Drill For Oil Everywhere!

Here is a video from a local TV station featuring Jamie Allman, a popular radio talk show host in St. Louis.

I say drill everywhere possible with the current technology (that uses very little land.)

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

The Green Police Live Inside of My Head….

I thought this ad was both hilarious and scary.  I’m sure the enviros saw this ad as a call to arms. 

(If you don’t get the title of the post, see The Dream Police by Cheap Trick.)

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

Poet Al Gore Gets Creepy on The Early Show

This is just a tad creepy.  I think there is a little man-love going on here.

Try to contain yourself Harry Smith.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Conservatarian Values: Common Sense for America

As we are a country of many views and thoughts, not many people fall simply within Republican or Democrat camps.  A small portion of the electorate adhere to a hybrid version that I and others dub as conservatarian.  This is a combination of conservative and libertarian viewpoints.

Abortion – Abortion is the taking of a life.  Human rights should apply to everyone, even the unborn. 

Crime and Justice – Protect citizens through effective law enforcement.  Penalize those individuals who do not follow the rule of law with common sense sentencing and limited parole.

Self-Defense – The ability to defend yourself, your property, and your family.

Environmental Issues – The environment should be protected and preserved but not at the expense of basic human liberties. 

Taxes – Replace the federal income and payroll taxes with a fair tax.  Stop the over taxation of the producers and under taxation of non-producers.

Energy and Resources – The United States should explore its own natural resources free from over reaching environmental agencies and left-wing environmental groups.

Financial Markets – The government should get out of the way of the financial markets and allow them to function properly.  Oversight should be utilized but without a full-on intrusion from the Fed.

Compulsory Retirement System – The forced bankrupt governmental retirement system (Social Security) should be abolished in favor of a voluntary method of individual contributions.

Health Care – Health care should not be run by the government in any realm.   

National Defense – The military should be available to first protect citizens against domestic threats and then against international threats.

Domestic Security – The United States should first protect her citizens and then the rest of the world.  Threats to domestic security should be handled swiftly and with minimal bureaucracy.

Illegal Immigration – Illegal immigrants should be deported out of the United States.  Businesses that employ illegal immigrants should suffer steep and progressive fines.

Legal Immigration – Individuals should have the opportunity to continue to become citizens of the United States without exorbitant red tape and expense.

Discrimination Issues – Discrimination in any form is anti-American.  Everyone should be equally protected regardless of sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual orientation, but no individual group should have more protection than another.

Many of these ideals have come through years of thoughtful study with assistance from various groups and organizations.

Download a pdf file of this post here.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

The National Parks Are Racist!

Yes, I couldn’t believe it either.  How could all of those sweet and innocent National Parks be racist?  Yellowstone, Yosemite, Smoky Mountains….say it ain’t so!

According to this gentleman, evidently the only African American Park Ranger in the National Park System, blacks don’t visit the parks because of…..wait for it……wait for it……RACISM! 

Now I really don’t think this is a racist issue dating back to the time of slavery in America.  To me this is more of a marketing issue – or lack thereof.  If you want to attract a particular group of people to your specific park, advertise to that group and convince them why they should take their time to visit.  It’s a revolutionary concept called PROMOTION.  Many businesses do it.  It’s not that hard.

I’m all for everyone visiting the National Parks.  They are beautiful and a national treasure.  I have not been to Yosemite or Yellowstone, but I plan on visiting both someday.  The United States has some of the most beautiful scenery in the world and thankfully long range thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt recognized the need. 

To address this specific situation, I’m really sick of everything being about the “original sin” of slavery and if you decide to oppose that point of view then you are a racist.   I guess I’m a racist.  Didn’t know it, but I guess that is what it’s come to. 

Why are more black people not visiting national parks?  Maybe they just don’t want to!  Novel concept I know, but it’s a possibility.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Actual Stimulus Program Almost Denied

Cash for ClunkersAll government ideas are not ALL bad.  I’m not sure I would advocated a “Cash For Clunkers” program if the economy was humming along, but it seems like a decent idea. Actually giving money back to the citizens (some are actually tax payers) while selling new cars.  Forget the fact that it will benefit Obama Motors or that buying a new car is a horrible investment, this seemed like a great idea, right?  Well, maybe not.

Early on Friday we learned that only a couple of days after launching the “Cash for Clunkers”  program, it was out of money.  They only allotted one billion to reimburse dealerships – a very small sum in government figures.  Fortunately on Friday afternoon Mr. Obama got involved and infused the program with another 2 billion.  I say throw a whole bunch of that unused Stimulus money into this program and actually do some stimulating instead of creating signs and other useless spending.

The consensus of many dealers is that this program has worked.  They have had activity like they have not seen in quite some time.  This is what we see when the government gives back money to the citizens to actually spend.  What would happen if the government took less of our money at the front end, cut THEIR bloated spending and let us do what we want with our hard earned money instead of funding an unending bottomless pit that is government?  That would end this recession in a heart beat and growth would skyrocket. 

Again, like so many of my rants, I’m not holding my breath.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant