Archive for the ‘Tree Huggers’ Category

Sea Kittens

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Sea KittensVia Cassy we learn about the sea kitten campaign at PETA, who is griping again that we seem to be much more sympathetic toward warm blooded furry creatures than we are toward cold-blooded slippery creatures, and darn it, that just isn’t right.

So they’d like you to call the fish “sea kittens” from here on in. Meow, meow. They’ve even got a little kids’ storybook to go along with it.

They’re wrong, by the way, at least where I’m concerned. I personally have a great passion for the wonderfulness of fishies, especially with lemon juice and my special mudbutter recipe that calls for half a stick of the yellow stuff all smooshed in with oregano, thyme and just a hint of cayenne. The land kitties, on the other hand, I’ve never given the matter a great deal of thought. Had rabbit, once, and liked it a great deal. Land-kitties would be just about the same as rabbit, although I suspect not nearly enough meat to make it worthwhile.

Honestly, I don’t know what they’re talking about. I think very highly of the fishies. Yummy, yummy fishies. Steaming and flaky, over aluminum foil, just pulled off the propane with my special mudbutter recipe, with a small bottle of Chardonnay chilled about twenty degrees Farhenheit colder than where all the experts tell me to chill it.

A Hoax

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Democrats Work For Solutions; Republicans Pray The Problem Will Go Away

Quote on the masthead of lefty blog Simply Left Behind.

This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, praying that the problem will go away.

I didn’t know Speaker Pelosi was a Republican.

Aren’t you people just going to love it when Pelosi, Reid and Obama are running the whole show?


Where George and Gerard Agree

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

good sense is being made.

…and we think some plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE.

Church of Environmentalism

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

I missed this when it went up three weeks ago. Wyatt’s Torch has a great round-up of various articles all pointing out the same thing, that environmentalism has become a religion in all the ways that matter. This goes back to Bidinotto’s essay in 2003.

It’s Not About Preserving the Environment, It’s About Purging It of Humans

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

…especially, Americans. Why, exactly, does Misha say

So there you have it, Donk voters. You’re personally responsible for every single price hike that the rest of us are seeing at the pumps. PERSONALLY responsible. Are you beginning to see why the rest of us don’t like you very much?

Fuck you very much, you mush-brained, sub-retarded snotwits.


What inspires such an explosion of scoldings, reprimands and expletives?

Eh…maybe things like this

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don’t seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that’s because most people don’t realize how different the two parties’ energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed


91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Hmmm. I begin to see a pattern here.

What was it I had to say about this a few months ago?

The liberal has a proposal. He looks around and sees that we are living in an antagonistic relationship with each other; his proposed idea would put us into a symbiotic one. You spew carbon and are therefore killing the planet. You are keeping the money you make and are denying it to “needed social programs.” You aren’t paying enough tax on your income; your purchases; your gasoline; your tolls. You are killing the Iraqis. You are poisoning the caribou. The oil companies, in turn, are poisoning you. And if you have a gun, it’s just a matter of time before you shoot me with it.

The conservatives are putting out the message that we are already living in a symbiotic relationship. I breathe out and I spew my carbon, it’s a wonderful thing because the trees and plants need the carbon for photosynthesis. Notice that science, on this point, sides with the conservatives. The oil companies supply the gasoline I need to get to work, earn my money and live my life. Hard facts and evidence, here again, side with the conservatives. Furthermore, if the taxes are raised we’re just going to buy less stuff…and if the taxes are raised on the oil companies, they’ll just pass that on to the consumer. Once again: Economic science and historical evidence side with the conservatives.

The liberal says, enact my proposal and we’ll enter into a symbiotic relationship. Next week, the liberal will have another proposal, and offer the same pitch — he won’t admit the last proposal failed to get us into this symbiotic relationship. He won’t offer to roll back this previous failed proposal. To our discredit, nobody will call on him to do so…

The conservative says we’re already in the symbiotic relationship. You are good for me. I am good for you. We can all go on doing exactly what we’re doing. The only thing we should really change is to get those damn liberals to stop voting.

Now, I don’t mean to imply by this that democrats hate themselves, or are lazy thinkers.

But…as far as the self-hating goes, they are human. Or they’re supposed to be, anyhow. And reading over Congressman Blount’s statistics, you just can’t ignore this nearly-constant permeation of anti-human politicking.

And it does strike me as lazy thinking, or sub-standard thinking one way or t’other, to presume anything we might do to help our domestic petroleum markets — like, fr’instance, having one?? — just automatically is intolerably harmful to the caribou, the elk, the polar bears, the spotted owl, the snail darter, the crapgobbler shrimp, the this the that the other damn thing.

Little or no investigation as to whether this is so. There are pipelines up there…caribou were supposed to be dying out…they’re doing fine. Where’s the curiosity. There is none, it’s just everlastingly presumed that when we lay a section of pipe down we’re going to flatten an entire family of caribou and poison several others. And if we do cause some armageddon in the middle of the crapgobbler shrimp population, what of it? Where’s the debate about costs & benefits? Humans are part of the ecosystem too. How come we leapfrog over that pro-and-con exchange and jump directly to the “oh well it’s settled then, you can’t do that”?

Because you know, I don’t see the killer whales doing that when it’s time to chow down on an adorable otter. The Orca has to do what it’s gonna do…we need to do what we’re gonna do.

Does a willingness within our species to sacrifice ourselves, make us more civilized? That’s Question A. Question B is, okay now that we’ve done it, and we’ve decided things the democrat anti-human way for the better part of a century now…where’s our congratulations and kudos? Orcas are chowing down through adorable otters like the damn things are glazed donut holes. We, on the other hand, are oh so nobly buying our petroleum from Osama bin Laden so we don’t harm one hair on the hide of the poor caribou. Where’s the dedicated environmentalist rushing out to shake the hand of the civilized human race for being so ready to sacrifice itself to keep the environment so pristine, for being so much better than that vicious killer whale?

It’s not gonna happen. Because the environmental movement is all about being anti-human. It really doesn’t have anything to do with preserving the environment; flora, fauna, or anything else.

And the democrats are all about supporting the environmentalists. Maybe they don’t like humans because they want to please the environmentalists…or maybe they like the environmentalists because they share the anti-human goal. But a “pro-environment” movement would have some curiosity here & there. An anti-human movement, would not. And the one that burdens us every day, is remarkably incurious.

You’ll have to ask others how & why we tolerate it for so long. Don’t ask me.

Getting It Good and Hard

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

George F. Will opines some more, this time about gas prices. And the villain he finds, is a rather interesting one. He’s mediocre some of the time, good much more of the time, and excellent occasionally. This one’s excellent.

“Democracy,” said H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The common people of New York want [Charles] Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR’s oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America’s offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.

Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent — that is one-thousandth of 1 percent — has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore — and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

On an only slightly related topic, birds are building nests on the side of my apartment building. They’re up to somewhere around six nests, going bollywonkers over all the humans that are “invading” these nests…simply by opening doors and walking out of them. I bring this up because there are federal and state laws saying we can’t do anything about it. What we can do is sit around with our thumbs up our butts waiting for them to build a few more nests.

That, and George Will’s comments, inspire me to utter my doleful refrain one more time: When does anyone in any position of authority, ever tell the environmental activist to stick it? Can someone name three examples? I can’t think of one.

It would appear a given environment-related situation can disintegrate into ever-descending depths of dysfunctional mess, and it still won’t happen. I’m glad our standard of living is so sky-high we can afford to be held captive by this. That just tells me a fruit is most ripe right before it starts to rot.

Thanks to the environmentalists, I think we’re just about there.

H/T to Boortz for the Will find.

This Is Good LI

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Yup, pretty much. That’s just about it.

Nobody ever says “No” to an environmentalist nut-bag.

Someday, we really do need to do something about that.

Being Anti-Human

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

The Christmas season has begun. Christmas is all about Christ, and Christ is all about being pro-human. Tragically, this has come to be the time of year when the arguing really ramps up…which makes absolutely no sense at all, until you stop to consider that Christmas is a pro-human holiday.

Some folks don’t like that…

The video above is linked to VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement with the catchy tag-line, “May We Live Long and Die Out.” They promote zero, and negative if possible, population growth. Their philosophy is that humans are harmful to the ecosystem and therefore must go away. In other words, environmentalists that are more straight-talking than most of the others. VHEMT literature seems to like to talk about those among their membership who are parents, and therefore apparently hypocritical. Their explanation is that these people became parents before they became “aware,” and since then have pledged to not have any more.

Blogger friend Rick found out about a crazy woman who really took the initiative. I guess when we’ve multiplied just like those cancer cells and killed off the planet, at least everyone will know it wasn’t her fault! We can spend our dying moments thinking about what a good person she was.

Well, there are some trends going on that do make that look appealing. But this is exactly what people were thinking a hundred years ago with the “eugenics” movement. It was commonly thought that those among us who were the “lowest” were the ones who were breeding fastest, and something had to be done to proliferate the good strains of people and keep the bad ones in check. It hasn’t looked that appealing anymore since World War II and the purges of Stalinist Russia. You know, there’s a reason for that. This anti-human stuff has been tried before. You want to talk about metastasizing, well, it metastasized. Into something ugly. Many times.

It turns out, you can be pro-human or anti-human, there is really no in-between.

This blogger over here discovered this, and his essay is worth reading.

Beware of extremist green movements. Give them a wide, wide berth. They’re like the aliens in that “It’s A Cookbook” episode.

Update 11/25/07: A link to a profile of Toni Vernelli — living proof that some of our most hardcore environmentalists are, whether they admit it or not, simply opposed to people…being around. Living. Existing. Thanks to her big mouth, a great many more among the rest of us, are starting to wake up and see what it’s all about.

High on the Pyramid

Wednesday, March 28th, 2007

MaslowGotta take a quick minute to jot this down, since I’ve already been caught in an endless tail-chasing loop googling Abraham Maslow a handful of times. I keep forgetting everything about the guy, and he’s important. Or at least his pyramid is. The concept of the Maslow Pyramid is, that our attention focuses on different things as we achieve the basics. When we have food, clothing and shelter, we start worrying about things that wouldn’t even have drawn a passing glance from us when we still had questions about food, clothing and shelter. Maslow put together a spectrum that covers all of it…and for the most part it’s the 41st thing I figured out myself without being aware of his work.

Thing I Know #41. Those who are out of danger, worry about food. Those with food, worry about discomfort. Those who are comfortable, worry getting things done on time. Those who have time, worry about money. Those who are solvent, worry about their legacies. And the lucky souls who spared the plagues of danger, hunger, discomfort, time, solvency and legacy issues, worry about fashion.

So about a year and a half ago, San Francisco, which doesn’t seem to worry too much about food, discomfort, getting things done on time, or money, started worrying about…grocery bags. Yeah. They did. They really really did.

City officials are considering charging grocery stores 17 cents apiece for the bags to discourage use of plastic sacks.

Plastic is the choice of 90 percent of shoppers, but the sacks are blamed for everything from clogging recycling machines to killing marine life and suffocating infants.

Paper is recyclable, but city officials propose to include them as well to help reduce overall waste.

“One thing we’ve learned is that sending a financial signal to the marketplace tends to modify behavior much better than voluntary approaches,” Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

“We all have a responsibility to promote a healthy and sustainable environment, and by doing that, it means we need to help change people’s patterns, and that even means their shopping patterns,” said [Supervisor Ross] Mirkarimi, who will take office in January.

Responsibility to promote a healthy and sustainable environment…in other words, they flat ran out of worries and had to start making some more. So the city elders started telling citizens how to shop for their groceries.

Somehow, in a nation started by a tax revolt, this was allowed to go ahead.

No, worse than that. Here it is twenty-eight months later and it’s not a tax anymore. It is…a ban. Yeah, a ban. Notice, Supervisor Mirkarimi is still at the epicenter of this little tempest, which in fact is not nearly as tempestuous as I think it oughtta be…

City leaders approved a ban on plastic grocery bags after weeks of lobbying on both sides from environmentalists and a supermarket trade group. If Mayor Gavin Newsom signs the ban as expected, San Francisco would be the first U.S. city to adopt such a rule.

The law, passed by a 10-1 vote, requires large markets and drug stores to give customers only a choice among bags made of paper that can be recycled, plastic that breaks down easily enough to be made into compost, or reusable cloth.

San Francisco supervisors and supporters said that by banning the petroleum-based sacks, blamed for littering streets and choking marine life, the measure would go a long way toward helping the city earn its green stripes.

“Hopefully, other cities and states will follow suit,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who crafted the ban after trying to get a 15-cent per bag tax passed in 2005.

MarkarimiYeah that’s right Ross. I’m sure the environment is going to get along just dandy when we all head down to Safeway with our 33 gallon lawn bags. You know what I really like about your story? It’s a classic case of something starting out as a tax…and everyone sits down with their slide rules and figures out, hey! I can afford this after all, so it’s not such a bad thing! And just over two years later it is a ban. I mean, facts is facts; here we are. Let it be a lesson.

In late ’04 you had targeted the paper bags as well. Now, it’s off the table — for the time being. But can the paper bag ban be far behind? Back then the story said…where’s the quote, ah, here it is: “…city officials propose to include [tax] them as well to help reduce overall waste.”

You know what I think? I think the Maslow Pyramid is a volcano. You spiral to the top of it, worrying about more and more trivial and cock-and-bull crap as you run out of the more essential concerns. Your attachment to reality suffers as more and more of your day-to-day needs are met, and uncertainty with regard to any of those needs, is gradually eliminated. And then this is what happened to Rome: Cemented into the very top of this pyramid, you are forcefully ejected from the top. No longer capable of making rational decisions, your super-duper safe-n-secure existence comes crashing down. It comes to an inglorious end.

Of some kind.

I’m really not sure how it can be brought about by outlawing grocery sacks. But on the other hand, it’s hard to envision someone having the competence to get dressed and get their teeth brushed, and go about their day doing whatever it is they do, if this is anywhere on their list of concerns. I mean, the competence with regard to things that really matter, just isn’t there. Somewhere, there has to be a day of reckoning.

Money quote…

“I think what grocers will do now that this has passed is, they will review all their options and decide what they think works best for them economically,” said David Heylen, a spokesman for the California Grocers Association.

Wow, I wish Mr. Heylen continued with that train of thought. What options are left? Maybe if the kitty can go without her litter pan for an hour or two, you could rinse it out and use that as your grocery bag when you run down to get more milk and cereal.

Don’t you love San Francisco? It’s a place everyone loves to watch…in the same way, I think, it’s really hard to look away when you see a highway accident about to happen.

Kill That Bear

Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

BearVia Malkin, we find this at Riehl World View:

Those Sick Animal Rights Hazmats

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything else that makes it so clear, the animal rights crowd doesn’t love animals nearly as much as it hates humans – and almost by definition, themselves.

At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet.

“The zoo must kill the bear,” said spokesman Frank Albrecht. “Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws.”

More info behind the link at CNN.

Smug Alert!

Sunday, December 10th, 2006

So Buck fell asleep in front of the TV, and as a result we get a reference to one of the best South Park episodes ever.

If patriotism involves being smug about what you drive, I need to be jailed for treason. I haven’t even been shopping for anything. Cars…to me, they are like deoderant. They get the job done, or they don’t. If the old one is used up, you buy a new one. Eighteen years I’ve been waiting…it’s still going…no need to buy a new one yet. Maybe if Ol’ Bessie could talk, she’d beg to be put out of her misery. But she still goes.

Now, if we’re talking smugness because of odometer readings, that’s a different thing entirely (I’m 5th from the bottom).

Flesh! Oh, No! V

Saturday, June 24th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! V

It’s a little too long and windy to become a “Thing I Know” but it’s still something I know, and know very well. When the subject of young ladies in skimpy outfits comes up, very few of the things anybody says on the subject, make any sense whatsoever. There’s something about this time of year, wherein young female teachers and young female bank managers start getting fired for wearing bikinis. Well, it just happened again.

A New Orleans artist who began working as a teacher in Lafayette after Hurricane Katrina filed a free speech lawsuit Thursday against the Lafayette Parish School Board, alleging she was unjustly fired because of adult-oriented art on her Web site.

Heather Weathers, whose Web site features images of partial nudity and declares that her art “addresses stereotypes and taboos about women?s bodies,” is seeking unspecified damages in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

According to the lawsuit, Weathers had been teaching at Comeaux High School one week when Principal Joseph Craig told her that parents had brought the Web site to his attention.

Craig “then informed Weathers that she could not continue to teach at Comeaux or any other Lafayette Parish school,: according to the lawsuit.
Weathers is active in the New Orleans art scene and has previously worked in New Orleans and New York as an art teacher.
Work exhibited on her Web site spans from performance art, to sculpture, photography, painting and video.

One performance piece detailed on the Web site involves her donning a bikini fashioned out of meat, a statement on objectification of women.

Now, what I get a kick out of, here, is the kind of thing that makes Erica Chevillar look much better — ahem, I mean, the merits of the case — than Heather Weathers. Let’s review.

Erica Chevillar posed for the website of something called the “National Bikini Team” under a pseudonym, one “Erica Lee.” Heather Weathers could have done the same. It’s not that “Heather Weathers” is a terribly unique name, although it somewhat is, but it’s a thoroughly memorable name. That some busybody parent would come to notice the naked chick wearing the meat, was one and the same with the precious bubbins’ schoolteacher, was just a matter of time. It would be a cause for concern if such a thing never happened.

Heather Weathers runs the website, or at the very least, is responsible for some of the content and arrangement of same. The diligence with which she has restricted the naughty portions to the over-eighteen set, has been called into question. This issue doesn’t pertain to Ms. Chevillar.

The irony is not lost on me, that the intellectually vapid tidbits tumbling out of Weathers’ mouth, dealing with “objectification of women,” are identical in verbiage to the talking points of people who so regularly stir up trouble about women in bikinis presented where excessive bare flesh is thought to be inappropriate. This is a case of the prudish feeding on their own. Although I would like Ms. Weathers to ultimately prevail, I’m torn on the issue because she’s made it clear she’s an activist for the very people who are trying to cover her up. In effect, she’s teetering on the brink of becoming a martyr for the opposing side.

Last but not least, there is the question of time. Erica Chevillar’s pictures were taken before she became a schoolteacher — at least, that’s what she’s said, and nobody to my knowledge has taken the trouble to contradict her. The summary of Weathers’ case is that she’s taken the time and energy, on her own, to put up a provocative website, in her own name, while simultaneously subjecting herself to the rigorous inspection awaiting any schoolteacher by the parent community. Even if she were to emerge legally victorious in the conflict, by engaging so much of the initiative to cause that conflict to arise in the first place, she’s opened the quality of her judgment to legitimate question. The same doesn’t apply to Chevillar.

And as a straight male, I freely confess it means something to me that Chevillar looks much better. I like her curves.

Legally, I think there’s enough fresh meat (har!) involved in Weathers’ termination, that it will probably stand. Personally, I’m inclined to side, as always, with the right of good-lookin’ women to bare their bodies if they choose to, and I’m not going to be pleased with the precedent when Weathers’ is, after all’s said & done, thrown to the dogs. But I do hope the “Cover ‘Em Up” brigade takes note when it comes to pass — this is not a victory for them, as the head on the pike came off the shoulders of one amongst their own.

The lesson here is that when some of us lose freedom, even the freedom to wear a bikini, the loss of freedom hurts all of us. Each and every single one of us. Er…not that I’m anxious to see men wear bikinis. But, you know, the principle stands.

Update: There is an article here about Chevillar and Sheri Doub, the bank manager referenced in the first paragraph. It appears in some kind of atheist column and tries to tie religion into the whole thing.

Whatever, dude. I believe in God, I think people who don’t are just plain nuts, and as far as I’m concerned women can wear bathing suits whenever they want to. Within reason. I’ll just look over the ones I like and ignore the ones I don’t.

Straight men looking at good-looking women in skimpy clothes, are doing The Lord’s work. We are all here because somewhere, a guy thought a woman’s body looked good.