Offending Birds
Mere birds: Domestic chickens, House Sparrows and Red-shouldered Hawks. From a strict biological view these birds are indeed genetic cousins. Because we eat chickens, what's all the fuss that there's one less raptor in the world? Via direct or indirect human causes, federally protected birds perish by the multi-millions each year. Why cry out about this one? This seems to be the sentiment expressed by sports columnist Clay Travis in his op-ed piece "Lawyer: Tripp not guilty of fowl play." I've never witnessed a more bizarre chicken dance around the intentional killing of a protected bird.
In an age of changing and vanishing wilderness, many wild creatures have adapted to how we've transformed the landscape and there's a particular sense of admiration most of us afford birds like Lola and Pale Male; the Red-tailed Hawks of New York's Central Park. So when their nest was removed from a building a few years ago, the "get out of my way" locked horns with the "they've adapted to us, so let's adapt to them" crowd. What warranted their eviction? Lola and Pale Male were charged with littering on the sidewalk. And this Red-shouldered Hawk’s offense? Disturbing the peace on a golf course (and got the death penalty).
I can almost buy the puerile 'I didn't mean to shoot the bird with my BB-gun' defense proffered by Tripp Isenhour. On his 10th swing targeting the hawk, nobody knows what was going through Tripp’s mind but him. A child stands before a dead Tree Swallow, stunned by improbability of an aimed BB having found its mark, then saddened with remorse over a lifeless bird that flies and sings no more. Did Tripp experience a similar sequence of emotion after the hawk fell dead to the ground? Following this realization, what thoughts then raced in his mind? How could he possibly explain his odd behavior? Instead of a lesson on personal accountability and responsibility, Clay Travis wants us to suck up his piffle with gooey chicken gravy in the hope that it will all just go away.
It will take a clever piece of fiction to exonerate Tripp!
posted by Mike McDowell @ 8:25 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
http://akabirdnerd.com/birds/?p=4483
The above link is an article I wrote today about how I feel about hunting birds. It is a bit related to this post, though I'm not focusing in on protected birds.
I appreciate you posting this, Mike. If we don't stand up for the birds, who will? The stories out there are heartbreaking. I don't know about your state, but mine is too focused on No Child Left Behind and passing state mandated tests. We are ignoring things like teaching our children an appreciation and love for their natural environment.
Just one man's humble opinion...
I'm getting really sick of newswriters. They seem to have become so ironically detached that they're floating about in some other realm, keelless like Ishmael, unable to be swept up in joy at a singing bird or wonder at a wild-alive hummingbird egg. Maybe the price of writing "clever" columns is no longer having a soul to be stirred.
It's common knowledge now that Richard Speck killed eight student nurses while visiting their apartment.. And that as a result of this nursicide he's been charged with a violation of the law and faces spending the rest of his life in prison. Like most murderers of nurses, Speck's greatest flaw is also his greatest success – police and other mass murderers have described the odds of his successful stabbing of eight nurses in the same small apartment without one of them being able to get help at several thousand to one. Every reader of the ClayNation column is glad they weren't there to engage in wagering with Speck about the odds of his killing all eight at once. Because then we'd all be facing accessory to nursicide charges.
As a result of the nurses' deaths, Speck has become the latest person to be singled out by the media as a horrible person. Which makes complete sense. Because if you're anything like me you've never had a shot or blood drawn or been woken up in the middle of the night by a cranky nurse. Regardless, Speck's act has set off a firestorm of media attention. He's been branded a cold-hearted hater of all nurses, and from his prison cell Speck has gone on the offensive to display his nurse lover bona fides by announcing that he's become an artist. Seriously, he did this. Which is fine. But what about all the other nurses that have died of cancer, emphysema, in accidents, or in other horrible ways because Richard Speck didn't kill them?
Here at the ClayNation column we strive to bring voices to those who can't speak or are often ignored. We go after the angles most members of the media who aren't the pregnant antebellum daughters of CBS Sports miss. And we never forgo an opportunity to be outraged. Outraged! Especially when nurses die. Because everyone knows that if Richard Speck hadn't killed these eight lovely student nurses, they would have lived forever. Or been killed by another mass murderer. One or the other.
That's why we've brought you an attorney, John Bell Hood IV, speaking out in regards to the nurses that died. It's important to cover this story with the majesty, pomp and circumstance which it so richly deserves. After all it's not every day a woman dies. So we bring you Richard Speck's fabricated lawyer to speak on behalf of the nurses and his client. As a prelude that will allow you to better understand John Bell Hood IV's position keep in mind that one of the primary tenets of legal defense in America is the blame-the-victim strategy. You dive into the personal life and details that surround the victim and seek to cast aspersions on their character via these criticisms. You may not be able to prove that the crime wasn't committed but you can make the crime seem less serious or even, occasionally, deserved. Which brings us to this unique gambit of the attorney's position: How come no one ever blames the nurses when they get killed and people are charged with the crime of killing them? Aren't other nurses constantly trying to kill people with their shots and middle-of-the-night wakeups? Are nurses without sin? Have nurses never made a mistake or put themselves into compromising situations that they shouldn't have been involved in? Of course they have.
To Mr. Travis I wrote: Sir, you are not the judge. Your client's intent was focused and determined. Had he impulsively took a whack and hit the bird on the first shot, I would say, "If you don't want to kill something, don't aim, point or shoot at it. Even if you want to just "scare" it off. He was not under duress to kill the animal. Laws are created for a reason and not to be broken to employe lawyers. m-
I ment to say to Mr. John Bell Hood IV, via Mr. Travis...
Post a Comment
<< Home