Thad McCotter Targeted By MoveOn

Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich) must be doing something right. While I sat tonight skimming the Bass Pro Shop ad . . . ok, all right, I was actually skimming a Pottery Barn catalogue, but that doesn't matter, while skimming I heard a TV commercial buzz in the corner of my ear and looked up in time to see an attack ad against McCotter accusing him of saying no to 1.7 million jobs that would be produced by the Obama administration's energy plan. If you were drinking while reading a sentence containing "jobs produced" and "Obama" you probably sprayed milk or something less healthy from both nostrils so I'll pause a moment to give you time to recover.

............da dee dee da dee dee.............

Of course, the TV spot then closed with the quick announcement that the ad was paid for by the filthy rich and equally filthy fibbing MoveOn.org. And while the ad didn't mention the "religious right" it did foist up another favored bogeyman of the left: Big Oil. Yes, McCotter is accused of being in league with "big oil" because he opposes the "Clean Energy and Security Act" -- legislature that has been more aptly labeled "Cap and Trade." That's right, the liberal elite are attacking McCotter for opposing a bill that will kill more jobs than it could possibly create (as some democrats admit) while at the same time levying a massive energy tax on every American who pays for energy. When God was handing out scruples I guess the folk from MoveOn had stepped out of line to take a leak.

If you follow politics than you know that the bill has already passed in the house, despite the defection of several democrats, and may be wondering why the left is spending more than $1 million on attacking McCotter and other politicians who have already voted. Navin Nayak, an official at the left-wing League of Conservation explains that "the ad is intended to send the message to legislators that there will be a cost to opposing the cap-and-trade bill."

My hope is that a price will be paid, but it will be paid by those forcing through yet another economically disastrous Obama bill; this one under the guise of conservation.

So let your voice be heard. Take 3 or 4 minutes to send an email to Thad McCotter by clicking here to tell him that you appreciate the stance he is taking against the administration's misguided policies. And then send a note to your senators demanding accountability when it is their turn to vote.

List of opposition voices to Cap and Trade that are currently targeted by MoveOn:

• Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.)
• Denny Rehberg (R- Mont.)
• Roy Blunt (R- Mo.)
• Frank Wolf (Va.)
• House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

PETA: Hot & Sexy Women Don't Eat Meat

PETA is trying to use sex to turn us into vegetarians. Sure, it sounds crazy. I don't know too many guys who want to date a chick who won't eat meat? But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (in which "ethical treatment" apparently means not smothering them with Uncle Iver's BBQ sauce) believe they have found the dietary G-spot with their new campaign promoting the concept that vegetarians make better lovers.

I'm not sure how effective the ads have been thus far, but they have certainly brought PETA the type of publicity they've lacked since the old days of throwing a can of red, lead-based paint on fur coats . . . which I always thought made them look more Christmassy anyway. The group's recent ads have been banned from the Super Bowl and protested on city streets, but have they thinned the lines at the butcher's counter?

It's too early to determine if the ad campaign is having the intended effect, but I have a pretty strong sense that it won't in the end. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Alicia Silverstone shedding her clothes for the cause, I just don't think it's going to make many guys hit the salad bar.

Let's face it, there are two things working against PETA in this campaign. First, the guys who want to sink their teeth into Alicia Silverstone tend to be the same guys want to sink their teeth into a nice, juicy ribeye. Yes, they would rather have a naked Alicia Silverstone than a naked Al Gore, but that's not going to change their preference to have a seasoned steak instead of a prickly pear. They're just not into the fruits.

The second more important thing working against PETA is the fact that eating (and thus hunting/killing) animals is environmentally sound, even more so than being a vegetarian. They are strapless in their uphill battle against truth. Here are some of the facts:

• Humans are not the only animals that cause extinction. In Cape May, Cumberland, Hunterdon, Salem, Sussex or Warren County New Jersey the deer population is higher than the human population. There are so many deer, wildlife biologists say that they are slowly forcing out some plant and animal species, just as humans have done. And that's not the only place. In Wisconsin biologists have also reported out of control deer populations damaging the ecosystem. They must be stopped! (in a monitored fashion, of course).
• Everybody's doing it. Many vegetarians eat their greens in comfort believing they have saved some animal from an Old Yeller moment. But large crop producers use lethal means to protect their produce from animals. Just write me when you find some lettuce labeled "predatory varmint safe."
• Hunting is taxed. The license, the guns, the ammo . . . all of it. And where does that money go? Through these taxes hunters and fishermen fund nearly 75% of the annual income for all 50 state conservation agencies. Without sportsmen and women there would be little money for environmental conservation.
• Hunting promotes safe gun practices. Think about it. Areas where hunters live are far less likely to have kids shooting one another in schools, drive-by cap action or gun related accidents in the home. Hunters tend to have a respect for firearms and to teach their children to do the same. So I'm going to argue that hunting animals saves people.
• But the bottom line is that killing animals is all Lion King and such. Animals kill one another for food. We kill animals for food. Circle of Life.

So, try as they might, PETA will not be able to stop that circle of life that Sir Elton John so eloquently crooned about. But I have to admit, if I have to choose between their latest ad campaign and those pictures of clubbed baby seals they were peddling long after it was illegal to whack the white wonders, I guess I'm just not going to joint the protest against PETA march this time around.

Anti-Environmental Sasquatch

According to StandardCarbon.com, the accumulation of massive illegal campaign contributions wasn't the only record Barack Obama's presidential campaign established; it also left the largest carbon footprint in campaign history.

According to Standard Carbon, Obama's run for the presidency generated around 70,000 tons of greenhouse emissions compared to John McCain's mere 44,000 tons. To put it in perspective, Obama's Sasquatchian carbon footprint was equal to making 279 rocket shots to the moon and back, operating every vehicle in the U.S. for 30 minutes or driving a Suburban around the earth 5,591 times.

So when Barack Obama was promising to reduce emissions, I wonder if he took into consideration his own massive contribution.

Renaming Acts Of God

Let me guess, it's global climate change that caused two storms to pass through my area taking away Ben Franklin's gift while dropping trees on unsuspecting houses. If that's the case, then how are insurance companies going to handle claims that used to be labeled "acts of God." If it's my fault because I ran my mower during an ozone awareness day, isn't it time we stop blaming the big guy? Or maybe this should be considered an Act of SUVs.

Now if this really was an act of God then I have a bone to pick with the Almighty.

Lord, thou knowest that I try to be a good father. But please, I beg of thee, let the school of my children reopen so I can return to work. I have not the strength nor endurance of a homemaker. They have conquered my will and I beg respite. I ask this in thy Holy name. Amen

Homosexuals, Republicans And The Holy Ghost

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision that their state constitution allows for gay marriage is sure to make homosexuality a flaming hot issue for the upcoming election season. Given that fact, I suppose I'll throw out my thoughts concerning same-sex marriage while things are heating up. I happen to fully support gay marriage, primarily because I think the arguments against it are prissy, unRepublican nonsense. Here's a few of them to give you a taste of what I mean.

Argument #1: Homosexuality is unnatural
Anybody who has seen two male dogs going at it on the front lawn or has had to pry Buttons off their quaking leg should see the flaw in this argument. When Buttons wants to get his groove on virtually anything will do to satisfy that loving feeling. The same is true of most other critters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that animals and humans are the same (at least in this case). What I am saying is that one cannot by definition call something "unnatural" when it happens frequently in nature. Yes, God intended heterosexual sex when he commanded his creation to be fruitful and multiply, which I suspect is the only command we have faithfully followed. However, God also created a world where homosexual activity spans the species and is commonly found in nature.

Argument #2: Homosexuality is a sin
Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality . . . with all the vigor that it condemns women who don't cover their heads in church. The fact is that the Bible hardly mentions homosexuality; the best I can tell is that it's only in there around 6 or 7 times. Compare that to how many times the Good Book condemns gluttony and you may be wondering why so many churches aren't expelling their voluminous preachers for the sin of too many trips to Crispy Creme.

Even when the Bible mentions homosexuality the circumstances tend to cloud the interpretation. For example, homosexuality is condemned in Levitical Law, but I don't know many Christians or Jews who follow all of the precepts there (unless "stoning" doesn't mean what they told me in Sunday School). Then, there is the Sodom story of "sodomy" fame, but if you read that tale closely you'll find it a story about rape. Homosexual rape, but rape just the same which God condemns regardless of sexual orientation. And in the New Testament you'll catch some references to homosexuality in the historical context of temple prostitution, a big no-no to the likes of St. Paul so no wonder he was a bit cranky on the subject.

What is especially striking to me about the Bible's take on homosexuality is that the Old Testament prophets, who were obsessive killjoys when it came to morality, never mentioned it. Perhaps more telling is that Jesus Christ himself didn't have anything to say on the topic. Now, if Jesus was (is), as I believe, the divine incarnation of God then he would have foreseen the social and spiritual turmoil that the homosexuality debate was going to cause in the twenty-first century. So if gays really bothered him, don't you think he might have mentioned it?

Argument #3: Homosexuality is destroying the family
Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding how heterosexuals with a divorce rate topping 50% can claim that gays are destroying the family unit. What exactly is it about two people in love who happen to be of the same gender that is ripping the moral fabric of the country? Abusive husbands, sexual predators, incestuous pedophiles, selfish spouses . . . they are destroying the family, not people in love.

Argument #4: We need to stand firm against moral relativism
I certainly agree that true morality is not relative. However, as you can tell from what I've already written, I don't think this is an issue of morality. It is about gay relationships that can be every bit as loving or destructive as their straight counterparts. It is not about unnatural abominations, destruction of the family unit or an unpardonable sin. Since that is the case, we need to be more "Republican" about the matter and diminish the role of government in deciding whether or not gays can be married. Besides, to paraphrase Woody Allen, it would immediately double the chance of every American finding a soul mate in his or her or hiser's pursuit of happiness.

Fat Cash Farmers Where Are you?

We have a family farm in North Dakota that my oldest brother runs. At present they primarily grow three crops: soy beans, sugar beets, and money whine. I don't mind hearing about how the beets and beans are fairing, but I suddenly get a bad phone connection when he starts to whine about the financial struggles of family farms. "What's that? Furnace problems? The bills [crackle] sorry you're [crackle, crackle] you're, you're breaking up." The last thing I want to have is long-distance empathy for an agrarian sibling who used to lock me in the basement when mom and dad were away doing whatever it was that moms and dads did before Dr. Spock straightened them out.

Part of me thinks that he just wants to play it humble. I mean, I read the papers and things can't be that tough. According to the latest reports from the National Agricultural Statistics Service Soybeans value is up 51%, wheat (both winter and summer) value is up 62% and corn is up an astounding 110% since 2002. Humble shmumble, maybe my bro is just holding out on me. I'm sitting here losing hair and sleep in the struggling automotive industry while he's apparently living the high life as a fat cash farmer.

But, of course, that's not how it works. Despite some news reports that farmers are suddenly atop gilded combines due to an increased crop demand from "emerging countries" and the glory of ethanol, the costs of operation are increasing at a faster rate than profits. According to a recent report "costs are up across the board." Fuel costs have more than doubled over the past couple of years. Over the same span fertilizer has gone from $375 a ton to around $880 a ton. And equipment repair costs are up as much as 70%.

On top of the rising price of known variables, there are those annual gambles in farming that would drive Benny Binion to stable bond investments. Too little rain and the crops are at risk (even irrigation can't solve all of the problems since electricity in the air helps to release soil nitrogen). Too much rain and the beans stay green through harvest, reducing their value. Oh, and then there's the whole issue of when you contract. When can you get the best deal for your crops? Should you hold out a little longer and risk the weather? What about crop rotation? And should you invest in corn or other crops which could grow in value due to the scarcity created by your neighbors investing in corn?

So I guess that I should take it easy on my brother and listen when he talks about the economics of farming. Rising crop prices do not equate to rising profits. It is still a rough life and the rest of us need somebody to do it. But if I ever get a chance to trap him in a basement for an hour or so . . . let's just say I hope it's not a capital offence.


A somewhat meandering sidenote on ethanol: is it really a good idea to use food for fuel?

Happy Earth Day From George W. Bush

Why is it that no matter what a Republican politician does he can never be seen as environmentally friendly? Here we are on "Earth Day" when the Bush administration released its plans to push fuel economy standards to their highest levels in U.S. history and you would have thought he'd just released his Orcs into Mirkwood with chainsaws. Come on Greenpeace, where's the love? According to reports, the new federal mileage plan is tougher than Gordie Howe on game day.

In the 2011 model year, automakers would be required to post the biggest jump to 27.8 mpg, up 2.5 mpg over the 2010 model year requirements. That equates to 31.2 mpg for passenger cars and 25 mpg for light trucks. By model year 2013, the overall average jumps to 30.5 mpg.

The final two years bring the smallest increase -- just 0.5 mpg in model year 2014 and 0.6 mpg in 2015. Manufacturers will have to meet different overall requirements, based on the footprint, or size, of their vehicle fleets.

What does that mean in real numbers?

Porsche, for example, will have to average 41.3 mpg by the 2015 model year, while Chrysler will have to meet just 33.6 mpg by 2015, based on product plans submitted to NHTSA. The energy bill approved by Congress doubled fines for automaker that don't meet fuel economy requirements.

The bill required NHTSA to set yearly requirements in order to meet a combined industry wide average of 35 mpg by 2020.

By 2015, Ford will have to average 35.5 mpg, GM 34.7 mpg and Toyota 34.6 mpg. On the light-truck side, Toyota has to average 28 mpg by 2015, Ford 28.8 mpg and GM 27.4 mpg.

So the man who liberals believe keeps his bedroll in big oil's bunkhouse has just flipped them an historic political bird. And that's not the only big business Bush is hammering with this green policy. According to a report in The Detroit News:

The 417-page proposal also confirms a Detroit News report today that it will cost automakers $47 billion to comply, including $31 billion for light trucks and $16 billion for passenger cars through 2015.

But the environmental impact will be considerable. According to U.S. Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, "Americans will conserve 55 billion gallons of fuel during the lifetime of vehicles covered by the regulation, saving $100 billion. The proposal would reduce 521 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas."

Of course, those who keep an open mind toward the President's environmental policies are not shocked to see this proposal come out of his administration since he has previously established rigorous emission requirements for diesel engines in this country. But then, this is the guy who, prior to running for president, owned his Texas ranch that employs solar and geothermal power with a rain-water irrigation system while "environmentalist" Barbara Streisand was providing air-conditioned housing for her livestock. Seems to me that if we really want to clean up the earth it may require cleaning out the political agenda of the environmental movement with the Hoover of truth.

Global Warming Hoax Or Not . . .

OK, I get it.

• The debate isn't "over" with over 400 prominent scientist recently questioning the validity global warming.


• Al Gore's film is filled with misinformation.


• The latest satellite data is actually showing record ice in the Arctic.


• Satan doesn't tempt us to buy bottled water just so we increase waste.


• Drilling in Alaska won't destroy the entire state and would help their economy.


• One volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse gas then every car on the planet.


• Warmer climates are not about to strike, bringing tidal waves and giant snakes.


• Water doesn't disappear forever.


• Failing to recycle won't cause machines to rise against their makers.

I get it. I just don't care.

For me, conservation and environmentalism is not about global warming or impending planetary destruction. It's just that I would rather live in a clean, green place than a dirty one. I'd rather not smell exhaust everywhere I go. I want my kids to see the same Alaska that my dad saw. I think alternative fuels would be a great thing for so many reasons. I don't find factories belching smoke very attractive. I like to drink clean water. I'll take my steak medium rare -- hold the hormones.

Does environmental stewardship of the planet have to revolve around cataclysm scenarios? How about taking care of the planet just because it'd be a nicer place to live.