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."

Auto racing beware the rabbits

Way back in 2007 I made an observation about NASCAR, and the whole of auto racing. I mentioned that I was surprised that the "global warming" eco-freaks had yet to protest or address auto racing in any way. In fact I made a prediction

"Mark my words, it is quite possible that one day soon, some green political organization is going to suggest that all cars in the auto racing industry be replaced with hybrid vehicles. Actually, it will probably start with some super green nutcase (like a certain musician, who thinks everyone should use one square of tissue paper only) who will suggest that instead of racing cars fueled with a gas, races should be with solar cars or just bicycles. Imagine a Daytona 500 like that."

Well it's a bit less than 2 years later, and it seems that part of what I imagined is on it's first legs to start.

Yep, race cars made out of plants and fueled by chocolate. Sounds like a joke doesn't it? But it's not. Because in London a group of scientists have done it.

Called the WorldFirst Formula 3 racing car, it is claimed but unproven to reach speeds of 145 mph. It runs on used vegetable oils and chocolate factory refuse as a biomass fuel. It has a steering wheel made from carrots and wheels made of soybeans. It will be featured in the European Grand Prix and Britain's Goodwood Festival of Speed.

Now there are 2 thoughts I have about this car. The first is what will happen when it is in a race. If this car finishes anywhere above dead last, you can be assured that there will be a huge cry for more to be built, and an end to all other styles of race cars. Monster Trucks will be replaced with monster cabbage, and NASCAR with broccoli inspired stock cars. It will be the example of green entertainment, and the prototype for everyday vehicles.

There is a good and bad to this of course. The good is the eco-fanatics dream. A world of vegetables and speed, or at least just vegetables. The bad might be the damage drivers will endure from cars that are not strong enough to be safe, or more flammable. And of course there ever present problem of rabbits.

But the more serious thought is something far more dangerous. Let's say this Willy Wonka inspired contraption works. Maybe even wins a race. And it inspires a slew of other vehicles and changes the entire auto racing industry. Even the personal vehicle industry (especially if President Obama continues on the path of privatizing the auto industry).

The result is that the cost of food will skyrocket. Most haven't noticed, and the major media has yet to seriously report that ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol as used in the U.S., drives up food prices. All the food we have costs about 10% more today just because of corn-ethanol. And that is rising.

Imagine cars made out of food, with engines fun on biomass derived from food. Of the hundreds of millions of cars just in the U.S. alone, with billions of gallons of fuel consumed. Of the thousands of race cars in the auto racing industry and the fuel they use. If the use of ethanol, which can't be bought by 95% of American citizens, has risen food prices 10% already what might this trend cost us?

Auto racing, NASCAR in particular in the U.S., is not going to go away. But this Wonka-mobile will start a trend, similar to what I imagined 2 years ago. So get ready. Things are about to change I think. And all the change may not be as fun, healthy, or affordable as some will claim.

President Obama proposes action in Darfur

Finally it seems that America will be taking a stance on Darfur. After over 5 years of genocide, President Obma has given indications that he is willing to do something more than Congress or the prior Administration has ever bothered to do. And it's about time.

In the past 4 years, as some 400,000 people have died and 3 million have become refugees fleeing the violence, Congress has ignored the situation. In both Democrat and Republican led Congresses HR 180 IH - an Act to prevent American businesses from working with the Sudan and thus funding the murder of women and children - has never made it out of committee once. Effectively, America has shown the world that we don't care about those African lives.

But This should change, based on the comments of President Obama

"It is not acceptable to put that many people's lives at risk. We need to be able to get those humanitarian organizations back on the ground."

This comes as the President of the Sudan, recently charged with war crimes and acts against humanity by the International Criminal Court, has thrown out 13 humanitarian organization. This further places lives in the region at risk.

Sadly the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seems to be willing to dilute this immediate need for a bit of polispeak and U.S. press coverage. Rather than focusing directly on the issue at hand, Ban slipped in the desire to see international support of global warming issues. Seriously, he thinks that is equivalent or superior a threat to humanity.

I suppose the Secretary-General had to bring up the issue of global warming. It may be the only way that America will pick up 1/4th the tab of the nearly $5 billion budget that the U.N. has. Since global warming is an issue that liberals like President Obama love (given that there is no proof that it is not a natural occurring effect, there is evidence that global cooling may be starting, and the whole argument is arbitrary since India and China are increasing their CO2 emissions as they become more industrial) his discussing it helps provide reasons why the U.S. needs to waste money on this issue rather than focusing on the banking and credit sectors.

Now as long as the global warming issue is a far second to helping the people of Darfur, I really don't care. There have been hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost as Congress and America turned a blind eye. The rest of the world followed our lead, as they usually do. So if President Obama is serious, this could help turn the tide.

Polispeak and scientific debate are fun occupations, when lives are not at stake. America has allowed the media and it's own disdain to cover it's eyes for far too long. Hopefully this meeting and the words of President Obama will finally get a result from Congress and the world. The lives of children are counting on it.

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.

Global warming vs NASCAR and Auto racing - 9.5.2007.2

Recently I was writing the post for Presidential Race Blog about the upcoming Republican presidential debate and I noticed something on TV. It was another item on global warming and that left me with a question. There is now a lot about carbon emissions and carbon offsets and whether global warming actually exists. I am hardly an expert in such matters. So I can't say whether or not global warming exists (though I tend to think not), but there is a big push to say that it's true. Either way, I have to wonder how long is it going to be until the global warming movement and the eco-happy individuals target NASCAR, Formula One, monster trucks, and all other forms of auto racing in general?

This may not be an issue yet, but it will be. And once the subject comes up it won't go away. Considering that, what is going to happen when we start hearing in commercials, reports, and individual pundits on television saying that auto racing, cannot be allowed. So far, the foothold of the global warming fanatics has yet to reach anything to do with the sports but there are signs they are gaining ground. You may have noticed recent commercials from the company E-surance detailing smog monsters and giant robots attacking the environment. That's a very mainstream statement, tying driving, smog, and the environment together. So far there has been no connection between auto racing, and harmful emissions.

This post may be a bit off the usual topic, but I wonder how the sport will be affected. I wonder how many of the fans are concerned. I wonder what people tell their kids who come home from school where they just learned that the ice caps are melting, because mom drove to get ice cream? Those same kids are bound to start asking about how bad Mark Martin, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and Lewis Hamilton are for driving around a race track hundreds of times just to see who comes in first. What do the parents say? What will NASCAR, Formula One, monster trucks, and all the other auto racing organizations do?

I would suggest that if those organizations have not thought about this yet, they start. The reason being is that with the growth of global warming activists, legislation may come out that will directly affect this industry. Mark my words, it is quite possible that one day soon, some green political organization is going to suggest that all cars in the auto racing industry be replaced with hybrid vehicles. Actually, it will probably start with some super green nutcase (like a certain musician, who thinks everyone should use one square of tissue paper only) who will suggest that instead of racing cars fueled with a gas, races should be with solar cars or just bicycles. Imagine a Daytona 500 like that.

It's just a thought, and it's going to happen.

This is what I think what you think?