Politically Embarassing Sheep?

"...52,000 politically embarrassing Australian sheep..." I don't think the author intended that line to sound as funny as it does. Almost immediately, I started wondering about the politics of these sheep that might make them so embarrassing. Are they Nazi sheep? Perhaps they're pacifist lambs? Or maybe, they're just evil ewes (oh wait, Frank J. tells me that's supposed to be Jews. I was close, right?). No matter, they are now in political exile in Eritrea.

All kidding aside, while it is lamentable what has happened here, I really find some of the reaction to be over the top. It ranges from conspiracy theory:

"However, I would suggest that the timing of the announcement was cleverly orchestrated to ensure that media scrutiny of the condition of the sheep was avoided."

That last one really bugs me. Raising animals for export certainly has to be providing jobs for Australians. I don't know what rationale the Saudis were using for buying the sheep, but I can see how the export trade could help nations that incapable of raising a quantity or quality of livestock that helps to provide sufficient food or clothing materials.

Anytime quantities of livestock are transported over great distances, whether it be by herding them, putting them in a railcar, or putting them on a ship, some people will take offense. Sometimes quite a few of the animals will die, especially if distant countries start treating the ship like the New York Garbage Barge of a few years back, like happened this time. What many of the anti-animal trade folks ignore is that by selling live animals, Australia actually promotes the eventual end of the live animal trade.

Ever heard the phrase give a man a piece of fish and feed him for a day; give him a hook, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime? All the humanitarian food programs out there right now give people the food. We give them grain; we give them meat; we give them dairy products. Australia is giving them the animals, teaching them to care for and to nourish them. Long term, which choice is more humanitarian?

Of course, 52,000 live, politically embarrassing sheep is too much for the animal righters.

Animal rights activists had been calling for the animals to be slaughtered at sea and suggested the unexpected deal with Eritrea had been kept secret to minimise (sp.) a bad press and prevent independent scrutiny of the animals' condition.

So we're going to slaughter them at sea so that independent scrutiny can determine that they are all, in fact, dead - and that they died at sea, so the trade must be stopped. Doesn't that call clash with their goal of protecting the animal's lives, no matter what the consequence on humanity? Kill the sheep, piss off the activists; keep them alive, piss them off anyways. Doesn't quite seem right.

Oh well, must be what happens when you try to ship Christian sheep to a Wahabbi Islamic nation.

Politically embarrassing sheep...I still can't get over how funny that sounds.