Your pets cause global warming so eat them

Maybe it's me but I wonder what PETA is going to say about a recent article by AFP on how pets are the next global warming (or are they using the new 'climate change' slogan) problem that needs to be solved?

Don't believe me?

"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 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car."

So this theory, backed up by John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute, indicates that dogs, and cats, are more dangerous to the environment than cars. Of course hamsters and even goldfish were not left out of the analysis. In each case it was found that a pet is an additional burden to the planet.

What's the solution proposed? PETA and animal lovers will really get a kick out of this.

"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."

Taking this "solution" to its logical end, it means that ANY pet is only worth having if you eventually eat them. And I'm not reaching on that conclusion. Mr. Vale wrote a book on his conclusion titled Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. Do you get his point?

I admit that I have never believed in global warming. Nor global cooling a couple of decades before that. Nor the latest trend/fad of climate change (a true act of verbal idiocy - the climate is constantly changing and has been since before man existed).

But I would never condone the views that Vale and potentially other eco-fanatics will inevitably present. Pets, of all kinds, are not meals. They are members of families and valuable companions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I feel that a pet is far more important than some questionable science that is politically based and factually proven to have been manipulated and promoted for self-interests.

Where are the animal lovers? Where is PETA, a group that has no problem attacking virtually every group they consider even marginally against animal rights? I mean they went after the Pet Shop Boys just because of the band's name, and I have yet to see anything about this - which I feel is far more serious in its implications.

I may not agree with all the tactics and thoughts of PETA, but I respect the fact they have strong convictions. I love dogs, and I really fear the thinking Vale and others have for this political fantasy dressed as science. PETA and pet lovers need to say something. Because in a world of "Change you can believe in" I guarantee that at some point Al Gore will get in his private jet and tell some political group across the world that pet levels need to be reduced worldwide and it will help feed the hungry too.

Don't believe me, but already the Government has said that CO2, our exhaled breaths, are a danger to the planet. Which means the Government will want to regulate that CO2, and if a pet is more "deadly" than a SUV or car... well you can imagine what happens next.

Annie Leonard is at it again

If you have some spare time and want to laugh Annie Leonard is at it again. You may recall her from the inaccurate, misquoted, lie filled video The Story of Stuff. If you don't know about that your kids probably do. I covered that at Annie Leonard – Story of Stuff misrepresentations.

Well now that Cap & Trade is approaching a final vote to "necessarily skyrocket" your electric bills while President Obama kicks back in Copenhagen, Leonard decided to put in her warped views. But I have to give her this, much like a broken clock being right occassionally, she gets part of this video right. I guess you have to chalk it up to the law of probabilities - everything is probably if only infantessimally so.

But before your kids go to school and learn more brainwashing (sorry I mean 'get educated') on this subject I present you a correction, and then her video. It's kind of like the disclaimer that has to be shown to kids in Britian before they can see Al Gore's factually corrupt An Inconvienent Truth (which he will not discuss with anyone - go figure).





Perhaps one of the most telling things about this new fanatical ultra-left video is the lesson Annie Leonard learned from creating the first. Annie Leonard choose not to include any sources of her "facts" stated in this video. I suppose that having everyone point out her misquotes and falsehoods stated in the factsheet from the first video was her wqake up call that parents and others pay attention to what she is spewing. Or she just decided to do what Al Gore does, just ignore anyone that might provide opposing facts and questions.

If you watch any video of Annie Leonard I suggest you do so from the point of view that you might have with when seeing a bad B-movie. At least you don't have to pay for the bad script and cheesy effects.

Movie Preview: Not Evil Just Wrong

Remember when a regular guy stepped up and took on the mega-corporations in a movie. There was no end to coverage in the media and support for the film created a career for Michael Moore. Since that time he has jumped up and down on the Conservatives of the nation, and most recently hypocritically denounced capitalism as he reaped rewards from it. All to acclaim from the media and Hollywood.

Because the media loves when regular people step up and fight injustice and wrongdoing. At least that is what they claim.

When former Vice President Al Gore skipped around the world on private jets to promote global warming in his movie An Inconvienient Truth, the media lauded praise. The movie was instantly setup as if it were fact. It became a mantra for eco-fanatics and an instrument to dynamically change society across the world. Hell, they even gave Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize (at least he did something to earn it).

Again the reason this film was promoted, with jet fuel being guzzled like gatorade, was because it was fighting a wrong. Or so we were told by the media and politicians.

But what if someone stood up and said, "hey, I think you got it wrong." Well that would be fighting an injustice and preventing a wrong. The media should love it. They should be all over such a film, and praising its challenge to the big money of mega-ecology organizations. They should, but they aren't.



The movie being ignored is Not Evil Just Wrong. You probably haven't heard about it, since the media wants it to die on the vine. The film simply looks at the hype surrounding the "green" movement - especially global warming - and points out all the flaws. It's a bit of honesty and prepercussions that Al Gore and others like him refuse to acknowledge.



Note the key things, which are fact. Al Gore has not answered a question about global warming in 4 years. Even as scientists are becoming more sure that global freezing is likely more of an issue than warming. When asked what he has done to correct the errors in the film he has shoved down the throats of schoolkids as fact (yes it was allowed to be shown - with a requirement that actual facts be presented with the film correcting those errors), he refuses to answer the question. In fact he hides behind the emotion of the danger to polar bears, mitigating the FACT their numbers have increased. Then he has his people shut off the mike to end the possibility of debate, the need to answer the question asked, or to prove his position.

This is what Not Evil Just Wrong proposes to address. The questions that the media REFUSES to ask. The FACTS that eco-fanatics refuse to acknowledge. And it does so not with guesses, it uses science and scientists to do so.

Further the film does something that Al Gore (and I believe Michael Moore) doesn't. It provides the real full consequences of the actions taken. What happens when eco-fanatics get laws passed that change society. What will happen if they change things more?

If anyone believes in global warming (which I never have and continue to not believe) then they must - in my opinion - at least hear what facts and consequences exist against that arguement. They must be able to debate these findings without the crutch of emotion, to ensure that they are leading EVERYONE down the right path. Because if they can do so, then even those who disagree will join them in their efforts. But if they cannot, then we all must join together to find solution that really works, and not just make some people feel good at the expense of others.

I suggest that you see this film. Throw out every reason I have just presented. See this movie because Al Gore, the media, and the eco-fanatics are motivated to make sure you DON"T see this film. See this because they don't want you to think about the debate. See this because they are trying to actively control your choices.

You may not agree afterwards, but like with President Obama's attacks on Fox News, the question you should be able to answer is this

Why are they afraid to let you find out what is going on?

Remember something I have said often

"Liberals and the media are happy to have people say and do absolutely anything they want, as long as it agrees with them. The second it does not, they want it shut down and shut away. Isn't that liberal of them."

Update on The Day The Earth Stood Still

Way back in August this year I mentioned my preview of The Day The Earth Stood Still. In that preview I had only one video clip of the film to judge the revisioning of the 1951 classic by. And I stated that it would be more of a waste of money than the total auto industry bailout - well not the bailout but a waste of time. But I also made a couple of assumptions.



While I am right that this film is a disservice to the original, and is yet another example of why a revisioned film is a pathetic excuse for Hollywood to say something no one wants to see/hear, I did get something wrong.

"And there is the benefit of appealing to women with the hint of the line

“If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives."

Such a hokey line and idea never was in the first film, but I’m sure it will garner positive reviews from women’s groups because she is so important to the world."

Wrong. The line is not meant about the one woman it is said to but about mankind in total. Of course I was placing the importance of that singular female character on a high category, which it was in the first film along with her son. But then again I am not an eco-fanatic nor am I a far-left Hollywood writer or movie studio exec. Films might be better if I were, or at least remakes I think.

The line in fact refers to the ecology of the Earth. We humans are destroying it and so some alien needs to come down and save our planet from us. Basically an alien version of Greenpeace and PETA mixed together without that much peace. Thank you Hollywood for giving us your political commentary yet again.

I also stated in my original preview

"The new film will likely lose all the nuance, and subtle political message of the original film. In fact I expect the film will make a political point like using a sledgehammer to open a sunflower seed."

Well a 25 foot tall robot could definitely be a sledgehammer. Or the plague of microbots and their erasive nature. But the point was correct. Be green or else is the only mission, plot and image this film wants to convey. Which is fine if you want to be at an Al Gore rally. But when I spend $9 just to get a ticket, and give up 2 hours of my life, I prefer to be entertained.

Film has long ago given messages in the stories that it presents. For America, most of the films that were solely focused on this were called B-films, and were laughable. Today we see a Hollywood that could make Ed Wood proud. Hollywood gives us over the top, often CGI enhanced, massively budgeted, political commentary in the guise of something we liked in the past and are lured in to see again. In essence we are just throwing away good money and time for a stump speech that does do more than annoy and infuriate because we were given a bait-n-switch flim-flam. [They could have just given the entire budget to Greenpeace, PETA, and various global warming groups and saved the planet their carbon emissions and wasting out time.]

I stand by my original postulation on The Day The Earth Stood Still. It will make some money because of the effects and the stars in the film (notably Keanu Reeves and Jaden Smith, not to mention Jennifer Connelly). But this will ultimately be a failure. It will fail to do justice to the original film, the original message, the writing, and the entertainment value we expect to receive for our money.

I don't think I can say it more bluntly.

Movie review: War, Inc

How might I describe the film War, Inc.? Well considering the film is a mash of liberals are great, big business is bad, America is all the evil in the world clichés I’ll try to describe it in that vain.

In terms of a green film (I’m sure someone will coin that phrase any day now) it fails miserably. From the abundance of HUMVEE vehicles used and blown up, to jets the film wastes more energy and leave a bigger carbon footprint than a mid-sized city. If we look at it from an anti-religion aspect, it makes marriage and Muslims look like fools.

Politically, which is the point of the film, every conservative ever to grace a movie or television seems to be used as a prop of corporate greed. And quite a few Presidents (though Abraham Lincoln – a Republican – amazingly was left out), though the real target – President Bush is never named but is referred to.

The American military is made out to be a bunch of redneck, doped up, imbeciles. I think there was all of 1 scene in the film where our military wasn’t bouncing around popping off rounds while rambling to loud music. I was particularly insulted when the movie portrayed American soldiers slaughtering hospital/mental patients.

And of course the blatant greed of America was the central point. That we are like every country in the world is not the point. We are more vile and twisted. Our excesses corrupt every nation and culture – or so the film wants you to believe.

Now I’m not above a satire of our government. I am all for political comments in entertainment form. But at least let me enjoy the film. MASH was a great film and made significant political points, as did Platoon. This film jams those points down your throat so hard as to make you gag. Literally.

I like John Cusack. I like Ben Kingsley, Dan Ackroyd, Marisa Tomei, Montel Williams and others in this film. But in this waste of time they all are misused and, I would like to think in the case of Montel Williams (a former Marine) at least, misled as to the full nature of the film.

Hillary Duff is unbelievable as a young star twisted by the vices surrounding her. She can’t pull off the depth to make you feel bad for her, or even to accept her as a harlot she spends half the film trying to be.

The sudden and supposedly intense relationship between Cusack and Tomei never makes sense. Why he has feelings beyond mere lust (where he starts at) is unknown, as is when he suddenly starts to feel them. Like everything in this film it just doesn’t come together in any cohesive manner.

The humor of the film could fill a teaser trailer. The witty banter, not the verbal noise floating around as dialogue through 98% of this film, usually is spoken by one character in almost always 1 or 2 sentences.

Visually the film is boring, which matches the pace of the film. With all the bombs bursting, and the 3 action sequences, you might start to pay attention to the film which is exactly when it all ends. Even the over extended scenes of the on-going “war” make you yawn.

If anything was done right in this film, and I have to say it’s taken a couple of minutes of thought, it would have to be the opening sequence. Dark, brooding, a surprising bit of action, and foreboding. So after minute maybe 4 the film just deteriorates into a grating experience.

I had high hopes for this film. It’s obvious play on Grosse Point Blank gave me hope it would rise above the polispeak that was a given it would be encompassed in. But like a ship in the Sargasso Sea it was held fast and rotted away.

Let me put it this way, I would rather listen to Al Gore drone on, or have lunch with Senator Clinton, or have front row seats for the entire season of American Idol than see this film again. Stated in a less PC manner I think that having my left testicle cut off would be more fun.

I truly understand why this film has opened to limited theaters, and will unquestionably never recoup its cost. If there was going to be a Grosse Point Blank 2, this film has assassinated its hopes. Seriously don’t even pay for a bootleg copy of this film, watch Gigli or Glitter – you’ll enjoy them more. (ok it’s not that bad, but you get my point)

The Andromeda Strain – A&E telemovie review

A&E Television has stepped forward with a dramatic movie, highlighting its steps to join FX and Spike Television (among others) with unique programming that sets itself apart from broadcast television. In that aspect it has succeeded. The choice they have done this with is a remake of the Andromeda Strain.

For those unfamiliar, The Andromeda Strain is a book from 1969 and then a movie first done in 1971. It’s a tale of a virus that hits the earth via a meteorite. It devastates an entire remote town in the U.S. and a highly specialized team of scientists is organized to destroy or contain the virus. The only clue that the scientists have to work with is the fact that an old drunk and a baby are the only survivors of a town with a few hundred people.

While that is the basis of the remake there are significant changes. Some are quite good, others not as much. And most of the intensity of the film is destroyed in this 4-hour extended made-for-TV film.

I will note that I hate the current trend of re-visioned movies and programs that an idea starved Hollywood is rife with these days. In almost every re-visioning the effect is a sledgehammer to the original idea, seemingly made by someone who never saw the original and basically just read a Cliff note on the subject in question. This film is not a re-visioning because most of its first 2 hours are true to the original. Beyond that, it starts to deviate.

A&E’s version (AS) isn’t bad, though it’s incredibly too long. They took a 90 minute film and dragged it out as far as it could be taken. And you feel it. Add to this the addition of several storylines that are blatantly obvious in their political underpinnings and you get a story that is reaching for high moral ground and failing to be as entertaining as it could be. That is not to say the original was not political as well, it was just concise and not overburdened by it.

This version is weighed down with the baggage of an attack on the U.S. military’s stance on gays, distrust of the Government, international bioweapons development, environmental conservation, the Patriot Act, infidelity, and seedy journalism. That leaves out the questionable physics of a wormhole, the abilities of the Andromeda strain organism and a conspiracy theory. Oh, and a minor love story too, nearly forgot that.

There are huge plot holes in the storyline because of this expansion and focus on everything but the threat at hand. Add to that ok but not stellar acting (of Braugher, Benjamin Bratt, Rick Schroeder, Viola Davis, Daniel Dae Kim, Christa Miller. Competely useless were Eric McCormack, Ted Whittall, and the other background characters) and you have a watchable but not rewarding mix.

Problems of the movie include the origination of the Andromeda strain in the first place, time continuity, how the strain sample was recovered since it was capable of escaping it’s container, how the radiation in the mechanical shaft did not kill the lead scientist, how the scientist trapped with the released strain survived, why the baby and old man continued to survive, and how the strain took so long to start to spread since buzzards were present immediately after the outbreak, and the intelligence of an organism that is sulfur based without DNA that communicates with parts that are completely seperated.

Plus the cover-up which included the murder of Andre Braugher seems inconsistent and useless since the reporter with all the details escaped. Of course the dig at President Bush and his administration is hard to miss (though little is shown of a better Presidential choice). Also the inevitability of the U.S. Government causing the death of mankind because of a shadow organization seems consistent with the current stance of Hollywood’s anti-military stance.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Like I said the movie is ok. It might have been far better had they stuck to the issue at hand, a mystery disease of extraterrestrial origin. The attacks on non-liberal ideas and Presidents (unless you think the connection of underwater mining being run by the fictional President’s corporate election backers is just coincidental) really just makes the other shortcomings too big and long.

If you want to rejoice in the horrors of global warming I-told-you-so, or paranoia over the government listening to everything you do, I’m sure this is on your must see list along with JFK and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Otherwise, skip this unless you are really bored or are stuck in Binghamton New York.