific, where a large number of whales pass by yearly in migration. This allows our scientists to perform extensive studies, and we have found direct correlation between the decrease in whales and our planets ecological quality. Whales eat humongous amounts of krill daily, an amount so extreme that without whales filling this niche, we would have disastrous krill overpopulation, which through a large cascade of biological consequences, ends in an overabundance of red algae, commonly referred to as the "red tide." This will poison our oceans with wasteful byproducts, ending the fishing industry altogether. Also, green algae in the ocean provide 50% of our oxygen in the atmosphere. The red tide will kill everything, resulting in a huge lack of oxygen, possibly leading to the ultimate doom of the human race.

Now, there are not many whales, so each one contributes an exponential amount to the controlling of the krill population. For this reason, we cannot be killing them off, endangered or not. For each dead whale, we see billions more krill floating about in the oceans. If not for this noble and beautiful species, vote for yourselves, and your children, and the rest of the world. Do not repeal the banning of whale hunting, I beg of you.

With logic like that, how do you not get into more automobile accidents?

Surely red must be green to you.

You really should be nicer, for all you know he could be color blind.

But while I don't endorse over hunting, I do feel that hunters should be permitted to hunt reasonable quantities of thier prey. Without said hunters many of the coastal regions I visit wouldn't have thier native cousines that I do enjoy sampleing so much in my travels.

A ban on whaling damages the economies of coastal communities greatly and ends the ancient traditions of coastal hunters. I know I would be upset if it couldn't hunt fluffeh sharks in the forests of Ranekovia each fall. The peoples who hunt whales do feel the same way about not being ableto hunt whales.

Oh, Good God! Now, would you like me to tell the General Assembly what that was really a film of?

We at WhaleCo are concerned with the general health of the animals we harvest. We have a catch and release monitoring program where select whales are captured (using "humane" methods which are hazardous to our whaling crews) and fitted with GPS transponders so that they can be recaptured from time to time and given a complete physical check-up.

What your little film shows is the capture of Whale Asset GZ1567442 and the surgical removal of a cancerous growth which had developed in its blowhole sphincter. What your film does not show was the recapture of the animal 2 hours later and the surgical implantation of an artificial blowhole sphincter.

Please, let's try to keep the debate grounded in reality.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

OOC: If you're not considering a career in either the law or public relations, you bloody well should be. That was a solid deflection.

IC: Mister Fairlington, we apologize for that security gaffe which allowed Ms. Earthmother to appear upon our rostrum unannounced and unscheduled. Now, if you could please provide unimpeachable neutrally-observed proof of this whale's replacement blowhole, we'll just pretend this whole unshaven -- er -- unfortunate...debacle did not happen.

You really should be nicer, for all you know he could be color blind.

But while I don't endorse over hunting, I do feel that hunters should be permitted to hunt reasonable quantities of thier prey. Without said hunters many of the coastal regions I visit wouldn't have thier native cousines that I do enjoy sampleing so much in my travels.

A ban on whaling damages the economies of coastal communities greatly and ends the ancient traditions of coastal hunters. I know I would be upset if it couldn't hunt fluffeh sharks in the forests of Ranekovia each fall. The peoples who hunt whales do feel the same way about not being ableto hunt whales.

See now, I KNEW some politically correct twaddlebag was going to try and make that an issue. "Red being green" -- as in "mistaking one for the other" or more appropriately in my original context, "rationalizing one to be the other" -- and the shades of grey perceived by those affected by colorblindness are two different things.

I'll be nicer if you'll be less airheaded. Deal?

Now can we return to the topic without any more of this disingenuous concern for those with minor disabilities?

Indigenous and traditional coastal hunters of whales are covered by Resolution #70, which is one reason why it SHOULDN'T be repealed.

WhaleCo Global LLC's feigned concern of the whale population is such a good job of acting that he should be nominated for an acadamy award. Do not be duped. Just look at his personal information:

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In ur oceans, killin' ur whales.
Posts: 38

There is no doubt what his true interest in Whaling is.

So, if a hidden agenda is something you are willingly and knowingly letting the public know about though, perhaps, might contradict the odd press release (y'know....the same way what your CEO says might actually contradict what is said on the homepage of your company website), what do you call it when you aren't revealing your true purpose for campaigning?

What is wrong with you people? Whales do NOTHING to harm us. Would you like your child living in a world where the only animals still alive are Chickens, Cows, Pigs, and Game Birds?And they're only still alive because we're going to eat them. Disgraceful. Just because we have the equitment to kill does not give us the right to kill. All you're doing by supporting this is showing what monsters the human race can be and I am ashamed of you. We have already ruined the planet. We, the humans, have. We are the only animals that kill more then we have to, and the only animals that have destroyed this earth. If any animal should be hunted, it's us.

On the other hand, were I to drag it ashore and force it to watch reruns of Knight Rider, yes, that would be cruelty.Dude, that show kicked ass.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

What is wrong with you people? Whales do NOTHING to harm us. Would you like your child living in a world where the only animals still alive are Chickens, Cows, Pigs, and Game Birds?And they're only still alive because we're going to eat them. Disgraceful. Just because we have the equitment to kill does not give us the right to kill. All you're doing by supporting this is showing what monsters the human race can be and I am ashamed of you. We have already ruined the planet. We, the humans, have. We are the only animals that kill more then we have to, and the only animals that have destroyed this earth. If any animal should be hunted, it's us.
Would you like your child to live in a world where the human race is starving because it needs meat, and there are plenty of whales in the ocean and we aren't allowed to hunt them?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Aren't there UN regulations against the sale of toxic products for consumption?

Yes. Or if you feel that we are like other animals, and that our intelligence should not set us apart, then that is just another argument in favour of letting us eat whales - after all, whales don't give a damn about the krill and penguins they eat. Either way you look at it, your in zugzwang

Then you have no objections to the consumption of mentally disabled humans, correct?

P.S: No species of whale eats penguins, by the way.

Prince Rhodri looks on in horror as the Earthmother has the gall to accuse him of corporate greed, and makes a note to ask whether she is considered to be part of a delegation or whether he can sue her for slander. Corporate, indeed.

What is wrong with you people? Whales do NOTHING to harm us.
Neither do cows, fish, pigs, chicken or sheep, and yet only those determined to have to make up their vitamin intake artificially insist on never eating them. We submit that you have fallen victim to the emotionalism that seems to characterise opposition to this repeal, and a moment's clear thought will reveal that your fears are unfounded.

Amazing, simply amazing. As a side note, anyone caught whaling anywhere near RuaAli borders will be executed by keel-haul.

WhaleCo Global LLC

Presents

The Great Whale Cookoff!

Chef Ito, Main Course

Welcome back to The Great Whale Cookoff, sponsored by WhaleCo Global LLC. I am Chef Tony Ito and today I will be preparing my main course offering, Whole Roasted Whale Calf In Tomato and Garlic Sauce. Not many people get to enjoy the delicacy that is Whole Roasted Whale Calf. Whale calves are very large and expensive. Additionally, to prepare them requires a large oven, which most households do not have access to. Fortunately, our kitchens here have been outfitted with commercial grade whale ovens which are just right for the job.

I have here one Minke Whale calf, measuring about 2.4 meters. Preparation of this dish is relatively simple, but some help is required to maneuver the whale into and out of the oven.

*gestures towards whale calf on preparation table*

It has been skinned and gutted, all offal and organs removed. First, we will coat the whale lightly with a mixture of flour, salt and pepper.

*Chef Ito and several assistants coat the whale in the mixture, using hooks to roll the carcass around on the preparation table*

Next, we will stuff the whale with a stuffing mixture of rice, raisins, pine nuts, olive oil, onion, garlic, truffles and anchovies.

*Chef Ito uses a shovel to fill the body cavity of the whale*

It is worth mentioning that the amounts of ingredients used in this dish are quite large. The exact amounts will vary with the size, and species, of whale calf you are preparing. After stuffing the whale, we close the cavity by sewing it together with cooking grade twine.

*sews the carcass shut*

And now, we will brown the whale slightly on our Mongolian Barbeque griddle.

*the whale is transported, with some effort, over to a large Mongolian Barbeque by Chef Ito and his assistants using a sort of stainless steel gurney*

We aren't trying to cook the whale at this step, just brown it nicely. A few minutes and we're done.

Next, the whale is placed inside our specially designed WhaleCo Brand Whale Cooking Container.

*a forklift drives up, carrying the WhaleCo Brand Whale Cooking Container. Chef Ito and his assistants wrestle the whale calf into the container.*

Some of you probably thought Chefs didn't work for a living. *laughs*

Now, to this I will add pureed tomatoes, crushed garlic, soy sauce, red wine and shitake mushrooms.

*dumps bucket after bucket of pureed tomatoes, crushed garlic, soy sauce, red wine and shitake mushrooms into the WhaleCo Brand Whale Cooking Container*

Now I will season lightly with salt, pepper, saffron and minced ginger root and close the lid.

*seasons the whale and, with help from his assistants, closes the lid*

Now I will place the whale in the oven.

*Chef Ito climbs upon the forklift and uses it to place the WhaleCo Brand Whale Cooking Container in the oven*

We will cook the whale at 300 degrees for 16 hours, turning the container every 4 hours.

*sixteen hours later*

And our whale is done. (OOC: sorry, I couldn't find a pic of a whole roasted whale calf)

http://www.turkishcookbook.com/images/DomatesSosluKalkanBaligi.jpg

Mandatory vegetarianism "for the win", as I believe they say on that there Internet.

Though the various comments about eating mentally deficient humans do make a valid point.

I'm not against the consumption of meat, but the commercial hunting of wildlife.

Melodrama. We've known all along that beachings were caused by over-population. It gets overcrowded in the oceans, the whales can't take it anymore, so they start trying to move onto land. This cheap publicity stunt is further proof that the whale population is not only healthy, but is actually growing exponentially.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

So the death of my predecessor is "melodrama", and the deaths of the whales who are sacrificing themselves to reduce their numbers to endangered level are part of a "cheap publicity stunt"? How many deaths would an expensive publicity stunt require, I wonder?

But really, Mr Fairlington, you should watch that emotive turn of phrase you're developing. Surely you meant to use terms such as "minor technicality" or "revised accounting methods"; we mustn't let any nasty emotion come between us and the profit motive.

Speaking of the profit motive, I wonder when you will disclose those documents you have been hoarding? Not that I expect much enlightenment from them, as I am sure that WhaleCo has a ... creative ... approach to book-keepingl.

It is that creative approach that makes Worldsong maintain our opposition to this repeal. We know damn well you and your lawyers will doubletalk your way around any protections this world body has established, but at least the UN can make sure you really have to work for your money.

if killing the Whales is Damaging the Enviroment then it should be made awared to all countries that killing the inicent animals is going to cause them to become extinc

All you're doing by supporting this is showing what monsters the human race can be and I am ashamed of you. We have already ruined the planet. We, the humans, have. We are the only animals that kill more then we have to, and the only animals that have destroyed this earth. If any animal should be hunted, it's us.

Very well. We'll start with you.

Tarquin, fetch my hunting rifle!

if killing the Whales is Damaging the Enviroment then it should be made awared to all countries that killing the inicent animals is going to cause them to become extinc

It would seem that the population of Corrosont became extinct before that country's representative could finish saying "extinct."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I'll post on the cook-off later today.

Whales, on the other hand, eat and make annoying noises

Sen. Sulla looks over at the Cobdenian representative and says,

"Hmmm, sounds like Whales might actually share something in common with my Brother-in-law."

It is that creative approach that makes Worldsong maintain our opposition to this repeal. We know damn well you and your lawyers will doubletalk your way around any protections this world body has established, but at least the UN can make sure you really have to work for your money.

WhaleCo doesn't need to "doubletalk" their way around anything, all they have to do to get around any UN imposed protections is leave.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We’re afraid that we must relay our government’s opposition to this repeal; our focused technological development has increasingly allowed us to communicate with the animals populating our world. We have found that conversation can be opened with many species therefore we cannot advocate a repeal which would allow hunting of one of the most graceful.

We respect that other delegations may disagree and we will not be childishly accusing them of being “monsters.” We appreciate that this is merely a difference in opinion. Our vote is cast on the principle; we look forward to the day when other civilizations choose to focus resources on understanding nature to the same degree.

Please imagine if we could talk to the animals, learn their languages; maybe take an animal degree. We’d study elephant and eagle, buffalo and beagle, Alligator, guinea pig, and flea. We would converse in polar bear and python; and we could curse in fluent kangaroo; if people asked us, can you speak in rhinoceros; we’d say, “of courserous , can’t you?”

If we could talk to the animals, learn their languages; think of all the things we could discuss. If we could talk with the animals, walk with the animals; grunt and squeak and squawk with the animals; and they could squeak and squawk and speak and talk to us too!

Anravelle Kramer.
OOC: I meant to post this a few days ago, I’m afraid it would just be against everything Ithania is supposed to be if I cast the vote in favour.

So the death of my predecessor is "melodrama", and the deaths of the whales who are sacrificing themselves to reduce their numbers to endangered level are part of a "cheap publicity stunt"?
Actually, I think I was referring to whale beachings as melodrama and the death of your predecessor as a cheap publicity stunt, but whatever.

Speaking of the profit motive, I wonder when you will disclose those documents you have been hoarding?

Sales: 8,643,438,000

Operating income: 1,113,612,000

Income from continuing operations: 442,761,000

Income from other sources: 6,170,765,980,231.00

Net income: 6,185,249,579,250.00



Cash from operations: 1,074,961,000

Capital expenditures: 230,577,000

Depreciation and amortization: 247,433,000

Property, plant and equipment, net: 1,900,557,000


Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments: 445,427,000

Cash conversion cycle (days): 56

Total debt: 4,411,982,000

Will this be sufficient?

By the way, those figures are in these...

*fishes around in his pocket, extracts a shiny New Yeldan Pound coin and holds it up*

The exchange rate is 1 = $1.402USD.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

*snipped for brevity*

Thank you, Doctor Doolittle. I'm sure we could have extremely stimulating conversations with animals. Oh...maybe something like this:

Me: Hey there, Mr. Bear!

Bear: Yo, Nadnerb, whassup?

Me: Not much, just a silly debate about repealing the whaling ban. The fluffies are out in full force.

Bear: Uh...what?

Me: Don't worry about it. What's up with you?

Bear: I took a shit.

Me: Oh? Where?

Bear: In the woods.

Me: Um...yeah. Didn't see that comin'...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well to start, I am against the hunting of whales. Also for your knowledge these species of whale are considered endangered:

northern right whale: 500-1,000 endangered
southern right whale: 3,000 endangered
bowhead whale: 8,000 endangered
blue whale: 10,000-14,000 endangered
fin whale: 120,000-150,000 endangered
sei whale: 50,000 endangered
humpback whale: 10,000+ endangered
sperm whale: 200,000 endangered


You also seem to forget that in my country all whalers, deep sea fishers, and poachers can be killed on sight. Come to my port... :sniper:

The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

Well to start, I am against the hunting of whales. Also for your knowledge these species of whale are considered endangered:

northern right whale: 500-1,000 endangered
southern right whale: 3,000 endangered
bowhead whale: 8,000 endangered
blue whale: 10,000-14,000 endangered
fin whale: 120,000-150,000 endangered
sei whale: 50,000 endangered
humpback whale: 10,000+ endangered
sperm whale: 200,000 endangered
If they are endangered as you claim, they're protected by UNCoESB.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

If they are endangered as you claim, they're protected by UNCoESB.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Maybe I did not make myself clear. As I said this is information for people to be aware of. I just figured that not everone would have the knowledge as to what species of whale could not be legally hunted if the repeal goes through. And thus could not legally be eaten.

Also this repeal wouldn't make it legal to hunt whales, it would just make it not illegal. Which for those who don't understand is not the same thing. After all any country that disagrees with the hunting of whales can and should confiscate/sink all whaling boats that enter their waters.

The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

I'm sure we could have extremely stimulating conversations with animals. Oh...maybe something like this:


We would suggest the bear in question is far more eloquent than a large number of the “newer” delegations that grace us with their presence.

Our communication with animals has resulted in an increased ability to truly maintain the natural equilibrium, and our Phoenixes have an uncanny ability for predicting the weather.


The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

With all due respect to the representative we most vehemently disagree; it is not an indication that they lack morals or intelligence, it merely shows that they have a different yet equally valid opinion on the matter.

Our esteemed colleague from New Anonia has already referenced UNCoESB which would prevent species reaching the point of being endangered by using its multi-tiered system to enforce the natural equilibrium and allow for sustainable development; your self-destruction argument is incorrect in our view.

We may be against this repeal effort on principle but this does not stop us questioning flawed interpretation.

As I said this is information for people to be aware of.

We don’t have any of those cetaceans on Avalon therefore your information is irrelevant to us.

Anravelle Kramer.

OOC: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the UN dear! Please do get involved and throwing yourself into debate will prove to be a useful “trial by fire.” I wish you luck and please don’t hesitate to contact a fellow new member like me if you have any questions. :)

Well to start, I am against the hunting of whales. Also for your knowledge these species of whale are considered endangered:

northern right whale: 500-1,000 endangered
southern right whale: 3,000 endangered
bowhead whale: 8,000 endangered
blue whale: 10,000-14,000 endangered
fin whale: 120,000-150,000 endangered
sei whale: 50,000 endangered
humpback whale: 10,000+ endangered
sperm whale: 200,000 endangered


You also seem to forget that in my country all whalers, deep sea fishers, and poachers can be killed on sight. Come to my port... :sniper:

The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

OOC:
I hate to burst your bubble, but NationStates ≠ Real Life. We probably have many more whale species than you listed. They may or may not be endangered.

IC:
I'll kill animals if I want to. Just try and stop me. In my opinion, animals are inferior. I'll shoots them up when I feel like. And I'd like to know your reasoning for the "lack of intelligence" bit.

Respectfully,
The Right Honorable Colonel James Thomas Joseph William Timothy Peter Theodore Eric Stephen Michael Daniel Horton
Military Attache for Akimonad UN Embassy

I hate to burst your bubble, but NationStates ≠ Real Life. We probably have many more whale species than you listed. They may or may not be endangered.

:headbang:

Maybe I did not make myself clear. Again. As I said this is information for people to be aware of. I just figured that not everone would have the knowledge as to what species of whale could not be legally hunted if the repeal goes through. And thus could not legally be eaten.

If I was listing whale species it would look like this:

Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus
Atlantic Northern Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis
Pacific Northern Right Whale, Eubalaena japonica
Southern Right Whale, Eubalaena australia
Fin Whale, Balaenoptera physalus
Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis
Bryde's Whale, Balaenoptera brydei
Pygmy Bryde's Whale, (Eden's Whale) Balaenoptera edeni
Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus
Northern Minke Whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Southern Minke Whale, (Antarctic Minke Whale) Balaenoptera bonaerensis
Balaenoptera omurai, discovery announced November 2003. No common name yet in usage
Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae
Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus
Pygmy Right Whale, Caperea marginata
Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus
Dwarf Sperm Whale, Kogia sima
Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps
Cuvier's Beaked Whale, Ziphius cavirostris
Arnoux's Beaked Whale, Berardius arnuxii
Baird's Beaked Whale (North Pacific Bottlenose Whale), Berardius bairdii
Shepherd's Beaked Whale (Tasman Beaked Whale), Tasmacetus shepherdi
Longman's Beaked Whale (Indo-Pacific Beaked Whale), Indopacetus pacificus
Northern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus
Southern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon planifrons
Hector's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon hectori
True's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon mirus
Gervais' Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon europaeus
Sowerby's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon bidens
Gray's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon grayi
Pygmy Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon peruvianus
Andrews' Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon bowdoini
Bahamonde's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon bahamondi
Hubbs' Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi
Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon ginkgodens
Stejneger's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon stejnegeri
Layard's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon layardii
Blainville's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon densirostris
Perrin's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon perrini
Narwhal, Monodon monoceros
Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas


Happy?

The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

Well to start, I am against the hunting of whales. Also for your knowledge these species of whale are considered endangered:

northern right whale: 500-1,000 endangered
southern right whale: 3,000 endangered
bowhead whale: 8,000 endangered
blue whale: 10,000-14,000 endangered
fin whale: 120,000-150,000 endangered
sei whale: 50,000 endangered
humpback whale: 10,000+ endangered
sperm whale: 200,000 endangered


You also seem to forget that in my country all whalers, deep sea fishers, and poachers can be killed on sight. Come to my port... :sniper:

The exploitation of other species to the point of endangerment and/or extinction shows not only a lack of morals but a basic lack of intelligence. To not plan for the future of other species means that you do not plan for the future of your own.

Much has been made of UNCoESB, but perhaps I should direct you to the actual article that duplicates this resolution

Article 7: Full Escalation.

Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.

IF an animal is endangered, the UN can bar hunting of that species for ALL purposes to return them to safe levels of population.

If any whale population is at a certain point where it is safe to hunt them, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be. Otherwise hunting anything should be outlawed.

*mutters about how nobody seems to want to listen to science*

You doom the entire ecosystem by reducing the whale niche.

At the very least, we are predators with the cognitive power to be aware of our actions' consequences. If the whale population is endangered, I can see no justifiable reason to repeal the whaling ban at this time.

If the whale population is endangered, they're protected by UNCoESB.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

That may be so, but I would consider the UNCoESB more a floor than a bar to other protective resolutions. Perhaps maintaining the whaling ban is redundant, but redundancy has its own virtues.

I personally find the prospect of whaling distasteful. Most Deyagans do. Regardless, we have cast our vote in this matter. If the opposition prevails, so be it.

So if the Whales are thriving, we still shouldn't be able to kill them because "Whaling is distasteful"? Why?

Because, as soon as it is repealed, we will have fishing ships going to any whalin hotspots, whether or not they legally can, and haul away whales that could possibly be a tourist attraction.

Because, as soon as it is repealed, we will have fishing ships going to any whalin hotspots, whether or not they legally can, and haul away whales that could possibly be a tourist attraction.

1) What's stopping them from illegally whaling with this resolution?

2) This resolution allows for them to capture whales for tourist purposes so long as they are alive - depending on how you define whaling. UNCoESB bans such practices - period - if the animal is endangered

3) WTF? Are you trying to lose this argument?

Seeing as the repeal may just go through, I think it should be sensible to start considering a replacement for the original resolution.

First thing I did notice about the original resolution is that the statement about endangerment is somewhat incorrect for some species, especially since a study into whale numbers has not, as yet, been released. (OOC: No, the Red List is not my source; instead, it's a fact that was brought up in an earlier post.) As such, while there is no evidence saying that they aren't endangered, there's as little evidence saying they are, and as such both considerations must be catered for, especially since, without a non-whaling resolution, as soon as numbers are brought back up to scratch, whaling can continue unhindered until the numbers drop below the critical point (creating a vicious cycle).

Secondly, I understand whale is a staple of some diets; however, whaling in open seas is simply wrong in any account. The idea of whale farms is good, but these farms need to be sustainable, among other restrictions, in order to be viable. (OOC: Another idea from an earlier post.) Similarly, whales in amusement and zoological parks (basically in captivity) might need to be considered: how many can be held at any one time, breeding programs, and so on.

If anyone's daring to take it up, then be my guest. Similarly, if you wish to question this idea, I say "Bring it on."

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Why should we replace a resolution that is rendered redudant by current legislation? I fail to see the point.

Landaman Pendankr
Director of UN Affairs
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

northern right whale: 500-1,000 endangered
southern right whale: 3,000 endangered
bowhead whale: 8,000 endangered
blue whale: 10,000-14,000 endangered
fin whale: 120,000-150,000 endangered
sei whale: 50,000 endangered
humpback whale: 10,000+ endangered
sperm whale: 200,000 endangered
I would ask that the representative from Silversheen answer these two questions:

What is the source of this list and these figures?

Are you claiming that these figures pertain in some way to whale populations in NationStates?

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

:headbang:

Maybe I did not make myself clear. Again. As I said this is information for people to be aware of. I just figured that not everone would have the knowledge as to what species of whale could not be legally hunted if the repeal goes through. And thus could not legally be eaten.
What exactly are you basing this on? Do you presume to speak for The Executive of UNCoESB? How do you know that the species you listed are considered endangered here?

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Seeing as the repeal may just go through, I think it should be sensible to start considering a replacement for the original resolution.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

We've already got a replacement, it's called UNCoESB, look it up.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So if the Whales are thriving, we still shouldn't be able to kill them because "Whaling is distasteful"? Why?

That is our opinion, which we have already expressed through our vote. That is the end of the matter for us, as this is a representative vote. If the resolution passes, you are free to hunt whales as you like, just as we are free not to participate in the practice.

WhaleCo Global LLC

Presents

The Great Whale Cookoff!

Chef Ito, Dessert Course

Hello, and welcome back to The Great Whale Cookoff, sponsored by WhaleCo Global LLC. I am Chef Tony Ito and today I will be preparing my dessert course offering, Red Velvet Cake. In the preparation I will be utilizing two different types of WhaleCo Brand reconstituted blubber; WhaleCo Genuine Whale Margarine and WhaleCo's Best Whale Shortening, both made with real whale oil.

Red Velvet Cake is a favorite in homes and fine restaurants everywhere and the addition of whale based products in place of regular shortening and margarine lends it a creamy smoothness that will add to your enjoyment.

We begin. For the cake, I will use 1/2 cup WhaleCo Genuine Whale Margarine, 2 eggs, 1 teaspoon of vanilla, 2 1/2 cups flour, 2 tablespoons of cocoa, 1 1/2 cups sugar, 2 oz. red food coloring, 1 teaspoon of salt, 1 cup of buttermilk and 1 teaspoon baking soda which will be sprinkled over 1 tablespoon of rice wine vinegar.

For the frosting, I will use 1 cup of whale milk, 1 1/4 cups of powdered sugar, 1/4 cup flour, 3/4 cup WhaleCo's Best Whale Shortening and 1 teaspoon of vanilla.

First, we will cream the margarine and sugar, then add the eggs, vanilla and red food coloring. We want to beat this well to ensure a proper mixture and consistency.

*Chef Ito beats the mixture by hand, using a large antique whalebone handled spoon, then finishes the job with a WhaleCo Kitchens Brand electric mixer*

There. Now we will sift the flour, salt & cocoa into the mixture, adding them alternately with the buttermilk and we will beat the mixture after each addition.

*sifting, pouring, beating, sifting, pouring, beating, sifting, pouring, beating*

Now we want to carefully sprinkle the baking soda over one tablespoon of rice wine vinegar and add it to our cake mix.

*Chef Ito spills the baking soda/vinegar mixture*

*just kidding. Chef Ito has never spilled anything*

*ever*

We will now bake our cakes 30 minutes at 350° in 3 9-inch greased and floured pans. The pans have of course been greased with WhaleCo's Best Whale Shortening.

While the cakes are baking, let us prepare the frosting.

Here we will combine the milk and flour in a saucepan and cook until it is thick, like a white sauce. We will stir this constantly.

*stirs constantly*

Now let's set that aside and let it cool.

Next, we will cream the sugar & shortening until light and fluffy, then add the vanilla & cooled cream sauce. We will then beat this mixture until it is the proper consistency for icing.

*at this point Chef Ito takes a break to enjoy a glass of wine while an assistant beats the mixture*

*30 minutes later*

Ah, good! The cakes are done, the frosting is ready. My assistants will now frost the cake and top it with mixed nuts.

Let me tell you what an honor it has been to prepare these dishes for you. It always provides me with much happiness to prepare food for guests and I hope you have enjoyed our Great Whale Cookoff as much as I have.

I see that my assistants have completed their work and here we have Red Velvet Cake! Isn't it lovely?

http://www4.mailordercentral.com/veryvera/images/RED.jpg

Sven looked at his sous chefs, Roy and Janet, and asked, "OK, is iferytheeng reedy? Bork Bork Bork!"

"Yes chef," they replied.

"Guud, yuoo ell knoo vhet yuoor esseegned tesks ere-a, let's veen thees theeng. Bork Bork Bork!"

*The three chefs quickly moved off to their stations and began working. Sven began grinding whale meat and mixing it with a secret blend of spices before forming it into balls. Meanwhile, Roy was bringing a mixture of whale stock and heavy cream to a boil in a pot and browning some chunks of whale meat in a pan. And Janet was dicing onions and potatoes.*

OOC: I'm basically making the recipes up as I go along here so you won't get to see everything my team of chefs are doing.

*mutters about how nobody seems to want to listen to science*

You doom the entire ecosystem by reducing the whale niche.We too notice that many in this body feel the need to ignore any science other than culinary. Step by step the research shows that Cetaceans, whales and dolphins, are highly developed in the areas of social organization and communication (http://http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/05/2.24.05/AAAS.Clark.whales.html). That the humpback whale utilizes a complicated grammar and adaptive communication techniques (http://http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060322_whale_grammar.html). That the baleen species possess neurophysiology the equal of Homo sapiens and highly developed brain structures (http://http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/28243/News.html) that allow for complex mechanisms associated with communication.

UNR #70 recognizes this; UNR #119 ignores it completely.

There is a reluctance here in these halls to acknowledge the interplay of ecosystems, to comprehend that mere numbers of any particular species or hunting quotas are not enough to ensure the health of a species.

And as with much of history, the mind-set that if we don't understand something, if we can't see or understand it, then we are the superior ones and the other is inferior--to be hunted, conquered, eliminated--that is the mind-set we see here today. That is the mind-set that insists controlled hunting is the equivalent of a ban. That war is peace and truth lies.

We too notice that many in this body feel the need to ignore any science other than culinary. Step by step the research shows that Cetaceans, whales and dolphins, are highly developed in the areas of social organization and communication (http://http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/05/2.24.05/AAAS.Clark.whales.html). That the humpback whale utilizes a complicated grammar and adaptive communication techniques (http://http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060322_whale_grammar.html). That the baleen species possess neurophysiology the equal of Homo sapiens and highly developed brain structures (http://http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/28243/News.html) that allow for complex mechanisms associated with communication.

UNR #70 recognizes this; UNR #119 ignores it completely.

There is a reluctance here in these halls to acknowledge the interplay of ecosystems, to comprehend that mere numbers of any particular species or hunting quotas are not enough to ensure the health of a species.Really? What about total bans on hunting of endangered species, criminal prosecutions of those who break hunting bans, conservation efforts to prevent species from even becoming endangered, educational programs aimed at informing the public about the impact of unrestrained hunting on local wildlife (so people can learn all about whales from professional educators, not windbag diplomats), capture and breeding programs, etc., etc. -- all enacted under the UNCoESB? This getting through to you, any of it?

Not too long ago, in a place not too far away...

We, of course, won't hunt the inferior black race into extinction, they're too important as a resource to us. But they're animals don't you know, so we've got every right to hunt them. They don't have language like we do, they don't look like us, they look like they think and have emotions, but they're really just mimicing real people. They're savages and never will be our equal, you can tell by the bumps on their heads..

We have breeding programs planned to make sure we have a steady supply, and educational programs to learn about their funny way of singing and dancing and how they rut in the jungle. They're far more protected under our care than free.

What part of 'we shouldn't be hunting cetaceans regardless' do you not get.

That may be so, but I would consider the UNCoESB more a floor than a bar to other protective resolutions.Just so.