String of eco-terrorist acts?

Ecoterrorism? Where? Could it be in the Gulf of Mexico..in the coal mines too?

Ask yourself this: How do you get three separate (and unrelated) explosions that blew open 3 pylons on an oil platform that survived 4 category 4 or 5 hurricanes undamaged? Keep in mind those storms created waves over 60 ft tall in open waters and 160mph plus winds. For those rigs to survive such conditions 4 times in 2 years between 04 and 05, they must be rather tough, right? To show you an example of the type of power such acts of nature create, I am posting a photo of Pensacola Pier which if memory serves was about 30 feet tall 24 hours before the arrival of hurricane Ivan in 04. One oil rig measured a wave height of 27 meters in that one. For those who don't know, that's about 80 ft or so.

Knowing that the gulf oil rigs survived those disasters (three I saw firsthand), I can't help but believe the eco-disaster in the Gulf was not an "accident." Add to that: the methane(less) "gas" explosion in the WVA coal mine, and the other coal mine explosion in KY (I'd hate it if my state had that abbreviation), could all related acts of terrorism. My statement regarding this is not without logic. The media really buried the fact that no methane was found in the WV mine, but traces of military grade explosives were. My questions here are first: am I totally wrong here, second: and if not who is responible?

There is the obvious pick, the teleprompter. Is it muslim extremists...or could it be the green terrorists such as ELF? Then again, it could be other parties less obvious but no less insidious. The Mexican Cartels have just seen their most profitable avenue of business (Arizona) cut off. Remember too, this is a BP rig. That's British Petroleum. Our relations with Britain have "cooled" recently. Relations with Israel have not been affected by "global warming" either. The (Israeli intelligence and destruction agency) Mossad is everywhere after all. So is it so insane to think that these could all be related and intentional events when the teleprompter promised to "destroy the coal industry" and promised that "energy prices must necessarily skyrocket?" Given that all our previous allies hate us now, our enemies think we are weak, why should we not think that these occurrences are all related and terrorist acts?

The Socialist Volcano

How can a Volcano be socialist?

Let's look at the results:

All airline flights in an out of England were canceled for days. All people regardless of socio-economic class had their flights cancelled forcing the stranded of all classes to take various versions of mass transit to get to their destinations.

Untold amounts of greenhouse gasses were spewed into the Atmosphere by the volcano making Al Gore (the Goracle) relevant again.

The domino effect of the volcano shut down evil airline flight schedules around the world saving billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (the trillions of tons of such pollutants injected into the Atmosphere can be deleted via computers so as not to truly affect the data given.)

I am asking for nominations for socialist heroes to have their likenesses engraved on something to honor this historic force of nature that truly represented the grandiose notion that is Socialism; all people are equal, even in regards to air travel. My suggestion for it's name would be Mount Blowsmore!

This would be an excellent way to counter that evil mountain in the United States that boldly displays faces of evil freedom and capitalism.

The Socialist Volcano

How can a Volcano be socialist?

Let's look at the results:

All airline flights in an out of England were canceled for days. All people regardless of socio-economic class had their flights cancelled forcing the stranded of all classes to take various versions of mass transit to get to their destinations.

Untold amounts of greenhouse gasses were spewed into the Atmosphere by the volcano making Al Gore (the Goracle) relevant again.

The domino effect of the volcano shut down evil airline flight schedules around the world saving billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (the trillions of tons of such pollutants injected into the Atmosphere can be deleted via computers so as not to truly affect the data given.)

I am asking for nominations for socialist heroes to have their likenesses engraved on something to honor this historic force of nature that truly represented the grandiose notion that is Socialism; all people are equal, even in regards to air travel. My suggestion for it's name would be Mount Blowsmore!

This would be an excellent way to counter that evil mountain in the United States that boldly displays faces of evil freedom and capitalism.

Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe

Found this over at Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe, I just started following her blog and have added her to the blogroll.  She is a reformed Leftie, so we know it can be done. 

As the drumbeat for Cap and Tax starts up again it is important not to forget how silly the whole Anthropogenic Climate Change argument has become and this post highlights that very well.  Apparently Air Traffic cools the planet.  Who knew?  The little vapor trails off of airplanes actually make temperatures go down planet wide (OH, COME ON!)

Correlation is not the same as Causation.  Grounding planes after 9/11 did not change WEATHER and it damn sure did not change CLIMATE. Following this logic I could say this: “ I ate a peanut butter sandwich yesterday and the sun shone all day long; therefore eating PB sandwiches makes the weather sunny and bright”. Secondly the GIANT ASH CLOUD *should* make it slightly, if not quite a bit, COOLER; despite the lack of contrails off of airplanes “making it hotter” (never mind that according to their standard fantasies jet exhaust makes the planet hotter).  So I guess the question in their minds (as if they used their minds to question anything) is:  Will the Man Made warming caused by Jet Exhaust be completely counteracted by the cooling effect of the Volcano (I am waiting for them to figure out a reason for the volcano eruption to be man-caused), and will the absence of the Jet Contrail water vapor contribute to more of a warming effect that the absence of jet exhaust will contribute to a cooling effect?   OH MY DEAR LORD -

Anyway, read on:

According to a report in the UK Mail online, the widespread grounding of planes in Europe – due to the eruption of Iceland’s Mount Eyjafjallajokull – could lead to an increase in temperatures across that continent. From the article:

A study conducted after commercial flights were grounded for three days following the September 11 terror attacks found the average daily temperature range in the U.S. rose markedly - exceeding the three-day periods before and after by 1.8c. (or it could have been all that fuel that caught fire… big fire you know, could have made it warmer- hey it is more plausible than their ridiculous “theory”)
The grounding of flights in 2001 gave scientists a 'tarnished but golden opportunity' to study the impact that jet planes have on the climate. (WEATHER WEATHER WEATHER, and the answer is: imperceptible)
They matched the weather over those three days with similar weather in September over that period, and found that the difference in daily high and nightly low temperatures in the absence of planes' contrails was more than 1c greater. (also in the absence of Unicorns, meteor showers, UFO landings, all manner of things that also have no effect on the temperature)
Scientists claimed this showed that clouds formed by the water vapour in the exhaust from jet planes have a small but significant effect on daily temperatures. (one degree C = 1.8 (+32) degree F, really?  jet contrails impact national temperature daily by two degrees?)
The researchers said that in regions with crowded skies, the clouds formed by the planes' water vapour worked like cirrus clouds to prevent days from getting too hot and trapping the Earth's heat at night.

I thought the carbon emissions produced by jet fuel contributed to global warming? Now I find out that water vapor – a byproduct of jet fuel combustion – helps to moderate the earth's temperature. Do you ever get the feeling that some people want to have it both ways?

Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe,

My head hurts…

-KOOK

Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe

Found this over at Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe, I just started following her blog and have added her to the blogroll.  She is a reformed Leftie, so we know it can be done. 

As the drumbeat for Cap and Tax starts up again it is important not to forget how silly the whole Anthropogenic Climate Change argument has become and this post highlights that very well.  Apparently Air Traffic cools the planet.  Who knew?  The little vapor trails off of airplanes actually make temperatures go down planet wide (OH, COME ON!)

Correlation is not the same as Causation.  Grounding planes after 9/11 did not change WEATHER and it damn sure did not change CLIMATE. Following this logic I could say this: “ I ate a peanut butter sandwich yesterday and the sun shone all day long; therefore eating PB sandwiches makes the weather sunny and bright”. Secondly the GIANT ASH CLOUD *should* make it slightly, if not quite a bit, COOLER; despite the lack of contrails off of airplanes “making it hotter” (never mind that according to their standard fantasies jet exhaust makes the planet hotter).  So I guess the question in their minds (as if they used their minds to question anything) is:  Will the Man Made warming caused by Jet Exhaust be completely counteracted by the cooling effect of the Volcano (I am waiting for them to figure out a reason for the volcano eruption to be man-caused), and will the absence of the Jet Contrail water vapor contribute to more of a warming effect that the absence of jet exhaust will contribute to a cooling effect?   OH MY DEAR LORD -

Anyway, read on:

According to a report in the UK Mail online, the widespread grounding of planes in Europe – due to the eruption of Iceland’s Mount Eyjafjallajokull – could lead to an increase in temperatures across that continent. From the article:

A study conducted after commercial flights were grounded for three days following the September 11 terror attacks found the average daily temperature range in the U.S. rose markedly - exceeding the three-day periods before and after by 1.8c. (or it could have been all that fuel that caught fire… big fire you know, could have made it warmer- hey it is more plausible than their ridiculous “theory”)
The grounding of flights in 2001 gave scientists a 'tarnished but golden opportunity' to study the impact that jet planes have on the climate. (WEATHER WEATHER WEATHER, and the answer is: imperceptible)
They matched the weather over those three days with similar weather in September over that period, and found that the difference in daily high and nightly low temperatures in the absence of planes' contrails was more than 1c greater. (also in the absence of Unicorns, meteor showers, UFO landings, all manner of things that also have no effect on the temperature)
Scientists claimed this showed that clouds formed by the water vapour in the exhaust from jet planes have a small but significant effect on daily temperatures. (one degree C = 1.8 (+32) degree F, really?  jet contrails impact national temperature daily by two degrees?)
The researchers said that in regions with crowded skies, the clouds formed by the planes' water vapour worked like cirrus clouds to prevent days from getting too hot and trapping the Earth's heat at night.

I thought the carbon emissions produced by jet fuel contributed to global warming? Now I find out that water vapor – a byproduct of jet fuel combustion – helps to moderate the earth's temperature. Do you ever get the feeling that some people want to have it both ways?

Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe,

My head hurts…

-KOOK

Shortage of lifeboats on Guam?????

Congressman Hank Johnson was voicing concerns over defense budgetary spending that would necessarily accompany the influx of an addition 8,000 American troops on the island of Guam. After a lengthy display that he knows the dimensions of the American territory of Guam (Admiral Willard, commander of the U. S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, acknowledged that it was "a small island"), told the gathered members of Congress and military officials as he made a tipping motion with his hand, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

To his credit, Admiral Willard chose not to educate and embarrass the congressman. Instead, Willard dryly asserted, "We don't anticipate that." But you can see in the video that the Admiral is fighting back a smile, but he soldiers (sailors?) on, explaining to the congressman that the current population of Guam (estimated at 175,000) would only attain 200,000 with the increase in American troops. accompany the influx of an addition 8,000 American troops on the island of Guam. .

However this does raise questions about Guam and it's infrastructure. Think back to 1912. They said the Titanic was also said to be unsinkable and only had adequate lifeboats for 1/10th of the indigenous population and crew. Hank Johnson, D, GA seeking to divert defense spending to special subisidies to indoor crop farming with alternative light sources to save the environment raised these questions along with environmental questions about dihydrogen monoxide restrictions, and safety improvements such as water wings, and moisture columns to better support Guam and prevent the swelling population and massive infrastructure from tipping the island over and drowning the population. If anyone has funding to spare for congressional reelection campaign donations we ask you to seriously consider Hank Johnson D, GA, a true humanitarian. Hope you enjoyed the first day of April! :0)

Shortage of lifeboats on Guam?????

Congressman Hank Johnson was voicing concerns over defense budgetary spending that would necessarily accompany the influx of an addition 8,000 American troops on the island of Guam. After a lengthy display that he knows the dimensions of the American territory of Guam (Admiral Willard, commander of the U. S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, acknowledged that it was "a small island"), told the gathered members of Congress and military officials as he made a tipping motion with his hand, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

To his credit, Admiral Willard chose not to educate and embarrass the congressman. Instead, Willard dryly asserted, "We don't anticipate that." But you can see in the video that the Admiral is fighting back a smile, but he soldiers (sailors?) on, explaining to the congressman that the current population of Guam (estimated at 175,000) would only attain 200,000 with the increase in American troops. accompany the influx of an addition 8,000 American troops on the island of Guam. .

However this does raise questions about Guam and it's infrastructure. Think back to 1912. They said the Titanic was also said to be unsinkable and only had adequate lifeboats for 1/10th of the indigenous population and crew. Hank Johnson, D, GA seeking to divert defense spending to special subisidies to indoor crop farming with alternative light sources to save the environment raised these questions along with environmental questions about dihydrogen monoxide restrictions, and safety improvements such as water wings, and moisture columns to better support Guam and prevent the swelling population and massive infrastructure from tipping the island over and drowning the population. If anyone has funding to spare for congressional reelection campaign donations we ask you to seriously consider Hank Johnson D, GA, a true humanitarian. Hope you enjoyed the first day of April! :0)

Environmentalism, Conservation, Animal Rights, & Stewardship

The difference between Environmentalism/Animal Rights and Conservation/Stewardship is that one is espoused by Progressive Politicians, Neo-Hippies, and members of the Glitterati and the other is lived day by day by people with Jobs and Families and Taxes and Bills to pay.

Part 1- Natural Resources Conservation

  Al Gore wakes up in the morning in his palatial estate, no doubt filled with all the opulence and decadence that being the worlds first Green Billionaire can provide, He is driven in his gas guzzling Limousine to his private Jet and flown to his destination where another Limo invariably picks him up for his speech about our Carbon Footprints (whatever that really means).  Meanwhile, Joe Blow gets up in the morning in his 1200 sq. foot house that was built in the fifties and walks to the bus station to get to his job collecting trash on the back of a truck or works in  a recycling business for aluminum cans, or works for a business that converts used oil into a useful product.  Who is actually doing  more for the environment?

  

Environmentalists chain themselves to trees and lie down in front of logging equipment.  Conservationists know that unless the deadfall and diseased trees are harvested they pose a serious risk of spreading fires when a lightning strike happens and choke out new growth.  Environmentalists stage protests and wield megaphones; Conservationists plant saplings after logging an area.  Environmentalists scream save the bison, save the wolves, save the polar bears, save the seals.  Conservationists know that when humans start living in an area that animals are going to have to be controlled, that is part of our responsibility as humans.  In order to control the Bison herds we have to help their population.  Bison do not know that they are supposed to stay in the parks.  They spread, this brings them and the domestic cattle into contact which is not healthy for either side (bison carry diseases that we vaccinate for in cattle, and  yet cattle can give bison diseases that are not normally in a bison herd) 

Everyone loves wolves, but wolves want to eat things.

We control the herd animals that wolves like to eat, so wolves want to eat domestic cattle, so we control the wolf population because if we didn’t they would a) starve and b) get into trouble in towns and cities.

Look at the Mountain Lion situation in California, California in its’ vast wisdom prohibits hunting mountain lions and yet opens up bicycle and hiking paths in prime Mountain Lion real estate.  The result, Mountain Lions have killed several bikers, hikers, and kids in the last decade.  We don’t want the mountain lion to go extinct, but clearly we do not want them eating our citizenry.  We also like for people to have recreation in the outdoors.  It is called Risk Management: you have to weigh the situation out and make appropriate decisions.  If the available habitat can easily support X mountain lions and we have 2X mountain lions in the habitat alongside people, guess what, Kitties are going to eat Folks.  So the solution is remove the people or remove an appropriate number of cats.  California needs revenue and hunters would pay money to take care of their cat problem.  It would be a Capitalist solution.  Or, they can continue to do what they are doing which is to have the fish and game folks to live trap the cat and put it somewhere else or kill it themselves at an expense.  Control the population and make money doing it, or control the population and spend money doing it. Hard Choices.  Of course, if we let hunters do it, there will be people in the  California woods and trails with GUNS, and apparently that is scarier than getting eaten by a big cat.   The more looney of the environmentalist herd believe that the Human population is the one that needs controlled.  Clearly we do have choices to make: We can limit our population, or limit and manage wildlife populations.  I am not willing to kill humans so there can safely be more deer.  That is the difference between conservation/stewardship and animal rights/environmentalism.  

Same deal with Polar Bears and Seals and every other critter.  Common sense management goes a long way.  This is why we have deer seasons, left unchecked deer would become a pestilence and their genetics would seriously suffer.  Hunting is part and parcel of good wildlife management.

Part II- Food Production:

I watched a program on animal production recently and the whole thing made me so irritated that I have not even been able to process it until now.  Let me talk a minute about animal production, specifically Hog and Poultry.  In the old days of Hog farming a farmer turned all the hogs loose out on the open range.  You marked your hog’s ears with a knife so you could sort out yours and everyone else’s later and let them fend for themselves.  The result was that the meat quality was different than we are now used to, and it was a willy nilly business with the genetics being decided by the hogs.  Now hogs are raised in houses and due to improvements in their diet and genetics grow rapidly and can be turned into delicious bacon in a short period of time. Likewise, poultry farming is now a big business instead of something that the Farmer’s wife does.  All of this means that we can feed more people and do it cheaper than ever before.  It also means that since the animals are in close proximity they are a little more susceptible to disease so many times they are given antibiotics in their food as a preventative measure.  This has the Neo-Hippies in a major uproar.

They see the antibiotics as the reason little Billy and little Sally are fatso’s (like me)…and believe it has nothing to do with the preparation of the food or the lack of exercise in Billy and Sally’s lives.  So if you follow the (il)logic:  antibitoics are bad, only necessary because the animals are too close, cramming animals together is bad for their mental well being.  So they propose to make laws requiring a certain space for every animal and to prohibit feeding animals antibiotics.  The Danish have discovered that they can get a hog just a big without antibiotics if they don’t put them too close together and give them more food.  Wel…DUH! of course they can.  The goal is not to get the hog bigger than they would normally get.  The goal is the get them that way Faster, and Cheaper.  People don’t like pictures of hogs and chickens in houses, and yet, they don’t like 8 dollar value meals and 6 dollar a pound bacon either.  Europeans don’t know the difference, their bacon has always been 12 dollars a pound (don’t quote me on exact numbers I know meat is exorbitant in Europe and that is my only point.)

Which brings me to my last point on the Hog and Poultry rant portion of this post.   If you regulate that every hog has to have X amount of living space or Lebensraum (a nice Nazi German word there) that will also translate into transportation space.  Now instead of 100 hogs going to the slaughterhouse in a truck, we will have 25.  Meaning we will need 4 times as many trucks and 4 times as much oil being used.  But that won’t raise prices at all will it?  Remember…we are going to EAT them anyway.

I am NOT saying it is ok to mistreat animals.  I love animals, and when I hunt, I understand that I am killing something, and there is a responsibility when I remove something from the circle of life to do it in a beneficial and humane way.  I also do not want to see an animal made needlessly uncomfortable or injured even right before I shoot it in the head, cut its’ throat,  and cut it up into pork chops and nuggets…but for Pete's sakes it is FOOD.  While researching pictures for this post I found a graph by some Neo-Hippie group that claimed in all seriousness that Vultures kill more Cattle than Wolves and Bears.  Vultures…!  Vultures DO NOT predate on cattle, they are SCAVENGERS…ridiculous.  But other folks will see that crap and take it at face value because they do not know better.

Farmers,  Ranchers, Outdoorsmen, and Arborists have been and continue to do  more to further Wildlife’s wellbeing and Animal Science/Food Production than the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, PETA, or Pam Anderson’s big boobies ever will.  Why do we listen to people who don’t raise animals, and do not live near the wild when it comes to raising animals and managing wildlife?

  Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs says it very very well and I think has his finger right on the issue:

“Like my friends who espouse all things  Green, I want to live on a healthy planet. I really do. But I’m tired of the guilt; I’m suspicious of the manipulation. And I’m weary of being lectured by people who seem to care more about the planet than the people on it. Hollywood and Washington have shaped the issue, and now, all things Eco-friendly are up for sale. Well, that’s fine. But when it comes to jobs, the people who make a difference aren’t covered in green. They’re covered in Brown – dirt, mud, grime, grease, or maybe something worse. I’m no expert, but if we’re going to save the Earth, the color of Dirt makes a heck of a lot more sense than the color of Envy. The way I see it, if we really want to get clean and green, we’re gonna have to get down with brown. In other words, we’re going to have to get our hands dirty.”

Well said Mike, well said.

-KOOK

Environmentalism, Conservation, Animal Rights, & Stewardship

The difference between Environmentalism/Animal Rights and Conservation/Stewardship is that one is espoused by Progressive Politicians, Neo-Hippies, and members of the Glitterati and the other is lived day by day by people with Jobs and Families and Taxes and Bills to pay.

Part 1- Natural Resources Conservation

  Al Gore wakes up in the morning in his palatial estate, no doubt filled with all the opulence and decadence that being the worlds first Green Billionaire can provide, He is driven in his gas guzzling Limousine to his private Jet and flown to his destination where another Limo invariably picks him up for his speech about our Carbon Footprints (whatever that really means).  Meanwhile, Joe Blow gets up in the morning in his 1200 sq. foot house that was built in the fifties and walks to the bus station to get to his job collecting trash on the back of a truck or works in  a recycling business for aluminum cans, or works for a business that converts used oil into a useful product.  Who is actually doing  more for the environment?

  

Environmentalists chain themselves to trees and lie down in front of logging equipment.  Conservationists know that unless the deadfall and diseased trees are harvested they pose a serious risk of spreading fires when a lightning strike happens and choke out new growth.  Environmentalists stage protests and wield megaphones; Conservationists plant saplings after logging an area.  Environmentalists scream save the bison, save the wolves, save the polar bears, save the seals.  Conservationists know that when humans start living in an area that animals are going to have to be controlled, that is part of our responsibility as humans.  In order to control the Bison herds we have to help their population.  Bison do not know that they are supposed to stay in the parks.  They spread, this brings them and the domestic cattle into contact which is not healthy for either side (bison carry diseases that we vaccinate for in cattle, and  yet cattle can give bison diseases that are not normally in a bison herd) 

Everyone loves wolves, but wolves want to eat things.

We control the herd animals that wolves like to eat, so wolves want to eat domestic cattle, so we control the wolf population because if we didn’t they would a) starve and b) get into trouble in towns and cities.

Look at the Mountain Lion situation in California, California in its’ vast wisdom prohibits hunting mountain lions and yet opens up bicycle and hiking paths in prime Mountain Lion real estate.  The result, Mountain Lions have killed several bikers, hikers, and kids in the last decade.  We don’t want the mountain lion to go extinct, but clearly we do not want them eating our citizenry.  We also like for people to have recreation in the outdoors.  It is called Risk Management: you have to weigh the situation out and make appropriate decisions.  If the available habitat can easily support X mountain lions and we have 2X mountain lions in the habitat alongside people, guess what, Kitties are going to eat Folks.  So the solution is remove the people or remove an appropriate number of cats.  California needs revenue and hunters would pay money to take care of their cat problem.  It would be a Capitalist solution.  Or, they can continue to do what they are doing which is to have the fish and game folks to live trap the cat and put it somewhere else or kill it themselves at an expense.  Control the population and make money doing it, or control the population and spend money doing it. Hard Choices.  Of course, if we let hunters do it, there will be people in the  California woods and trails with GUNS, and apparently that is scarier than getting eaten by a big cat.   The more looney of the environmentalist herd believe that the Human population is the one that needs controlled.  Clearly we do have choices to make: We can limit our population, or limit and manage wildlife populations.  I am not willing to kill humans so there can safely be more deer.  That is the difference between conservation/stewardship and animal rights/environmentalism.  

Same deal with Polar Bears and Seals and every other critter.  Common sense management goes a long way.  This is why we have deer seasons, left unchecked deer would become a pestilence and their genetics would seriously suffer.  Hunting is part and parcel of good wildlife management.

Part II- Food Production:

I watched a program on animal production recently and the whole thing made me so irritated that I have not even been able to process it until now.  Let me talk a minute about animal production, specifically Hog and Poultry.  In the old days of Hog farming a farmer turned all the hogs loose out on the open range.  You marked your hog’s ears with a knife so you could sort out yours and everyone else’s later and let them fend for themselves.  The result was that the meat quality was different than we are now used to, and it was a willy nilly business with the genetics being decided by the hogs.  Now hogs are raised in houses and due to improvements in their diet and genetics grow rapidly and can be turned into delicious bacon in a short period of time. Likewise, poultry farming is now a big business instead of something that the Farmer’s wife does.  All of this means that we can feed more people and do it cheaper than ever before.  It also means that since the animals are in close proximity they are a little more susceptible to disease so many times they are given antibiotics in their food as a preventative measure.  This has the Neo-Hippies in a major uproar.

They see the antibiotics as the reason little Billy and little Sally are fatso’s (like me)…and believe it has nothing to do with the preparation of the food or the lack of exercise in Billy and Sally’s lives.  So if you follow the (il)logic:  antibitoics are bad, only necessary because the animals are too close, cramming animals together is bad for their mental well being.  So they propose to make laws requiring a certain space for every animal and to prohibit feeding animals antibiotics.  The Danish have discovered that they can get a hog just a big without antibiotics if they don’t put them too close together and give them more food.  Wel…DUH! of course they can.  The goal is not to get the hog bigger than they would normally get.  The goal is the get them that way Faster, and Cheaper.  People don’t like pictures of hogs and chickens in houses, and yet, they don’t like 8 dollar value meals and 6 dollar a pound bacon either.  Europeans don’t know the difference, their bacon has always been 12 dollars a pound (don’t quote me on exact numbers I know meat is exorbitant in Europe and that is my only point.)

Which brings me to my last point on the Hog and Poultry rant portion of this post.   If you regulate that every hog has to have X amount of living space or Lebensraum (a nice Nazi German word there) that will also translate into transportation space.  Now instead of 100 hogs going to the slaughterhouse in a truck, we will have 25.  Meaning we will need 4 times as many trucks and 4 times as much oil being used.  But that won’t raise prices at all will it?  Remember…we are going to EAT them anyway.

I am NOT saying it is ok to mistreat animals.  I love animals, and when I hunt, I understand that I am killing something, and there is a responsibility when I remove something from the circle of life to do it in a beneficial and humane way.  I also do not want to see an animal made needlessly uncomfortable or injured even right before I shoot it in the head, cut its’ throat,  and cut it up into pork chops and nuggets…but for Pete's sakes it is FOOD.  While researching pictures for this post I found a graph by some Neo-Hippie group that claimed in all seriousness that Vultures kill more Cattle than Wolves and Bears.  Vultures…!  Vultures DO NOT predate on cattle, they are SCAVENGERS…ridiculous.  But other folks will see that crap and take it at face value because they do not know better.

Farmers,  Ranchers, Outdoorsmen, and Arborists have been and continue to do  more to further Wildlife’s wellbeing and Animal Science/Food Production than the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, PETA, or Pam Anderson’s big boobies ever will.  Why do we listen to people who don’t raise animals, and do not live near the wild when it comes to raising animals and managing wildlife?

  Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs says it very very well and I think has his finger right on the issue:

“Like my friends who espouse all things  Green, I want to live on a healthy planet. I really do. But I’m tired of the guilt; I’m suspicious of the manipulation. And I’m weary of being lectured by people who seem to care more about the planet than the people on it. Hollywood and Washington have shaped the issue, and now, all things Eco-friendly are up for sale. Well, that’s fine. But when it comes to jobs, the people who make a difference aren’t covered in green. They’re covered in Brown – dirt, mud, grime, grease, or maybe something worse. I’m no expert, but if we’re going to save the Earth, the color of Dirt makes a heck of a lot more sense than the color of Envy. The way I see it, if we really want to get clean and green, we’re gonna have to get down with brown. In other words, we’re going to have to get our hands dirty.”

Well said Mike, well said.

-KOOK