John Ransom
Recommend this article

I’m not sure what to make of the comment from a Canadian researcher who is calling out the Humane Society regarding ads they have run deploring polar bear hunting for the commercial trade in bear goods.

I can’t peg the comments as a Leninist deviation from purely Marxist form of determinism or if it’s more of a rootless cosmopolitan deviation from a strictly Stalinist line of Polar Bearism for One Country.

Truthfully, it could both and I wouldn’t know it.

Nor would you—I hope.

We have come so far along the progressive continuum, that I'm not sure Progressives know even what Progressives are talking about.

"Polar bears are an incredibly uncontrollable symbol,” says Douglas Clark, a Saskatoon researcher from the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability “people use them for all kinds of things. It's to the point now where we need to depoliticize polar bears as a symbol."

Well this makes sense to me: Polar bears aren’t recognized by any amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Even in Canada.

We can pretty much do anything we want with them. And guns too.

So why don’t we get Congress to pass a law that would “regulate” polar bears as a symbol so we can get them under control… you know, as a symbol, and symbolically?

And if Congress won’t act, perhaps the president could wrestle with the darn beasts using his pen and his phone or, ah… stroke of genius…use the IRS to make sure polar bear symbols are “depoliticized.”

After all, we can’t have polar bears running around symbolizing things that the government doesn’t approve of.

Why?

Mid-term elections. Case. Closed.

Clark, who wrote a study about politics and polar bears paid for with taxpayer dollars—he works, after all, at a public university--is concerned that not enough people are upset about the “real” threat to polar bears: evolution.

Recommend this article

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance.