Cows: Stop blaming us for "global warming!"

The "Global Warming" crowd has long blamed domesticated cattle, ranchers, and diary farmers for global warming because cows are gassy, flatulent creatures.  They produce methane.  Methane is a "greenhouse" gas - one of many that environmentalists believe is responsible for rising temperatures (event though they aren't really rising).  

But not so fast . . . grazing cattle, a new study shows, reduce production of another "greenhouse" gas (nitrous oxide) by microbes in the soil.  So, with every cow, methane goes up and nitrous oxide goes down.  

Here's what it all boils down to . . . the earth is a very complex system folks.  Very.  Its details are beyond our understanding at this point.  The scientists who claim to know what is causing "global warming" (if it actually exists) don't really have a clue.  They're just guessing and trying to sound certain so that their funding doesn't dry up.

Why is Washington responsible for school lunches?

Today, Michelle Obama took the reigns of the "Let's Move" campaign, described by the New York Times as "a sweeping initiative . . . aimed at revamping the way American children eat and play - reshaping school lunches, playgrounds and even medical checkups - with the goal of eliminating childhood obesity within a generation."  (Link to story here.)  

First Ladies have always had their causes from Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign to Hillary Clinton's failed attempt at socializing medicine in America to Laura Bush's promotion of literacy.  I have no particular problem with Mrs. Obama taking on childhood obesity.  And, frankly, I have no problem with nutritious lunches at school or exercise-promoting playgrounds.  I don't even have a problem with the First Lady using her status to encourage change in habits.

I do have a problem with this campaign coming from Washington, D.C.  It grates on me.  It grates on me because the role of the federal government has expanded so far into the daily lives of Americans that it is taking on the task of determining what to feed our children at school, bypassing state governments entirely and usurping the role of local school boards.

In an ideal world, or even in a country operating as this country's founders envisioned, most power would remain with the people; some would be given to local government entities - like cities, counties, or school boards; a smaller share would go to the states; and very little would be given to the federal government.  Why?  Because the closer the government is to the people, the more responsive the government is to the wants and needs of the people.  If I have a problem with my children's school lunches, or their playgrounds, etc., I should be able to take it up with a neighbor, a school board member who lives nearby and is elected to serve the school district.  Does anyone think that somebody in Washington would be more responsive to me than my neighbor?

Ours is no ideal world.  Everything has been (or is being) federalized.  Washington has its sticky fingers everywhere.  America has lost its way.  The distribution of power is upside-down and "Let's Move" is symptomatic.  

Nothing personal Mrs. Obama.  I hope that your campaign meets its goal.  I just wish the power to do something about the problem was closer to my home than yours.

A new threat to America's food supply . . . cap-and-trade

The U.S. Department of Agriculture analyzed the cap-and-trade emissions bill pushed by President Obama and his liberal, environmentalist friends in Congress and found that farmers would make more money by planting trees and converting their fields into forests than by growing food for us (and the world) to eat.  All in the name of stopping "excessive" carbon emissions.  

Since this analysis shows how breathtakingly idiotic cap-and-trade is, the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has simply ordered his staff to revise their analysis.  We wouldn't want folks to think that this is a bad idea, after all, even though it really, really is.

(Link to story here.)

Carnivores Unite! Save Thanksgiving Turkey!

The "good people" are at it again.  They're trying to save the planet, working toward a new international agreement to combat greenhouse gasses and the myth of global warming.

What would be the consequence of "a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen" this December?

According to an "influential" global warming nut from Britain, Lord Stern of Brentford, it "would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases."  (Link to story here.)

I do give credit to Lord Stern for his surprising honesty.  Most of his environmentalist pals won't admit the drastic economic consequences of their wacko crusade.

If they succeed, your lifestyle will change.  Your children's lifestyle will change.  And the planet will survive . . . but guess what . . . it will also survive if we succeed in shouting down the nuts.

For the sake of roast turkey, steaks, pork chops, cheeseburgers, chicken wings, bacon, bratwurst, etc., say no to Copenhagen.

Shocker: Obama wants tax on soda

In a complete surprise, Barack Obama is open to a new tax on consumption of soda and other sugary drinks. (Link to story here.)

Actually, of course, it is no surprise at all. None of us should be surprised that a liberal Democrat stands ready and willing to raise your taxes. The fact that doing so could take a swipe at your freedom to drink what you want to drink is an added bonus. Dealing a blow to American businesses, like Coca-Cola and Pepsico . . . well, that's icing on the cake.

Democrats like to yell and scream about keeping government "out of the bedroom." How about keeping it out of our refrigerators!

Eat your vegetables and drink water or pay through the nose!

Signs of the ever increasing intrusion into the lives of common folks are everywhere these days.  What has me riled today is the new linkage between the liberal's concept of healthcare "reform" and the growing nanny state . . . 

In order to pay for the "holy grail" of government-run medicine, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a tax on "soda and other sugary drinks."  (Link to story here.)  So-called "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco have been cash cows for our governments' (local, state, and federal) for years.  Politicians don't seem to care that the poorest citizens shoulder most of the burden of these taxes because, after all, the items taxed are "bad for you" so Big Brother is really acting in folks best interest by taking more of their money.  (?)

And here we go again.  In order to protect us all from obesity, the government is going to take more of our money . . . and use it to take over healthcare.

Think this doesn't concern you because you don't drink soda?  Guess what . . . it is not just soda that the liberals are after.  The "Urban Institute," whatever that might be, is calling for a tax on everything "fattening" as part of an "intervention" of "tough love."  (Link to story here.)

Liberals are going to go wild over this idea.  It would allow them to accomplish two of their goals . . . take more money to grow the government and socialize medicine.

But really, enough is enough.  Get off our backs already.  It is not the food's fault that it tastes good or that people eat it.  And it is not the government's responsibility to keep me - or anyone else - thin.

Federalism flipping . . . here comes the nanny state

One of the great things about America, historically, has been a concept of federalism.  State and local governments had autonomy over state and local issues.  The federal government is designed to keep its nose out of those things because, guess what, central planning doesn't work.  What is good in New York may not be in Idaho.  What is necessary in California may be wasteful in Missouri.  And what is wanted in the public school system in Washington, D.C., may not be wanted in Rockwood or Parkway or Webster Groves.

But with Democrats in control of everything federal, your federal government is on a path to destruction of state and local autonomy.  Here's the latest example . . . Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Agriculture Committee, wants to give the U.S. Department of Agriculture power to regulate ALL food sold in schools nationwide.  That's the cafeterias; that's the vending machines; and probably the fundraisers and snack bars at football games . . . all under the control of the federal government.

Harkin and the Democrats believe that they, from their ivory towers in Washington, know best - about everything.  Why do we have school boards at all?  Why have states?  Local governments?  Let's just let the feds tell us what to do in every situation.

We've got to get some sanity back to Washington.  2010 or bust.

The latest "threat" to the planet? Lamb burps.

I'm not kidding.  The global warming nuts are at it again.  Advising Britons to stop eating lamb because the little sheep burp too much methane.  (Link to story here.)  We'd probably better stop wearing wool too.

This is ridiculous.  Lambs aren't destroying the planet . . . but "government advisers" like the U.K.'s Committee on Climate Change are trying to destroy human liberty.

Even Missouri is becoming a nanny state

Today the Missouri House of Representatives, by an overwhelming majority vote of 135-19, passed a bill that would ban junk food and soft drinks from public schools.  (Link to story here.)

Unbelievably, the majority Republican House, which ought to know better - and which gets my support most of the time, has decided that it knows better than kids, parents, schools, school districts, and elected school boards what children should be allowed to eat or not eat.  And, giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they do.  Kids probably shouldn't be eating Twinkies for lunch and guzzling Dr. Pepper in the halls.

But the appalling part of this story is that the folks in Jefferson City believe that it is the state's business to decide what's in the vending machines from Raytown South to Parkway South.

Shouldn't that decision be made by local communities, i.e. school boards?  Of course!

Let's hope that the Missouri Senate has a better understanding of the role of state government and this bill dies a slow death.

Global Warming Nuts want to tax farm animals

Falling in line behind the "anything to save the planet" mantra, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed using its "authority" under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to levy a tax on notorious polluters . . . cows and pigs.  Dairy cows would be taxed $175.00 each, beef cattle $87.50, and hogs $20.00.

I wish that I was making this up.  I'm not.  Link to story here.

The nuts battling against the myth of global warming seem to be getting bolder and bolder.  Who could blame them, facts don't matter anymore.  And their guy is set to take over the White House later this month.

But if we can get their ridiculous plans out in the open then maybe, just maybe, we can stop them from damaging or destroying our way of life.

Leave our drinks alone!

Facing a budget deficit, New York governor David Patterson, a Democrat, is reaching out to do what Democrats tend to do . . . raising taxes.  In addition to increasing taxes on hospitals and on insurance policies, Patterson is proposing a "fat tax" on non-diet soda.  (Link to story here.)

Yes, that's right, Pepsi and Coke will now join cigarettes and alcohol as "sins" ripe for their own special tax.  What's next?  Candy?  Cookies?  Hamburgers?  Why not, after all, couldn't more revenue be raised by taxing anything and everything fattening?

The number one reason, of course, for the fat tax in New York is to take more money from the people who earned it to allow the government to spend it.  But the reason given is to protect the public health by forcing a healthier lifestyle.  Hogwash!

The government needs to stop using the tax code in an effort to dictate citizens' behavior.

Get out of our lives and our kitchens and let us eat and drink what we what to eat and drink.  Governor Patterson (and your ilk) . . . leave us alone!

Just adding another link here to show you how out-of-control Gov. Patterson's tax proposals are.  12/16/08.  SLC.

Global Warming Nuts Call for Worldwide Meat Rationing

They're at it again.  The global warming acolytes at the Food Climate Research Network have issued a new report saying that everyone everywhere "will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change."  (Story from The Guardian.)

What's worse, the report's author warned that voluntary efforts to change the world's eating habits would fail so he "urged the government to use caps on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pricing to ensure changes were made."  In other words, he's calling for food police to force you, me, and everybody else to eat what he and his pals think we should eat . . . all to save the planet from myth of global warming.

Back when he hosted a nightly talk show on KMOX, local legend Jim White used to say, "save me from the good people."  Right now I say . . . save me from the crazy, vegetarian, would-be do-gooder, socialist, global warming nuts.  

And bring me a t-bone, medium-rare.

Eat meat or risk brain shrinkage

Vegetarians are "six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage" than people who eat meat.  This according to an Oxford University study reported today in The Times of India.

Amazing isn't it . . . how research proves what ought to be obvious?  Human beings are designed as omnivores.  We have teeth (canines) designed to rip flesh.  And now it turns out that doing that is good for us.  Shocker!

But I guess brain shrinkage could explain Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

Keep Global Warming Nuts out of my Dining Room!

Liberals are keen to keep government out of the bedroom but conservatives and all friends of personal liberty had better stand up to keep the government out of our kitchens, dining rooms, and drive-through windows.

The environmentalists are at it again, now led by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who wants to save the planet from global warming by turning us all into vegetarians.  Meat production, you see, produces methane (via gassy animals), which is a "greenhouse gas" said to be 23 times worse than carbon monoxide.

Right now, Pachauri is only "suggesting" one meat-free day each week, but that is only the beginning.  He wants us all to then "decrease it from there."  As a mere suggestion, this is no big deal, but here's the scary part . . . advocacy groups are calling "for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 percent by 2020."  

We don't need the government campaigning for and eventually mandating vegetarianism.  This is still America - let's keep it that way!

Dr. Pachauri's background is interesting and worth knowing . . .  

He was Al Gore's co-recipient of last year's Nobel Peace Prize.  (You can judge a man by the company he keeps.)

You might think that as the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Pachauri's doctorate would be in planetary or some physical science, right?  Nope.  It's in economics.

And, here's the most interesting part of his background in the context of advocating vegetarianism . . . he's a Hindu and already practices vegetarianism for religious reasons.  Is there some covert proselytizing going on here?

Instead of converting to vegetarianism, I'm seriously thinking of converting to meatatarianism . . . Wendy's anyone?  (Too bad they closed them all in this market.)

L.A. Food Police Update

Last week a committee of the Los Angeles City Council approved a ban on new fast food restaurants.  Now comes word that the entire Council has approved the ban.  Again, the vote was unanimous.  Still not one voice for freedom out out in California.

I feel compelled to ask again . . . is this America?

I thought this was America? Nope. It's California. Part II

The food police are spreading and freedom is on the run in California.  Wednesday, we had the report L.A.'s City Council moving to ban new fast food restaurants in the city.  Today, the insanity has spread statewide.  Sort-of-Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed a bill banning trans-fats anywhere in California.  (Link to ABC News story.)

Maybe trans-fats are unhealthy.  Maybe everyone should be trying to eat better and healthier food.  But shouldn't we all have the right to eat what we want to eat?  It is out of line for the government to mandate people's diets.

Liberals are always screaming that government needs to stay out of their bedrooms.  I think we should all be screaming to keep government out of our dining rooms, kitchens, and pantries.

I thought this was America? Nope. It's California.

Watch out America, the nanny state approaches.  And it is starting (surprise, surprise) on the left coast.  Los Angeles is poised to impose a one-year ban new "fast-food" restaurants in a big chunk of the city.  According to the L.A. Times, a city council committee unanimously approved the moratorium yesterday.

Can you believe that not one voice of reason voted against this imposition on the rights of people to eat what they want to eat, when and where they want to eat it?  

Well, it is California.

G8 Proposal to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions In Half . . . But Wait . . . Doing So Could Starve the Planet

The Group of Eight industrial nations meeting in Japan issued a statement setting a goal of cutting worldwide greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.  (See AP story here.)  It appears that even George W. Bush has caved to the environmentalists and their fear mongering.

But will cutting CO2 emissions actually be harmful?

Maybe so, scientists in Germany have been studying the effects of CO2 on plants.  Much to the environmentalists' chagrin, increased CO2 actually INCREASES crop yields.  Barley, beet and wheat output actually increased 10% when those crops were subjected to increases in the greenhouse gas.  (See the Breitbart story here.)

So, do we really want to reduce CO2?

In all seriousness, the global warming crowd is all about hype and hysteria.  They can't predict future but there is attention and money in a steady drumbeat of doom.  Take what any of them say with a grain of salt.

Is Sanity Winning the Biofuel Debate?

Thanks to regular reader Dameon for posting this link in a comment.  It is nice to see that while the environmentalists may still be winning in the court of public opinion, sanity is making a comeback.

Get Your Thickburgers While You Can . . . Obesity Now Claimed to Cause Global Warming

I wondered if I was being paranoid yesterday when I posted about the new Hardee's Prime Rib Thickburger being an example of fleeting freedom to be enjoyed while it lasted.  Nobody would really try to take our choice of burgers away, would they?

Don't be so sure.  

According to an article published by Reuters today, British scientists are now claiming that obesity is a cause of global warming.  One of those schmucks, a guy named Phil Edwards, is quoted as saying, "obesity is a key part of the big picture."  This because bigger people eat more food, drive more and walk less.  Edwards and his cohort call for "promotion of a normal distribution of BMI (body mass index)" to "reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food."

"Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI" sounds like government bureaucrats telling us what to eat and what not to eat.  And doing so to fight the current bogeyman - global warming - all but assures liberal support.  Al Gore will be calling for calorie police soon.

Be careful and vigilant.  Your freedom is threatened.  I'm not kidding.  And I'm not paranoid.