My personal thoughts:  This is something Brazil could take to the UN and sue rich western societies and win, sad part is Obama would have us pay it.  We need to prevent any UN treaties signed by our President when he goes to  Copenhagen.

Brazil president Lula da Silva said Thursday that “gringos” must pay Amazon nations to prevent deforestation, insisting that rich, Western countries have are at fault for the deteriorating condition of the rain forest.

“I don’t want any gringo asking us to let an Amazon resident die of hunger under a tree,” Silva said. “We want to preserve, but they will have to pay the price for this preservation because we never destroyed our forest like they mowed theirs down a century ago.”

Da Silva used the anti-European slur during a speech at an Amazon summit designed to gather a consensus ahead of the Copenhagen summit, slated to start Dec. 7th.

Amazon Rain Forest (click to enlarge)

The Amazon summit had a lukewarm response, as only Guyana’s Bharrat Jagdeo and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, representing French Guiana, attended. Other nations sent vice presidents or ministers, and the presidents of Colombia and Venezuela embarrassed Brazil by canceling at the last minute.

Da Silva conceded his efforts will have a muted effect, but that it was important to make known that the Amazon is home to 30 million people, most of whom depend on the forest’s natural riches to eke out a living. About 25 million live in Brazil’s portion, which has about 60 percent of the Amazon, an area larger than Western Europe.

Posted in Leftist Losers, The New Cold War.  By NewsGuy – November 28, 2009

 http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/11/28/gringos-must-pay-to-save-amazon-brazil-prez/

I doubt i have much chance to forget really because it gets rammed down my throat every year for about 3 months.

There are varying degrees of debate about what Kipling actually meant when he produced this, oh so famous, line in the poem, as there are with most poems from this era because the majority of the poets were fucked on acid and didn’t actually know themselves. It is commonly suspected that it was in reference to the ‘Ultimate sacrifice’ of those who did not return but were left in the hands of the enemy, and has since just become a catchphrase for more or less anything to do with war ‘victims’ dead or maimed in the line of duty.

Anyhoo, one thing that is certain, it is designed to make us feel proud. Proud to be British. Proud to still be defending our great nation against the tyrants. Dare i say it – proud to not be one of them.

Do not mistake me for one of the ‘Jesus wouldn’t join the military’ tree huggers but i can’t be arsed with all the other side of the coin either that tells me i should mourn for dead folk i didn’t know. Am i just meant to remember the dead british folk? Or can i also use the silence to think about the other dead folk that killed the british dead folk and subsequently got deaded themself afterwards by our british heroes?
Heroes! Remember our dead heroes? If they were that fucking heroic they wouldn’t be dead would they?

Lack of equipment? Rambo had a lot less equipment and he killed fucking thousands on his own.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying they can fuck right off but the people who now jump on the bandwagon and want me to join their Facebook clan to show i care – they can definitely fuck right off.

People love zombie movies.  Ever since the black and white ‘Dawn of the Dead’ debuted back in the ’60’s, this genre has just spread.  I will confess that I have watched my share of these movies over the years. One of the most chilling in my opinion was 28 Days Later. I actually loved the direct tie to a government lab that was testing a bioweapon called ‘rage’ on some animals. These well-intentioned tree-huggers release the animals, unleashing this plague on England.

Well, it’s a good thing that these are just movies right?  No zombies walking around that we have to avoid being infected by?

The horrid truth is that it is too late for you.  You were born infected. So was I.  We walk around dying everyday. Our spirit is a gaping black hole, and we wander about for things to fill it. We choose drugs, booze, music, sex, movies, work… you name it.  And usually we avoid the one thing that can cure us… The Cross.

For those of us who have been given spiritual life, we walk around, day after day, surrounded by the living dead.  What are you going to do about it?  You look just like them, you could just blend in and be safe.  Or you might try to spread the cure that they so desperately need.

You should speak up. They may thank you for your courage someday.

Hope you all had a great weekend. A great one in The Sun today by Alex Peake, who’s noticed yet another Youtube sensation on the way.

Did you ever want to shout something from the rooftops?  Mental South African (and there are so many! – I should know, kind of being one myself) Sam Wilson has the answer with illscreamyourtweets.com. Find him on Twitter here. His genius business model involves, well, going up the 1km high Table Mountain (Cape Town) and, err shouting your tweets really loudly.

Table Mountain, Cape Town (Keith Hull)

Don’t worry – the mountaintop is easily accessible by cable car.

He started nearly 2 months ago but has found fame in today’s piece because 30-year-old sales manager Luke Bunnage (“Romantic Luke Bunnage” according to the Sun. I’d say “A Bit Lazy Luke Bunnage”) saw a piece about it in the Metro and popped the question via the service. 40 volunteers turned up for the unusual proposal, which ended up looking like this:

And believe it or not, girlfriend Sarah Hollis, expecting their third child next week, said yes. Hooray!

But the crazy entrepreneur (and/or “geek”, as he performs the service for free) has more ideas. I’ll Tweet Your Screams involves sending him a Youtube video of you screaming, which he will covert into a tweet for his page. There’s nothing there yet – but watch this space. I’m expecting a screaming hoard of time-rich hobbies-poor people to start flooding in any day now.

Yes, it’s very silly, but it’s also a lot of fun. Maybe I’ll start flooding him with my own to see if they get yelled from the world’s flattest mountain. But for now, I’ll leave you with this: Cuz if you like it then you should have put a ring on it.

Green marketing can change the world. It can also help firms reap big profits.

In August, the B.C. chapter of the American Marketing Association announced its 2009 Marketer of the Year. The award didn’t go to a car company, restaurant or a bank—it went to B.C. Hydro, the province’s public utility. B.C. Hydro won for a series of television spots advertising its Power Smart campaign, which asks B.C. residents to cut their energy consumption by 10 per cent. The commercials offer simple solutions: turning off a light, for example, or unplugging cellphone chargers when not in use. Largely thanks to those ads, 34,000 people joined the Power Smart program in 2008, a jump of 273 per cent from the previous year.

Old habits die hard, and change isn’t easy, but that doesn’t make it impossible. Just as past public service campaigns have hammered home important messages—stop smoking, don’t drink and drive—advertisers are now working to convince people to make environmentally sustainable choices, even if they’re more time consuming, or expensive. “It’s human nature to take the path of least resistance and lowest cost,” says ad critic Bob Garfield. Yet campaigns like the one from B.C. Hydro show that, if it’s done right, green marketing can spur real change. For businesses involved, it can generate profits, too.

Tough economic times, contrary to popular wisdom, have not led Canadians to abandon the environment. In an August Harris/Decima poll, over 70 per cent said environmental consciousness has become more important to them over the past few years (only two per cent said it was less so). In spite of the recession, 73 per cent said they were making more of an effort to be more environmentally conscious this year than last.

And they aren’t your stereotypical tree-hugging hippies. In a 2008 study of how concern for the environment affects purchasing decisions, Toronto-based ad agency Bensimon Byrne found that income, education, child status, and age didn’t factor in, although so-called “strong environmentalists”—those very likely to make buying decisions to help the environment, even if it costs more—were more likely to be women, and to live in Quebec.

Hank Stewart, vice-president of strategy at the New York-based environmental ad agency Green Team, calls this burgeoning group “the awakening consumer.” He credits their emergence to the Internet, which has “brought about the age of corporate transparency and empowered consumers,” he says. “They can now know what a brand really stands for.” Awakening consumers are well-informed, educated, and influential—they blog their opinions, and they “vote with their wallets,” according to Stewart.

Green marketing is a powerful way to target Generation Y, a group born between 1980 and 1994 that, in North America, is 80-million strong, according to a new report from the Conference Board of Canada titled “Turning Green Into Gold: Green Marketing for Profit.” They’ve grown up paying a premium for their most coveted products, and the environment is one of their favourite topics; they’re not afraid to pay more for green-conscious brands. Gen Y-ers are acutely aware of “the threats of pollution, extinction, and global warming,” the Conference Board report notes. They’ll reward companies that reach them with dollars and word of mouth, the report says, and “punish” those that don’t.

But Gen Y-ers are a cynical bunch. Raised in a media-rich environment, they are tough to win over. Perhaps that explains why non-traditional advertising has proven so successful with them. Take the Earthkeeper campaign from Timberland boots, which is mentioned in the report: launched in 2008, it aimed to “recruit one million people to become part of an online network,” to create a global movement and inspire change. Facebook users could download an application to grow a “virtual tree,” and for each tree “grown,” Timberland pledged to plant a real one in a desert in northern China. Facebookers grew 893,000 trees; thousands of Timberland’s online fans banded together to plant even more trees on their own.

Another marketing technique that’s proven successful, according to the Conference Board, is positioning a top-level executive as an “environmental visionary.” One obvious example is Galen Weston Jr., whose first ad campaign for Loblaws promoted the company’s reusable shopping bags, or Ray Anderson, founder of carpet manufacturer Interface, who spends a lot of his time giving speeches about how his company went green.

According to Bensimon Byrne, tying products to specific environmental concerns is also a proven green marketing tactic. Oddly enough, the agency’s report found that some of the most high-profile challenges—like global warming and climate change—actually rank lower on Canadians’ personal list of worries than, say, concerns about water, air quality, and garbage. (“Keeping our fresh water clean” ranked number one in their survey.) The agency helped develop a campaign for Hyundai Canada that saw it become the first to offer a top-up to Ottawa’s version of the cash-for-clunkers program. “Consumers understand that air quality is important, because we breathe it,” says Bensimon Byrne’s Jack Bensimon. “So here’s something tangible we can do to make a difference.”

Tailoring the message to the current economic situation helps. In a survey of over 100 green print ads, U.S.-based environmental communications firm the SOAP Group found that the word “green” is no longer the most popular term in environmental advertising—now, it’s the word “less.” Environmentally friendly products are still seen as more expensive than their counterparts, yet two-thirds of Canadians don’t understand why they should be. This creates a real opportunity, says Bensimon, for green products “able or willing to price against the conventional.” Those that let consumers save money while helping the environment—like fuel-efficient appliances, for example, or cold-water laundry detergent—are ideal.

Of course, there are some common pitfalls many green marketers can make. The “biggest mistake,” Bob Garfield says, is “greenwashing”—stretching the truth of environmental claims—which will lose consumers’ faith altogether. Earlier this year, Ottawa-based environmental marketing firm TerraChoice published a survey of 2,219 products in the U.S. and Canada that make green claims. It concluded that over 98 per cent of these were guilty of some kind of greenwashing, from being too vague (promising that a product is “all natural,” for example), to offering no proof of their claims. Cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and products aimed at kids were the most likely candidates for greenwashing.

Green marketers also must consider the tenor of their ads. Since almost everyone accepts that the environment is of concern, fear-based messages are pointless: “You don’t need to show polar bears stranded on ice floes,” Bensimon says. “People are very aware we’re cooking the planet.” Having a light touch is key; consumers respond to humour (like the B.C. Hydro campaign) or a sense of community (think of David Suzuki’s ads for powerWISE in Ontario, which show everyone on the same street screwing in energy-efficient porch lights).

Slashdot It!

Behind all the conference coverage lies a story in today’s Guardian about cyanide and raw sewage being leaked into the River Trent (continues).

Dead fish hauled out of River Trent

Maybe it just looks like your bog-standard (sorry) environment story. It hits you a little more than usual with its scale: the public have been warned to keep away from a 20 mile toxic stretch of river. That’s a long stretch; the highest fine for such an offence in the past has been £240,000, according to Utility Week. But all in all, just your usual fare. Naughty company, fine, etc.

I couldn’t see it that way once I’d read this quote from the Guardian article:

“Many thousands of fish are dead. On one 100-yard stretch there were estimated to be 2,000 dead sticklebacks” – Mark Owen, Angling Trust.

Before I even knew it, reading that sentence had brought back all the nightmares I used to have as a kid. I would dream about the environment creeping up and ‘getting me’ – it was first the fish, then you’re next – the rising sea levels will splash up against your bedposts.

And where did I get these fears from?

Well, when I was far too small my parents, maybe on a cruel eco-ducation mission, I don’t know, bought me Ted Hughes’ little-known sequel to The Iron Man, 1993’s The Iron Woman. In it the young heroine lives in a terrifyingly grey, slicked, industrial landscape which was so brilliantly described it stuck in my mind for the rest of childhood.

The little star of the story meets the Iron Woman, a gigantic, metal creature who can hear the screams of every animal in pain from the polluted river that runs through the town. The nightmarish story gets more and more bizarre, as the whole town, infected by the Iron Woman, begins to hear the screams too, until eventually every man of adult age is transformed into a fish to ‘teach them a lesson’.

You may think this is pretty silly, but it scared the shit out of me. And the image of thousands of dead and dying fish whirling round and screaming in silvery-grey polluted waters? That scared me shitless too. Just look at the original cover for the book, for God’s sake, and compare it to the one that’s kicking about now – which one do you think a 6-year-old would lose sleep over? (continues)

New Cover - harmless

Old cover - help!

Obviously I didn’t twig when I was 6, this sort of thing happens all the time. And I reckon that’s the message Ted Hughes was, of course, trying to send out all along. All I can say is it worked. I hear about 2,000 dead fish and they’re suddenly not just a number: all the details of the story that I used to think so much about suddenly come flooding back to haunt me.

Getting a kicking over this sort of thing when I was young meant I’ve now got a little environmental person in the back of my mind. Like it or not, scroll back to the picture at the top, think of the story – and maybe you’ll have one too.

Before reading this please watch this video. And also check out the website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMxv6imqRXc

http://sharkonline.org/

This stuff just makes me angry because of how uninformed these people are and how little they think. This is just ridiculous, you can tell that this guy is not from a rodeo background with the comment about the clown hitting the horse with his hat. He also is against hunting, horse slaughtering, bull fighting, and pigeon shoots. Now I will admit that bull fighting and pigeon shoots are pretty cruel because the intentional unnecessary killing of animals, but the rest of it has a purpose hunting provides food, horse slaughter keeps lame and injured horses off the market, and rodeo is entertainment and a job. Now Im going to argue these point by point so the slow dumb witted idiot who put it out can understand me.

Rodeos are a part of American culture, always have always will be.  After watching the video I will admit the cowboy was an idiot for roping the bull. But other than that his points are ridiculous. If you look at his other videos they are all about rodeo cruelty. He specifically goes after Cheyenne Frontier Days for there mistreatment of animals, but they havent had one killed in years there.  This gentleman obviously doesnt realize that all these events came from working on ranches. And people still do them today they same way as they always have. They rope the cows hold them down, and brand them. All in a days work and rodeo is just an extension of that. Overall he doesnt understand the mindset you have to have to be around big animals. First off you have to be rough once in a while, otherwise the animal will get rough with you. People see some ways of horse training to be mean, and some are but if you let a horse push you around it always will. Secondly they are animals and they do have instincts. If you watch the interview with the owner of the bull that killed Lane Frost, he will say that it was the nicest bull around. Something went through his head that day that made him go after Lane, and nothing could predict it. Thirdly, everything is unpredictable. That man could have roped another bull and it may have not done a thing. It all depends.

The gentleman goes after the rider because he was supposed to fight the bull off. What was he to do the horse had already been gored the damage was done. At least he didnt get back on and ride some more and he put the animal down out of kindness. The rodeo clown was not trying to hit the horse  he was trying to hit the bull. Once again this guy has no idea what he talking about with rodeos.

Hunting also is an American tradition that helped found this nation. He makes it sound as if we kill just to kill, when in reality we kill to get meat. I realize that beef is readily available at your local supermarket but game animals are more nutrious than beef.  There are times when hunting is bad such as during the 1880s when Buffalo Bill and others were killing Buffalo for their hides.  Other than that hunting is just a normal survival mechanism.  Most carnivores and omnivores hunt for their meat, same as we do, so please make a video regarding animals abusing other animals.

Hunting also reduces animal population and that helps to prevent diseases such as Wasting Disease in deer. If the population gets to big than the disease spread and kill of the population to a sustainable size. Wasting disease is terrible and it really makes the deer suffer and it is much worse than being shot. Once again this guy has proven he hasnt done his research.

Horse slaughtering is a very terrible thing but I have to say that I am for it. There are times that animals have no other purpose but to just be put down. Horses are the same way but some people  eat them. Its the same as killing cows but I didnt see an article about that on his site. Oh wait that might affect his quality of life. If you are going to shake the stick make sure you shake it at everyone not just what doesnt affect you. There are people that make a profit sending horses to the killers and it is bad, but the killers help supply food to other parts of the world and allow the animal to be used for another purpose after their death.

I do agree with him that bull fights are pretty bad. Those are just the killing of an animal for sport even though they used to give the meat to the poor in days of old. It is still a cruel way to kill an animal. Also the pigeon shoots are pretty cruel and they are not hunting at all. Its shooting fish in a barrel.

Overal this guy has a lot of misinformation, whether it comes from true ignorance or just his own inability to look at the facts.  He needs to take a step back and look at things in the bigger picture and realize that some of these incidents by people do not make the whole establishment bad.

This is the email I wrote to the guy and I will post a response if I get one. I also commented on the video but its not up because they didnt publish it.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is Jared Albers. I am a college student at Chadron State College and am a member of the rodeo club. I am not your stereotypcal cowboy in attire but in attitude I am 100% Country.I live on a ranch with six horses and I also help other ranchers with there cows.

 Now I am outraged at your wide stereotyping that all rodeos are bad, along with the rest or your site. First off you have you set there and complain about calves getting roped and thrown to the ground. They do that everyday in the real world to brand the calves, let me guess you dont like that either. In regard to your video about the horse getting gored that horse was in there to herd the bull into the back, as it as done at most rodeos. Another fact to show your ignorance is that you said the clown tried to hit the horse. What are talking about the clown was trying to get the bulls attention, like tapping someone in the shoulder, only the horse moved into it. I have been around rodeos for years and never seen any of the atrocities you have mentioned. Also all animals have instincts including you and me. They are usually much more behaved because they are used to the routine but sometimes they flare up and explode. Look at the bull that killed Lane Frost, it was described as a very gentle beast and then it turned around and killed a man, something it had never done.

 Your hunting part of the site talks about the useless killing of deer. Actually this is basic natural selection if we did not hunt Wasting disease would run rampant and kill deer in a much less humane way. Plus the health benefits of game meat are much higher than that of domesticated animals. But again ignorance is bliss for you.

 I agree horse slaughter is bad but since moving to my current residence I have changed my mind. Next door are 4 horses that are skin and bones, hair in knots, hooves curled up, and one has a terrible cough. These horse are bred every summer to help the owners make money. But she doesnt but the money back into the horses. These horses need to be killed and why not give the French some food. I agree the method of killing is very inhumane and that should be changed but slaughterhouses help get rid of horses that are no longer useful. Instead of having to pay several hundred dollars to get your horse put down and then have the body removed you can get some money and invest it in another horse. Something I find intersting is that you have yet to do an article on the the terrible ways cows are killed because its exactly the same as horses. Way to be hypocritical and attack and establishment that doesnt affect you but turn your blind eye toward something that directly affects how you get supper.

 Your other two articles on bull fighting and pigeon shooting are right that is not just useless killing. There is no sport in it because the animal is trapped like a rat. Maybe you could do something about the individual people that are abusing animals much more than rodeos, hunters, and slaughterhouses are doing. You can say Im just some Right Wing Animal Killing Cowboy and dismiss my facts. Also I like the fact you can only leave one comment per video on youtube because you cant disprove all of these facts. I also would like you to take a look at this site.

http://rocknrollcowboy.wordpress.com/

This is my personal blog. Now why dont you go stick your nose in some books and actually research.

 Sincerely,

 Jared Albers

Here is my video response to their video whic he would not allow as a response, obviously cowering behind his false facts.

Fake news humor article that ultra-green environmentalists want toilet paper ban

excerpt:

NEW YORK CITY – Militant ecological activist groups Greenpeas and Nutty Tree Zealots today held a joint protest in Central Park demanding a complete worldwide ban on toilet paper. An angry throng of some 500 nature lovers massed in an open grassy area and vehemently railed against the heinous slaughter of the millions upon millions of beautiful, pure, innocent trees annually used to make the ubiquitous disposable tissue rolls. The irate horde then stunned curious onlookers by collectively dropping their pants and defecating en masse on the lush green lawn. They then proceeded to wipe themselves with whatever Mother Nature had kindly provided nearby, fallen leaves, pine cones, bird feathers, dead squirrel tails, and even the coattails of passed-out winos.

More sordid details here.

I’m madder than a Polak with a burned out lightbulb!

Did you hear the news? Obama’s grandma in Africa finally got electricity! It’s true—and not because the big shot Communist-in-Chief ordered it for her, either.

Nope, those idiot hippies with Greenpeace took a break from bothering Eskimos, and fixed up Grandma Obama with some solar powered set up.

Of course it was solar – what else does Africa have a lot of except sunshine? Maybe goats or something, but their horns would get caught in the generators…

Now Obama’s grandma is just like the rest of us – she has to look at her grandson’s face on the TV 24 hours a day, too!

She better not get sick of seeing him, or he might pull the plug on grandma!

But Obama’s half brother still lives in an African hut and makes ten dollars a year, while his crippled aunt lives in public housing here in the U.S. of A. – until she gets deported, that is.

Aren’t you thrilled that Obama takes such good care of his relatives? Just think of how much he cares about YOU, and how great it’ll be when the Teleprompter Kid takes over your medical care!

I guess if you’re lucky, a bunch of professional tree huggers might stop by one day and hook you up with your own solar powered life support machine! But only if you’re one of the President’s relatives – the rest of us’ll be outta luck!

Anyway, the libs wanna name the new health care laws about Ted Kennedy, and that’s pretty smart, when you think about it: after all, under the new plan, we’ll all be left to die a slow and painful death too, just like Ted’s girlfriend!

Romans 1:25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. (NLT)

- Justin
Are you really living?

By columnist Harry Trunckles.

Folks, I’ve been getting tons of emails in response to my column.  Those that aren’t hateful Christian-bashing, have been some really great questions about science.  I’ll go ahead and answer them. If you have any questions for me, send them to carlsagansdanceparty [at] gmail.com.

Economists often tend to think of biologists as tree-huggers or similar kinds. Of course, there’s something to it. Most researchers tend to work on issues that interests them, and of course the ‘intrinsic’ interest is an asset in the research. The researcher works harder. But is it also a problem? But of course. It influences the research agenda, it may bias results. Maybe more importantly, are biologists aware of such problems? Do they care?

Sometimes, I suspect economists to kind of use the tree-hugger characteristic against biologists. Is it sometimes because biology is a proud memeber of the hard sciences? Something econoics, notably, is not, traumatically enough.

Last night, I talked to an ecologist about this. He agreed that there might be something to my agenda; the research agenda of biologists are often coloured green; they may end up with biased results. But, he contended, economists aren’t necessarily any better. (He’s seen a lot of [environmental] economists make biological claims that are plain wrong!) He’ s probably right. People tend to what they care for & care for what they tend to.

What kind of bias does the ‘intrinsic’ outlook of the economist introduce? (I don’t know; I am [supposed to be] one. Is it blinding to care about efficiency & trade-offs?)

The ecologist slid off the hook, though. Economists doing the same mistake doesn’t free the biologists of guilt.

Dare to disagree with them.

Refer to whales as “just dumb fish”.

Buy them a gas-powered  leaf-blower in December, and say “Merry Christmas” while you do it. (Not “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings”.)

Hide their mortar and pestle, so they can’t crunch their granola.

Ask them to explain why is was much warmer 1000 years ago, before humans really started burning fossil fuels.

Tell them there’s no point if saving virgin forests, because the trees are just going to fall down and rot, anyway.   “Might as well use them for something, eh?”

Imply that Al Gore’s poop may NOT necessarily smell like oven-fresh cinnamon-buns.

Ask them where they think the hydrogen will come from to power their fuel-cell cars.

Catch them doing something hypocritical, and call them on their bullshit.

Have a sense of humor.

Pretend to be sincere and ask: “So…um…do you think nuclear power is BAD? “

Raise ten kids, and get lectured for over-populating the planet.  But then have one of them grow up and invent a life-saving technology that changes the way we live.

Tell them you have an engineering degree.

Ask them what kind of scientific background they have.

So lately I have been hearing about PETA getting mad at the cattle industry for its mistreatment of cows, and I believe there goal is to shut down the cattle industry in America, which is a sin. Now in my experience cattle ranchers take extremely good care of there cows because they are an investment that has a good oppurtunity for profit.  One of the first things PETA most likely dislikes is branding and tagging. Branding allows the cattle to be identified with an owner and it is an age old tradition. The pain inflicted on a cow during a branding is most similiar to burning your hand on a stove, and I have never heard of a group trying to get rid of stoves. Tagging is where you place a tag in their ear to mark their year of birth (at least when I brand thats what it means).  This is like getting your ear pierced, which Im pretty sure those hippie tree huggers have more pierced than that.  Neither of these things has a long term effect on the cow and in the rare instance it does get infected the ranchers will treat it and the calf be good as new.

While the cow remains on the ranch it has a pretty mellow life of eating, drinking, reproducing, and getting herd around once in a while. Then come the transport and killing of the cow which they do the best they can to keep them comfortable while keeping expenses down.  Im not sure how they kill cows these days but it is probably a fast efficient method that probably keeps suffering down. Now if I was to be executed I would like it to be fast and no painful.

The same can be said with hunting (which PETA hates). SKilled hunters always go for a clean kill not one where the animal has to suffer, but sometimes the sight, wind, movement, etc ruin that plan and end up mortally wounding the animal and the hunter will have to kill it with another shot.

PETA says this killing is useless because it hurts animals, but I see them as a necessary thing to do for 3 reasons. First if animal populations get out of control disease like Wasting disease and Mad Cow can run rampant. Secondly some species while become endangered because of competition for resources eg, turkeys eating pheasant eggs and reducing the pheasant numbers. Thirdly huge population will deplete resources in an area. Overall the animals will be killed by either us or nature, and why not make a use of the meat.

Now PETA here is what you can do, start helping out stuff like the ASPCA with rescuing abadoned and abused animals. You guys loligag around trying to destroy a core American industry, and the ASPCA struggles trying to help actually save animals and do something productive. This point hits very close to home for me. My next door nieghbors have 4 horses that are malnourished, probably dehydated, live in a junkyard, are in dire need of hoof care, and on top of that are bred every year, bringing a colt into a terrible place.  Another terrible thing about this is when horses mate and the female is unwilling she kicks the hell out of the male, and I watched this happen for a good 10 minutes one day. Also she sometimes puts the stallions together and they end up fighting and beating the snot out of each other.

Now we have called the sheriff and the ASPCA and neither can do anything. The sheriff says they have yet to have one die (I actually pray one will so the rest will be saved) and the ASPCA has no place to put them so these horses are left in this terrible state. PETA why dont you get your priorites straight and try to help the animals that are truly in need of help.

Now my second attack on here is against the enviromentalist that are hindering our nations efforts to keep our oil cheap. Now I am an Eagle Scout and I know the importance of maintaining the enviroment. I have earned merit badges in it and have done tons of service projects to help maintain it. But I also see that we need to keep oil cheap so other products that are necessary are cheap.

The main issue here is drilling in Alaska. I belive that we really should drill there because everything hinges on oil in this country and why not keep it cheap until we find something better. Now you say that the wildlife will be affected by this. In the past I relize that there have been major disasters with oil tankers, but I think we have learned enough that the procedure can continue without any major incident. But to conclude the argument I am going to quote a movie I loved as a kid and this bears a lot of truth to it that you dont wish to acknowledge.

“Life will find a way”-Dr. Alan Grant

During an email conversation today about what is happening in politics in America, my friend had this to say…

Just call me a tree-hugging paleoconservative, because these liberal guys in charge are crazy as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs…

From our friend Christopher Booker at Hannity Forums:

According to the world’s leading expert on polar bears, their numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c…-warmists.html

Well, well, well.

I guess we don’t want to hear the opinions with which we don’t agree, huh?

Seems we don’t need the bill in Congress after all.

Ok, so I am no environmental scientist nor an economist, but I cannot see how this whole system of cap and trade (being passed today ) is going to help the environment. Now I am no GOP denier of the ill effects of our pollution to the world not am I an Al Gore doomsday seer that wants to eliminate such harmful gasses as carbon dioxide from the planet totally (that’s what we exhale by the way…so to do that every living animal on the planet needs to die.)

As I understand it, everyone gets a certain amount of pollution credits that allows them to ‘pollute.’ If you run out then you need to buy more credits in order to continue to do it. This means whatever you are producing that is making that pollution costs are going to go up. That means the consumer will pay more for it. Companies aren’t going to pollute less, they just have to pay more to do it (and therefore make consumers pay for it in higher prices.)

Pollution won’t be any less, it will just generate new streams of money to trickle up to the elite. It’s another fine example of getting us to pay for our own demise. Until or unless money is spent on actually discovering cleaner fuels or more efficient fuels (which the oil companies have paid to make disappear for over a hundred years now) nothing is going to help. Pollution will continue to poison the planet (although probably not as much as the real tree-huggers say it is) everything costs more and the elite get to laugh all the way to the bank with more of our money.

Thanks Al.

 5:54 pm

Hey, What Do You Say, Let’s All Celebrate Nude Hiking Day-  As we evolove into a more tolerant society, our values for celebrating major holidyas are becoming more liberal.  On Administrative Assistant day the whole office bucks up for a keg, the favorite secretary is presentend with a boquet of flowers and a gift certificate to Applebee’s, then everybody blows off their work and gets loaded all day.  For Earth Day everyone is kindly encouraged to go green and praise Mother Earth, but don’t forget the Rastafarians who pay homage to I and I at 4:20 on the same day.  Yeah, these two holidays are really cool, but not as sweet as the one hippies all over the country are celebrting today.  They’re going to hit the great outdoors and enjoy themselves in a whole new way.

Every year on the first day of summer, a few tree-hugging fanatics expose themselves in a good way to insects, scrapes and thorns for the pleasure of hanging freely, literally, with Mamma Earth.   They call it Naked Hiking Day and it pisses off lots of right-winging Conseratives.  Park Narcs and county mounties warn that people caught outdoors in the nude could be charged with indecent exposure, public nudity, or both. Managers of the Appalachian Trail, where lots of Granola Babies are known to lurk, also discourage any funny stuff. “It’s just plaing disgusting,” said  a spokesman for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. “People are out there hiking with their kids and and there are lots of boy and girl scouts around about now, so those stinky hippies have no business free-balling all over the damn place.  Take a shower, shave those beards and hairy crotches and take a freakin bath will you?  Jerry died a while back so you can all go home”  (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12629958?source=rss). 

Other law enforcement officials from remote areas say they rarely deal with hippie hikers causing  commotion,  let alone nude ones, even on Naked Hiking Day, and that they don’t consider it a big problem.  Same goes with busting underage campers for drinking or growers for harvesting their wares.  Most park rangers are burners from way back and they like to do some wild mushroom hunting in the buff now and again themselves.  So, if you are going to indulge in some outdoor naked co-ed activities, let it all hang out, at least today.  Happy Nude Hiking Day America.