Growing Threat From Iberian Peninsula

[SC Harrison]

Spain Vows Eternal Vigilance In War On Bulls

PAMPLONA, SPAIN—Following a series of brutal attacks, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero pledged Monday that he "will not rest until Spain is free of rampaging bulls."

"Bulls are ruthless animals that run our young men down in the streets without regard for guilt or innocence," Zapatero said. "Doggedly pursuing their agenda of destruction, they are deaf to pleas for mercy, and they care nothing about the suffering they cause as they rout and trample novillero, picador, and matador alike."

Zapatero said the government has no estimate of the number of bulls currently living in Spain, due to the animals' stealthy nature.

"The beasts hide in the nation's pastures, quietly ruminating over their vicious agendas," Zapatero said. "They often lie dormant for years, posing as innocent calves until they expose themselves as the brutes they are. Then, they attack in arenas, when the crowds are at their maximum capacity, in order to incite fear and shock among the citizenry."

Zapatero has established a cabinet-level Department of Bovine Security and a color-coded system that will alert the general public to the likelihood of an animal rampage. A green flag waved by the president indicates a low risk of bull attack. Magenta and gold capes, when worn by footmen, peones, or capeadores, indicate an elevated threat level. A colorful ring of banderilla around the bull's neck indicates a high threat level. In the case of a severe threat, a red flag is waved, and a bull attack is imminent.

"We can't afford to lose the war on bulls," Zapatero said. "When bulls unleash their brand of chaos, they leave massive destruction in their paths, as the tragic events of July 7 in Pamplona have proven time and again for the last 400 years."

Some Spanish citizens allege that the government's efforts to stop bull attacks are creating anti-bovine sentiment among the citizenry, and several watchdog organizations have been created to protect the rights of cows.

"Violent bulls represent a small minority of all ruminants," Bovine Rights Now representative Adora Moreno said. "Most cows are docile herbivores with no desire to harm a living soul. They are productive members of society, providing us with milk, meat, and leather goods. They should be granted the same dignity we afford other species."

Zapatero said that, while some citizens expressed displeasure with the additional security checkpoints in public and private pastures across the nation, the precautions are "an unfortunate necessity in these troubled times."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30771


:)

Have a nice weekend, my friends.

[maxmordon]

This most be a joke, not very funny in my opinion

[dclary]

:ROFL: @ This getting moved to the Politics forum


SCHarrison... no one gets Onion humor here, man.

[Dawno]

I do. And I like that its here :D I didn't move it, btw...

[dclary]

Well, aren't you sparkly. :D

[Mr. Fix]

It's about time the Madrid Government has finally taken these "Rampaging Bulls" seriously. All those people in the arenas exposed to such violence and bloodshed. Will it ever end?:e2fight:

[Bird of Prey]

Well, I guess I'll put my serious two cents in and say that bullfighting is right up there with dogfighting as a horrifically cruel spectator sport. It's disgusting. The Spanish should be ashamed of it and put an end to it. Really.

[Higgins]

Well, I guess I'll put my serious two cents in and say that bullfighting is right up there with dogfighting as a horrifically cruel spectator sport. It's disgusting. The Spanish should be ashamed of it and put an end to it. Really.

I'll add my two cents:

Maybe bull-fighting links up with symbols and ideologies that are fundamental to Spanish Identity.

[Bird of Prey]

I'll add my two cents:

Maybe bull-fighting links up with symbols and ideologies that are fundamental to Spanish Identity.

I don't care how it links up to some; it's not excusable conduct for the twenty-first century. Thankfully, a growing number of Spaniards recognize it.

[Higgins]

I don't care how it links up to some; it's not excusable conduct for the twenty-first century. Thankfully, a growing number of Spaniards recognize it.

Why was it excusable in other centuries and is not now?

[SC Harrison]

SCHarrison... no one gets Onion humor here, man.

It's a learning process, Deek. If done properly, you can condition people before they're even born:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29269


New Sony In-Utero TV To Entertain Children In The Womb

LOS ANGELES—The entertainment industry is abuzz following the Sony Corporation's unveiling Monday of the Utertron 9000, a state-of-the-art in-utero womb-entertainment system for children between the ages of minus nine months and zero.

The Utertron 9000, touted as the first prenatelevision technology ever developed, features micro-miniature multi-speaker SurrounSound, HDTV compatibility and a luxurious one and one-sixteenth-inch screen. It will make its official debut Feb. 15 at the World OB/GYN Electronics Expo in Las Vegas, and is slated to hit stores nationwide by early fall.

"Thanks to the revolutionary new Utertron 9000," Sony vice-president of media relations Grant Bellows told reporters, "developing fetuses everywhere will soon be able to enjoy the same high-quality entertainment programming that, until now, has only been available to the post-born."

In an effort to attract unborn viewers, the major networks, working in conjunction with top obstetricians, are developing programming that specifically caters to them. Already in production are the NBC family drama Mother's Voice and the X-Files-style paranormal drama What Lies Beyond The Opening?, as well as the made-for-TV movie Umbilicus, starring digitally neotenized versions of Ted Danson and Jimmy Smits.

Also in the works is an MTV spin-off that will offer a 24-hour rotation of music videos accompanied by gently throbbing reddish lights and heartbeat rhythms. Fetuses will have the additional option of watching pay-per-view movies, which they can select by reflexively kicking at a special controller. Advertising rates will be determined by Amnio-Nielsens drawn from a random sampling of amniotic sacs four times a year.

"In a recent Sony study of pregnant women," Sony consulting therapist Dr. Eli Wasserbaum said, "mothers implanted with the Utertron 9000 reported significantly less agitation and kicking on the part of their unborn children, who were happily engaged with stimulating, enriching TV fare."

Further, Wasserbaum said, test fetuses with access to a Utertron 9000 were born more docile and cooperative, and less emotionally needy, than those who came to term without one.

"My first three children always wanted to be held," Wilkes-Barre, PA, mother Meredith Schraeger said. "Little Jared, though, just watches his Utertron all day and night. Even now, two months out of the womb, he can't seem to bear to part with it. It's almost as if the TV has imprinted itself on his brain as his sole source of mental and emotional nourishment, and he's incapable of any sustained human contact. And I don't have to tell you the kind of hassles that saves a busy parent like me."

[Bird of Prey]

Why was it excusable in other centuries and is not now?


Context.

We're evolving.

[lostintheweb]

I'll add my two cents:

Maybe bull-fighting links up with symbols and ideologies that are fundamental to Spanish Identity.

Yeah, that may be true, but it does not make it right. Ever read Hemmingway's distinction between Spanish bull fighting and Portuguese bull fighting. For as much as he loved Spain, his admiration was clearly for the latter.

So much for the Spanish government dealing with running bulls. I want to know when somebody is going to curb that tomato riot.

[Higgins]

Context.

We're evolving.

Genetically people haven't changed significantly in the last few thousand years, so the things that are changing continuously over time are cultures.

So the question is: What aspects of culture used to make bullfighting seem acceptable?

[donroc]

But, look for the film about Spain's greatest classic matador coming out in October, I believe, starring Adrien Brody as Manolete.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Bird of Prey]

Genetically people haven't changed significantly in the last few thousand years, so the things that are changing continuously over time are cultures.

So the question is: What aspects of culture used to make bullfighting seem acceptable?


Nothing ever made it acceptable. I never said that and you know it. But there's a difference between seeing a time in its context, knowing that cruel amusement - abuse of animals, for example - was popular, considered normal and justifiable; and seeing that same conduct in the light of contemporary times, where we are more empathetic about suffering as we should be.

And that goes, btw, for health, for fashion, for literally everything. What was the norm for the nineteenth century is not the norm today, nor should it be. We know more.

[MattW]

I've got plans to run in Pamplona in 2009.

I should have done it as a younger, dumber man, but 33 won't be too old and I'll still be just dumb enough.

[donroc]

"... and the only beast in the arean is the crowd." Hemingway

[Bird of Prey]

"... and the only beast in the arean is the crowd." Hemingway


Exactly.

The matador is a cheat, a holdover from the Romans. He should not personify Spain. The matador is armed, tormenting a beast already wounded because he can't face the animal intact, and yet he holds himself up as a great conqueror, just as the Romans did while they tortured and killed so many: animals and people alike. . . .

The matador is a charlatan.


And Manolete died as he should have: gored. The poor beast that killed him and suffered at his hand is the only real hero. He put an end to a cruel and abhorrent coward.

[Perks]

Bullfighting is repugnant.

That article is brilliant.

[billythrilly7th]

Well, I guess I'll put my serious two cents in and say that bullfighting is right up there with dogfighting as a horrifically cruel spectator sport. It's disgusting. The Spanish should be ashamed of it and put an end to it. Really.

I'll do better than that.

Aquariums should be banned.

I'm in a Chinese take-out place last night.

BIG ORANGE FISH in small glass encasing is not very nice.

One fish was quarintined off to the side of the aquarium with a partition. BIG fish in about a one foot wide and foot and 1/2 length area.

As my food cooked, I watched him. He turned this way than that way. Nowhere to swim. This way and that way. Looked at me.

"I hear ya, dude. That's a horrible life you got there."

I'm not a big animal rights guy.

Hook'em to electrodes if it means coming up with a cure for something.

Eat'em to your hearts content.

But this seemed wrong.

Poor little fish.

:(

[SpookyWriter]

If you really wanted to do something for the fist then you should have eaten it. Nothing says freedom like being an appetizer for democracy.

[Perks]

Aquariums can be cruel. We've had this debate here before, believe it or not, about a fish's cognitive ability, but I've run aquariums for years and they have likes and dislikes, however primitive.

Leaving a big fish to toss circles in a tight space is depressing.

And I'm not a passionate animal rights activist or a person overburdened with causes. It's only common sense and decency.

[Bird of Prey]

It's awful. Swim free, little fish.

[Perks]

It has been blasted here as nonsense, but my oscar could distinguish one family member from another. My husband, it just watched. If it saw me, it would swim fast for the corner where I fed it. And for some reason it did somersaults for my oldest daughter.

It was cool.

[billythrilly7th]

Leaving a big fish to toss circles in a tight space is depressing.

And I'm not a passionate animal rights activist or a person overburdened with causes. It's only common sense and decency.

Yes.

Small fish in a nice size aquarium, okay.

This fish was way too big in a way too small area.

Made this Thrilly sad for him.

Especially when he was looking at me.

:(

[Higgins]

Nothing ever made it acceptable. I never said that and you know it. But there's a difference between seeing a time in its context, knowing that cruel amusement - abuse of animals, for example - was popular, considered normal and justifiable; and seeing that same conduct in the light of contemporary times, where we are more empathetic about suffering as we should be.

And that goes, btw, for health, for fashion, for literally everything. What was the norm for the nineteenth century is not the norm today, nor should it be. We know more.

Fine, it was never "acceptible," but before say, the nineteenth century how was its unacceptability manifest? If abusing animals was all the rage, how would anyone know bullfighting was unacceptable? Do you really think that people are now more empathetic than they used to be? Maybe they empathized with the people tormetting the bull and not the bull...or since the bull might be seen as a sacrifice of some sort, maybe they empathized with the rightness of the natural order of the universe as it received its proper sacrifice.

Do you really think we know more than people did in the nineteenth century about our own cultural norms? It don't see much evidence of that.

[Perks]

The farther technology sets us from the contemplation of our immediate survival, the more self-aware and other-aware we'll become. For the good or the ill.

[Higgins]

The farther technology sets us from the contemplation of our immediate survival, the more self-aware and other-aware we'll become. For the good or the ill.

In people in social elites would not have had to contemplate their immediate survival. If we looked, for example, at say, the ruling families of the Aztecs in the early 16th century...they would have had thousands of people willing to bring them anything they wanted. Any problem of their immediate survival was very remote indeed.

And that's just a very clear example. In fact any social group you can identify as elite in the past, is a group whose individual members would not have have had to worry at all about their immediate survival. So by your logic, there should always have been groups in the past that were just as self-aware and other-aware as we are. Perhaps more so even and yet they seem to have been perfectly happy to oversee massive human sacrifice and enslavement and the obliteration of entire cities.

[Perks]

So by your logic, there should always have been groups in the past that were just as self-aware and other-aware as we are. Perhaps more so even and yet they seem to have been perfectly happy to oversee massive human sacrifice and enslavement and the obliteration of entire cities.Yes, except I don't see that as a decision made purely by an 'elite'. The elite are pampered, but they are still of the society they live in, its customs and norms. As the common man gets more comfortable, they have more time to noodle through the intangibles.

That's the driving force behind all sorts of 'rights' movements, I believe.

[Bird of Prey]

Fine, it was never "acceptible," but before say, the nineteenth century how was its unacceptability manifest? If abusing animals was all the rage, how would anyone know bullfighting was unacceptable?

They wouldn't, which is why I try to judge human behavior within the context of its time.

Do you really think that people are now more empathetic than they used to be? Maybe they empathized with the people tormetting the bull and not the bull...or since the bull might be seen as a sacrifice of some sort, maybe they empathized with the rightness of the natural order of the universe as it received its proper sacrifice.

Do you really think we know more than people did in the nineteenth century about our own cultural norms? It don't see much evidence of that.


Yes, I think people are more empathetic than they used to be. For openers, they can afford to be, meaning that in - for example - wealthier countries, the daily fight for actual existence is not very common, which means that people have the luxury of reflection. Thought lends itself to examination, observation and often to empathy. It's why I think the majority of the human race, regardless of the brutality of its genetic stem, is inherently good and aspires to goodness. It is a concomitant gift to a higher intellect.

I don't know what you mean by knowing more that people did in the nineteenth century about our cultural norms. Are we as aware of who we are are as they were? No more or no less. I don't think we have any perspective on our staggering achievements while we are achieving them. We simply utilize them. Perspective takes distance. That's why hindsight is 20/20, don't you think?

[dclary]

Genetically people haven't changed significantly in the last few thousand years.Because there's no such thing as evolution... but let's not talk about that. It scares leftists.

[Higgins]

Yes, except I don't see that as a decision made purely by an 'elite'. The elite are pampered, but they are still of the society they live in, its customs and norms. As the common man gets more comfortable, they have more time to noodle through the intangibles.

That's the driving force behind all sorts of 'rights' movements, I believe.

Right. I'm following along with you on this...So, at some point "back in time" there would be some kind of cultural system (norms, symbols, religions, interpretations, images, myths, stories), that would override (what is in a kind of comfort-model of human motivation) whatever other-aware and self-aware misgivings even the most comfortable member of the elite (who are supposedly "in control", but in fact are at the mercy of their cultural symbologies) might have about ritual human sacrifice or massacring various populations.
So the degree of personal comfort and security of the elite has little if any impact on their participation in bloodthirsty pastimes.
But at some point even if there is no cultural change in the basic cultural system, the fact that the common man has less trouble getting the bare necessities, motivates the common man to disengage somehow from the cultural expectations of unmitigated slaughter to be meeted out to culturally selected targets.
I wonder if that is true? It seems to me to be just as likely that if there is no cultural change, putting more resources into the hands of the common man is just as likely to increase the bloodthirstiness of the common man.
Which implies (to me anyway) that the dim view we now take of killing bulls or indulging in other bloody things is due to cultural change.

[Perks]

So the degree of personal comfort and security of the elite has little if any impact on their participation in bloodthirsty pastimes. I think so. In fact, the elite are often the last to give up their 'bloodsports'.
But at some point even if there is no cultural change in the basic cultural system, the fact that the common man has less trouble getting the bare necessities, motivates the common man to disengage somehow from the cultural expectations of unmitigated slaughter to be meeted out to culturally selected targets.
I wonder if that is true? It seems to me to be just as likely that if there is no cultural change, putting more resources into the hands of the common man is just as likely to increase the bloodthirstiness of the common man.
Which implies (to me anyway) that the dim view we now take of killing bulls or indulging in other bloody things is due to cultural change.I'm a little confused. I think that the change is cultural. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was organic. I meant simply that with more time to self- and other- identify, some avenues of empathy will widen. Certainly not all. In some ways we're more calloused than we've ever been.

Right now, in human history as it unfolds in 'developed' societies, there is an increasing acknowledgement of the suffering of animals and ecologies. Some of this is quite self-serving, I'll add. But in the past hundred years, we've also seen the end (or drastic reduction) in Western cultures of child labor. The oppression of women and racial and social minorities have become hot topics for reform. A larger segment of society bothers its thought with the discomfort of others, at least in lipservice which is more than it used to do.

But I never meant to imply that it was anything other than a cultural shift. It shifts and the elite, who try to run and milk it, have little choice than to shuffle along with 'progress'.

[SpookyWriter]

Because there's no such thing as de-evolution... but let's not talk about that. It scares leftists.I'm not so sure after looking at your avatar for a while.

[dclary]

I'm not so sure after looking at your avatar for a while.
You're just jealous of the fro, bro.

[SpookyWriter]

You're just jealous of the fro, bro.No, I'm trying to imagine what your left hand is doing to make you so angry looking.

[Higgins]

I think so. In fact, the elite are often the last to give up their 'bloodsports'.I'm a little confused. I think that the change is cultural. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was organic. I meant simply that with more time to self- and other- identify, some avenues of empathy will widen. Certainly not all. In some ways we're more calloused than we've ever been.

Right now, in human history as it unfolds in 'developed' societies, there is an increasing acknowledgement of the suffering of animals and ecologies. Some of this is quite self-serving, I'll add. But in the past hundred years, we've also seen the end (or drastic reduction) in Western cultures of child labor. The oppression of women and racial and social minorities have become hot topics for reform. A larger segment of society bothers its thought with the discomfort of others, at least in lipservice which is more than it used to do.

But I never meant to imply that it was anything other than a cultural shift. It shifts and the elite, who try to run and milk it, have little choice than to shuffle along with 'progress'.

So there is some kind of change, probably largely in the realm of symbols and representations, and it seems to have no direct relation to the comfort-level of the people in the changing societies.

Maybe animals just don't mean as much to us, so tormeting them has no particular meaning?

PS: Or to put it another way...when we remove the meaning from our approach to something and substitute something that is just about reality for the meaning, then a certain excessive need (to say slaughter or ritually torment) is also removed.
Or to put it another way if you culturally substitute some kind of reality about something for the mystified meaningful version of that culturally defined thing then you remove the culturally significant needs to do ritual violence.
Or to put it another way, if you can form adequate images of real animals as they are in the real world, then the need to do symbolically significant ritual things with symbolically significant animals is removed.
Or to put it another way, when you find the real animal, the mystified symbolic animal (that required ritual slaughter for cultural reasons) looks like a bad mistake about the nature of animals.

[Perks]

So there is some kind of change, probably largely in the realm of symbols and representations, and it seems to have no direct relation to the comfort-level of the people in the changing societies.

Maybe animals just don't mean as much to us, so tormeting them has no particular meaning?Waaah! I don't understand our back and forth, Sokal. Perhaps I'm just dense. Obviously, a larger percentage of people object to the mistreatment of animals than used to concern themselves with it. Animal pain for sport is falling out of favor more and more with Joe Average. I don't think there's any dispute there.

I think it's because our time has been freed up for more contemplation of abstracts. And really, anything that's not going on in our own heads and bodies is somewhat abstract. I'm sure there are other factors, as well.

I've completely lost the thread of what impetus you assign to the trend.

[robeiae]

*stops carving steaks to ponder the many ironies of life*

[Perks]

Carving steak ain't mistreatment, in my book, if they're slaughtered humanely. I always assumed that they were, but even without seeking information on the industry, I'm getting more and more information that they're not. I've started paying more for meat, poultry, milk and eggs to salve my conscience.

Because, good god, I love a fine steak.

[Higgins]

Waaah! I don't understand our back and forth, Sokal. Perhaps I'm just dense. Obviously, a larger percentage of people object to the mistreatment of animals than used to concern themselves with it. Animal pain for sport is falling out of favor more and more with Joe Average. I don't think there's any dispute there.

I think it's because our time has been freed up for more contemplation of abstracts. And really, anything that's not going on in our own heads and bodies is somewhat abstract. I'm sure there are other factors, as well.

I've completely lost the thread of what impetus you assign to the trend.

No, sorry. Not your fault. I was wondering about how to look at the problem of cultural change and the cruelties that it makes look so strange...I mean once they no longer mean anything (bull as sacrificial animal etc.)

I'll go start a thread in the Critical Theory area as long as I'm thinking about this problem.

[Perks]

Turns out even the most insignificant among us are protesting the bullfights now --

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-09-14T163114Z_01_L14166383_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-BULLFIGHTER.xml

[Jean Marie]

Turns out even the most insignificant among us are protesting the bullfights now --

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&story (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-09-14T163114Z_01_L14166383_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-BULLFIGHTER.xml)

id=2007-09-14T163114Z_01_L14166383_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-BULLFIGHTER.xml (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-09-14T163114Z_01_L14166383_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-BULLFIGHTER.xml)

There's something so lovely about a matador being taken out by a mosquito. I love it! It's unfortunate that he'll live, though unlike his prey, in the ring.