Twas the Night Before Christmas, Roland Burris Style

I like living in Illinois for several reasons, but Roland Burris is not one of them.  It is appalling that he was the best replacement that the democratic party had to fill the vacant seat once held by President Obama.

He decided to use some time in the Senate to pen his own version of “Twas the Night Before Christmas.”  Good thing he’ll be up for election soon.

Merry Christmas!

 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Detroit: The Armpit of America

I have traveled to Detroit numerous times on my way to western Ontario.  The best view of Detroit, in my opinion, is from Windsor, Ontario looking across the water.  As you will see in the video from Steven Crowder, Detroit is really the “Armpit of America” brought to you by the UAW and liberal politicians. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Man’s Best Friend is Killing the Planet

In all the frenzy of Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Kyoto, Copenhagen (the city not the snuff), etc. etc., evidently your lovable dog is killing the planet.  No, I’m not exaggerating. 

In an article from France entitled, “Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend,” the author expounds on how detrimental dogs are to the planet.  I decided to reprint the whole article as I find it rather humorous.

PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

“Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.

Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France’s 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

“Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly,” Huttin told AFP.

“Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don’t eat meat, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?”

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs — the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars — says defiantly, “Our animals give us so much that I don’t feel like a polluter at all.

“I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

“I don’t want a life without animals,” she told AFP.

And pets’ environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo — owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals’ environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets’ protein-rich meat intake.

“If pussy is scoffing ‘Fancy Feast’ — or some other food made from choice cuts of meat — then the relative impact is likely to be high,” said Robert Vale.

“If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower.”

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals’ blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

“Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” said Robert Vale.

 

So not only are cows and volcanoes bad for the environment, but I guess we can add dogs and other domesticated animals to the mix.  I wonder how long it will be before we start to get rid of the humans.  Next step: Soylent Green.  I’m just sayin.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Don’t Like The President’s Plan for America? Maybe You’re Part of a Hate Group!

Well, I don’t fit into any of those groups but maybe I’m a fanatic.  Not sure on that one.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a democrat from Rhode Island, made some interesting comments on the floor of the Senate as well as a more interesting denial.

I’m betting heavily that there are groups like the Aryan groups, birthers, etc. who do not stand behind the President and his proposals.  What I heard in the entire speech was anyone who has a problem with any of the President’s proposals is somehow compared to hate groups.   Maybe I’m reading too much into his comments.  So just so I’m clear here, when democrats opposed proposals from President Bush, they should have been compared to hate groups?  OK, I get it now.

Either way, it’s an interesting speech.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Senator Claire McCaskill as The Joker

Being from the St. Louis region, I found this picture funny from the Gateway Pundit.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Lieberman: Denied By Stuart Smalley

Does it seem strange that this Health Care monstrosity is being pushed to some artificial deadline (Christmas) for no good reason?  I’m not one for doing things because “that’s the way it has always been done,” but it does seem curious that Al Franken denied an extra minute of time to former Democrat (and current Independent) Joe Lieberman on the floor of the Senate. 

I really don’t care about the procedural crap that goes on in Congress and every other political body in the United States.  I think we are way too formal with our government and need to speak in common language that more than just the lawyers in DC can understand.  So…the question is…why is the procedure being changed in this instance if it has not been that way, in recent history?  Why the rush? 

Earlier in the week, while debating defense spending, Senator Tom Coburn demanded a reading of a spending resolution from Senator Bernie Sanders.  My illustrious Senator, Dick Durbin, stated “How in the world can we in good conscience do this at this time of year?”  How can we in good conscience not bring relevent issues to the floor?  If these yahoos read the bills, amendments and resolutions aloud in the chamber for all to hear, they might make better decisions rather than rush to judgement and vote for items they have not properly read and vetted.  Why is this so hard to fathom?

Senator Menendez added:

“It’s become very clear to me, as it should be clear to just about everyone, that everything they’re doing has nothing to do, nothing to do, with helping Americans get affordable healthcare or get jobs, but everything to do, everything to do, with winning the next election,” Menendez said. “The Republicans have decided their road to electoral victory in 2010 and to poise themselves 2012 is for this president and this Congress to fail.”

Health Care?  I thought they were voting on defense spending?  Just trying to get things straight.  As far as having Congress fail, I for one am of the opinion that the less that Congress does, the better.  The only seem to screw up things that are put into their hands.

Maybe the rub is just with Republican and Independent politicians.  Maybe Al Franken is so inexperienced that he needs a lesson on procedure.  Maybe the party in power wants to stifle debate on this vastly important issue (Health Care).  Who really knows.  It is interesting, though. 

Back to the Health Care monstrosity, I hope the bill is read aloud for all to hear like was threatened before Thanksgiving.  We’ll see if they (Congress) have the chutzpah to actually do that.  I won’t hold my breath.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

For Christmas, I Want Balanced Coverage of Corrupt Democrats

Below is an article from STLToday.com written by one of my favorite radio hosts, Jamie Allman.  It makes a lot of sense, although I doubt Republicans will get the suggestions.  One can only hope.

By Jamie Allman

JALLMAN@STLEMMIS.COM

As common-sense conservatives get ready to plow head first into the coming year with visions of bad poll numbers for President Barack Obama dancing in their heads, it would be wise to remember the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

No, not because he will be useful as a campaign target again. Because going after him was the worst mistake conservatives made in the run up to the last election.

Chasing monsters only will kill conservative chances again.

Make no mistake: Rev. Wright spoke terribly about America and had all the trappings of a land mine for candidate Obama. The guilt-by-association thing seemed like a tactical winner.

But to move on and win in the future, conservatives must ask themselves: How’s that Rev. Wright thing working out?

The fact is that there is only one man who wants to take control of your health care, who plans a business- and job-killing carbon tax, who has an eye on grabbing more of your tax dollars and who is pushing for a green economy that in all likelihood won’t include you.

There’s only one man who is sending housewives, retirees and average Joes into the St. Louis streets in fury.

There’s only one man who is considered to have it out for the republic as we know it.

And that man is not Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I remember the cry among some of my pundit colleagues: “President Obama must distance himself from Rev. Wright!”

Why would he do that?

Rev. Wright provided the perfect screen, the perfect distraction for candidate Obama to blast past the goal line. If I didn’t know any better, I’d imagine Rev. Wright was a creation of a Democratic Karl Rove.

As long as conservative media leaders were barking about Rev. Wright, they weren’t paying attention to, oh, say, candidate Obama’s website, which contained in plain view the blueprint for everything President Obama is attempting to do now. As long as candidate Obama was giving “major” speeches about race and his toxic pastor, he was able to shield his plan to pursue a lot of what many Americans are really upset about now.

It’s quite a genius strategy: When you want the dog to stop growling and barking, you throw him some red meat. Boy did many of us dig in!

Big mistake.

In the future, we need to never forget that Americans, as a rule, like their meat thoroughly cooked. If you have an issue with someone, the issue better be about that someone and not someone else nearby. Nefarious associations, while telling, never are enough to convict in the minds of most Americans — who seem to have a built-in aversion to guilt by association.

Guilt-by-association tactics almost always backfire because the target of the association almost always becomes a victim in the eyes of Americans, even conservative Americans. It’s always an indication that the other side simply doesn’t seem to have enough to convict the real culprit.

Common-sense conservatives have a perfect opportunity now because they have the ears of even some conservative Democrats who are rethinking their votes. These Democrats were blinded, too, by artificial distractions. And if you told most folks a year ago that normal average everyday not-so-politically active people would be hitting the streets to protest legislation of all things, you would have been written off as crazy.

Given all that, conservatives would be crazy not to focus on what’s in front of them. They should not be tempted ever again to create amateur horror films about a meaningless crony.

Those who spent months and months huffing and puffing about Rev. Wright and his terrible sermons need only to ask one critical question: How much is Rev. Wright affecting your life now?

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/D0BBD288B151F5FB8625768D00833D71?OpenDocument

I would agree. Good points.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant