The Idaho Statesman’s Rocky Barker penned an article lamenting the smoky Treasure Valley air and the longer wildfire season. The piece meandered quite a bit, but the gist of it was captured in one sentence, “The U.S. could spend the entire firefighting budget on logging and it wouldn’t be enough alone to address the fuel issue in the face of climate change.”
That statement makes absolutely no sense. On the very same day Barker’s article was published, another article appeared in the Idaho Statesman describing the “shrunken” wood and paper industry in Idaho. The article contained a bar chart that demonstrates what many of us who have studied this issue know: logging on federal lands in Idaho has declined from nearly one billion board feet, annually, at the peak in the 1970s to well under 100 million board feet today.
The same article on the wood industry describes an industry that pays better wages than the state average of $37,957 per year in 2014. Logging jobs paid an average of $51,000, wood products manufacturing nearly $50,000, and paper manufacturing $83,000. I fail to see how an industry that pays good wages and salaries would consume the U. S. Forest Service firefighting budget, by using a resource whose use would result in fewer fires in the first place.
According to data from the National Interagency Fire Center, for the period 1946 to 1979 (33 years in a row), not one fire season in the 11 Western States — excluding Alaska — resulted in more than 1 million acres being burned in a single season.
Why? It is not complicated: logging and thinning were the chief tools of fire suppression.
Global warming alarmists like Barker want to smokescreen the issue by conflating the effects of reduced logging with a lack of prescribed burning and “fire-prevention treatment.” They want to hoodwink the public into believing that decades of improper fire suppression techniques and “climate change” are causing fire seasons like 2015’s, a catastrophic one with over 9 million acres scorched in the U.S.
Sadly, these fires serve as a reminder of the public policy shift that began after the Federal Land Policy and Management Act passed in 1976. This act, along with lawsuits and other tactics, opened the door for environmentalists to dramatically reduce logging on federal lands.
We all want clean air, water and a healthy environment for wildlife. For several decades we have been led to believe that a museum management strategy — a passive approach to public lands management — was the proper policy. That solution is a demonstrated failure. Idaho and other states must reverse course and revive the wood products industry and employ other validated management practices.
Those of us who advocate transferring federal lands to the states do so with the full knowledge of the back-story. Our treasured lands cannot endure 40 more years of reckless federal management by those who don’t believe in significant logging on federal lands. This policy failure manifests itself today in the vastly larger wildfires, damaged habitats and the smoky air we are all forced to endure. This is why we advocate for local management.
Fred Birnbaum is vice president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article43019325.html#storylink=cpy
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/15/15
November 14, 2015
The National Security Case For Free-Market Energy
As originally published on Forbes
The House has passed legislation calling for liberalizing energy exports. Two Senate committees have approved similar bills. Whether the legislation becomes law this year remains unknown. But even if the bill doesn’t make it, pressure on Washington will continue to build.
At the height of the “energy crisis” in the 1970s, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on the export of oil and natural gas. Those rules are still around, even though virtually no other country has similar self-imposed restrictions. Nobody much cared about knee-jerk legislation passed decades ago until the U.S. demonstrated the capacity to start exporting energy.
The momentum for free-market energy reform has been building for a while. (Congress hasn’t delivered a big energy bill since 2007). Still, it might not happen this term. The White House has threatened a veto claiming that the bill “is not needed at this time.” Critics note that the administration seems dead set against any initiative that promotes the expanded use of fossil fuels.
The bill has also gathered detractors from the right. Spending hawks lament that, as the bill works its way through Congress, it keeps picking up “sweeteners.” For example, it now contains a provision to throw more money at the questionable Maritime Security Fleet administered by the federal Maritime Security Program.
Nevertheless, whether it happens now or later, the U.S. is all but sure to resume crude oil exports—and not just for economic reasons. There is a strong national security rationale for America to adopt a more free market energy strategy.
On balance, U.S. interests would be better served in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America if global consumers had less restrictive access to U.S. energy.
This is not to say that energy policy should be considered a “national security issue.” Washington is already far prone to claim everything—from climate change, to the national debt, to obesity—as a national security problem. Expanding of the reach of the term “national security” so broadly is dangerous, because it facilitates diverting resources from dealing with very real security problems. Further, turning any old policy challenge into a national security crisis promotes statist solutions which could well undermine the freedom and liberties of Americans.
“National security is not something that merely affects the well-being of Americans,” writes foreign policy scholar Kim Holmes. A national security matter is an intentional, human, malicious act threatening the American nation. Proportionality, scope, and intent are all factored into determining what constitutes a real threat.
“Energy security thus becomes more a policy task of keeping the global energy market as free and open as possible than a programmatic objective of national security or even foreign policy,” concludes Holmes.
If the goal of government is to advance policies that keep America free, safe and prosperous, then in energy export reform, Washington has an opportunity to check all three blocks at once.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/14/15
November 12, 2015
Four Fallacies That Fracktivists Use To Scare You
Alex Epstein , CONTRIBUTOR
As originally published by Forbes
To make intelligent decisions about the future of energy, we need to think big-picture—to look carefully at the benefits and costs to human life of every course of action. Unfortunately, in today’s energy debate we are taught, with politically incorrect forms of energy such as fossil fuels, to only look at the negative picture—often highly exaggerated or taken out of context.
There are at least four common fallacies used to discourage big-picture thinking and breed opposition to fossil fuels. These are things to be on the lookout for when you follow the cultural debate; they are everywhere, and all four are used to attack what might be the most important technology of our generation: shale energy aka “fracking.”
1. The Abuse-Use Fallacy
The largest fossil fuel controversy today, besides the broader climate change issue, is fracking—shorthand for hydraulic fracturing—one of several key technologies for getting oil and gas out of dense shale rock, resources that exist in enormous quantities but had previously been inaccessible at low cost.
Fracking has gotten attention, not primarily because of the productivity revolution it has created, but because of concerns about groundwater contamination. The leading source of this view is celebrity filmmaker Josh Fox’s Gasland (so-called) documentaries on HBO. Looking at how these movies have affected public opinion is an instructive exercise. Both Gasland movies follow a similar three-part formula. First, Fox tells a sad story about a family undergoing a problem, usually with their drinking water. “When we turn on the tap, the water reeks of hydrocarbons and chemicals,” says John Fenton of Pavillion, Wyoming. Then Fox blames it on the oil and gas industry’s use of fracking—without exploring any alternative explanations, such as the fact that methane and other substances often naturally seep into groundwater. This is the false-attribution fallacy, which I’ll discuss in a minute.
Even if Fox’s examples were true, it would be illegitimate of him to conclude what he concludes today and what “fracktivists” demand—that fracking, and really all oil and gas drilling, should be illegal, as if any technology that can be misused should be outlawed.
Any technology can be abused. As we have seen, people are dying right now because of bad practices in the wind turbine production chain. It is irrational to say that because a technology or practice can be abused, it ought not be used.
I call this the abuse-use fallacy. It is a blueprint for opposing any technology. For example, Fox could make Carland, which could show car crashes and then blame all of them on “Big Auto.” Then he could argue that because car crashes are possible, we don’t need cars. In fact, Fox could make a far more alarming movie than Gasland based on supposedly risk-free solar and wind technology. Imagine a scene at a rare-earth mine in a movie called Wasteland.
Defenders of fracking often point out that the “abusers” Fox cites are false attributions—the next fallacy we’ll discuss. But the pattern of argument would be wrong even if Fox wasn’t fabricating particular abuses; individual abuses do not prove that an entire technology should not be used—they prove it should not be abused.
The abuse-use fallacy is deadly because it can be used to attack anything a group opposes. As citizens, we hate to see even one coal mine accident, one spill of hazardous liquids, or one example of industry corruption, but we must use that feeling to advocate for proper laws and best practices, not to drive us to outlaw crucial technologies.
Read the full Alex Epstein article HERE!
reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/12/15
November 9, 2015
Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill
It’s been five years since BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and released 5 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmentalists are highlighting the disaster by pointing to the 800,000 birds that have died because of the spill in the five years since the disaster, but activists have been eerily silent about the fact that way more birds have been killed by wind turbines — a supposedly “eco-friendly” energy source.
The liberal blog Mother Jones reports that 800,000 birds have been killed and the Pelican population in the Gulf has decreased 12 percent. While the 2010 Gulf spill was indeed a horrible disaster, the number of birds that died pales in comparison the number killed in the last five years due to wind turbines.
A 2013 study found that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed every year by wind turbines — a figure 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009. These deaths have likely increased as wind power capacity increases across the country.
Since then, U.S. companies have only installed more wind power thanks to a now-expired tax credit for wind energy. The American Wind Energy Association said there was nearly 66 gigawatts of installed wind capacity in the U.S. as of 2014 — 17 times higher than wind capacity in 2001.
“As wind energy continues to expand, there is urgent need to improve fatality monitoring methods, especially in the implementation of detection trials, which should be more realistically incorporated into routine monitoring,” Smallwood reported in 2013.
In the time since the 2010 BP oil spill, some 2.9 million birds have been killed by wind turbines, using Smallwood’s figures, compared to only 800,000 that have been killed by the oil spill — the oil spill deaths are based on figures compiled by the news site Climate Desk. It should also be noted that wind turbines routinely kill federally protected birds and eagles.
Read the full article HERE!
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/9/15
November 7, 2015
How much land is enough for the feds?
How much land should the government own? Most Westerners don’t give it much thought, but stoically accept the reality that government owns almost all of the land around us. But in the nation’s capital there is a serious debate underway about it, for the first time in a century.
When I headed the Colorado Department of Natural Resources a decade ago, we faced a major funding hurdle — together with most other states — over an obscure public land program called the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It was created 50 years ago to dedicate some of the federal taxes from oil and gas leases to “recreational opportunities.” The fund has generated $16 billion over the years for federal land acquisition, and for grants to states for outdoor recreation facilities. Over time, federal land acquisition became far more important to the government. The original promise was that 60 percent would be for state projects, but last year more than 80 percent went for federal land purchases. The split has often been even worse for states, and in some years states have received nothing at all.
The LWCF expired in September, and there is an intriguing standoff in Congress, not about whether it should be reauthorized for several more years, but about whether to cancel it altogether. It is ironic that one of the most popular of all federal funding programs — because it funds things people actually want — is the subject of such heated debate. But LWCF is really just the excuse that triggered a festering argument. Just below the surface lie two prickly issues that have been smoldering for years.
First, the government owns 635 million acres of land, almost a third of the United States, nearly all of it in the West, and much of it underlain with energy and other vital resources. That includes 250 million acres of BLM land, 193 million acres of national forests, 84 million acres of national parks, and 150 million acres of national wildlife refuges.
More than 110 million acres of those lands are designated wilderness, not including all sorts of other management designations that prevent various uses of public lands — often without congressional approval. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service manages 540 wildlife refuges, but also 38 wetland management districts and 36,000 “waterfowl production areas.” There are Research Natural Areas, Cultural Resource Sites, Historic Sites, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Natural Landmarks, National Trails, National Marine Sanctuaries, Estuarine Sanctuaries, Biosphere Reserves, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, and Wetlands of International Importance.
Second, the government cannot manage the land it already owns, so many leaders question whether it still makes sense to buy more. The 2015 budget calls for purchase of 160 more parcels of land. Yet the Interior Department has a $20 billion backlog of deferred maintenance on land it already has. The Park Service estimates that nine of every 10 miles of park roads are crumbling, along with unsafe bridges and 6,500 miles of trails needing repairs. And more than 70 million acres of catastrophic fires attest to the utter failure of national forest management over the past decade.
The environmental lobby wants Congress to reauthorize LWCF to the tune of $900 million per year (triple the 2015 amount), but that seems unlikely at the moment. Some of those groups make at least part of their living off the program, by the way, buying land and then reselling it to the government at premium prices. But convincing Congress to simply renew a major land acquisition program — without at least some reform — is not only improbable, but unwise.
My own impression is that Congress ought to make the promise of funding important state projects a permanent part of the law, and perhaps use any federal portion to address the maintenance backlog.
A thinly-veiled part of this dispute is the political divide over whether government ownership is the only way, or even the best way, to preserve important landscapes. Beyond the obvious policy implications of government owning all the land, there is simply not enough money in the entire treasury to preserve all the remaining open space by buying it all.
Nevertheless, faced with a choice between better partnerships with landowners, or more federal land acquisition, the federal system invariably chooses the latter. I advised the congressional committee examining this issue that buying land just for the sake of public ownership was never the goal of LWCF. Taking care of lands the public already owns should come ahead of buying more.
Greg Walcher is president of the Natural Resources Group and author of “Smoking Them Out: The Theft of the Environment and How to Take it Back.” He is a Western Slope native.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/7/15
October 30, 2015
Ever wonder what the heck a “blog” is? Is it Dutch Footwear? Is it something that shoots out of your mouth during a coughing fit?
I am so honored that many of my aspiring writer friends have come to me seeking sound advice on how to write and maintain a blog.
This is ReaganGirl’s primer for blogging basics:
First, what is a blog? Well, it’s not something that shoots out of your mouth during a coughing fit. It’s not Dutch footwear. BLOG really means different things to different people. When Liberals are spewing their fabricated, psychedelic hooha along the information superhighway, it stands for Bestial Licentious Obama Gangsters. But now that Conservatives have mastered the light-speed autobahn of propaganda, BLOG stands for Bashing Liberal Ogres for God.
Make them interesting and controversial. Use catch terms like SHOCK, ZOMBIES, NAKED, TRAGEDY, DISASTER, SEX, LAWN GNOMES, TWERKING, HYSTERICS, APOCALYPSE, and every other graphic, politically-incorrect word that comes to mind
- “Naked Transgender Illegal Aliens Crash Trump Rally, Hurl Midgets at the Stage”
- “Aneurysm Apocalypse: How the Truth about the Iranian Nuke Deal will make Your Head Explode”
- “Hysterics, Hillary, and Words that Haunt: What Difference does it Make?”
- “Twerks and Jerks: Miley Cyrus’ Night on the Town with John Harwood”
- “Shock Exorcism: Priests Struggle to Free Blood-spurting Demon from Megyn Kelly”
- “Zombie Sightings at Hillary Campaign Events: With no living attendees, Hillary campaign places cutouts of dead movie stars in audience”
- “Newt Gingrich Caught Moonlighting as a Lawn Gnome”
- “Campaign of the Walking Dead: Bernie Sanders brings Communism and himself back from the dead for 2016 presidential run”
- “Earthquake Disaster in New Jersey: Chris Christie Takes a Nasty Fall in the Shower”
- “Sex in the City: Bedbugs Reproduce at Amazing Rate, Spread like Wildfire in the Big Apple”
- “Disappointed Climate Hysterics Commit Mass Suicide as Hurricane Patricia Peters-Out off Mexican Coast
Tags: Use tags to target certain types of readers.
Tags are keywords you place into your blog so that search engines will identify your posts and apply them to internet searches so people can find awesome crap on their computers. One technique is to group tags in such a way that they capture high traffic searches. For example:
- Mainstream Media, relocation, Gitmo
- Quentin Tarantino, scumbag, pariah
- Bernie Sanders, communist, cadaver
- John Harwood, sex, barnyard animals
- Caitlin, confused, still a man
- mental illness, Harry Reid, adult diapers
- testicles, Martin O’Malley, microscopes
- Black Lives Matter, George Soros, job seekers
- Obamacare, socialized medicine, mortuaries
Topics and Categories: Attract lots of suckers.
Your category titles should be a clue to the content of each different post. One category per post is usually enough. However, it is okay to pair your topic title, ie, politics, celebrities, lifestyle, parenting, fitness, recipes, with one of the highly popular categories; zombies, unnatural sex, world’s ugliest dog, mud wrestling, vampires, cannibalism. For example,
- Presidential debates, dog fights
- marriage, capital punishment
- pets, lonely people
- politics, zombies
- Mainstream media, communist propaganda
- fitness, cow-tipping
- lifestyle, vampires
- celebrities, brain death
- recipes, cannibalism
Edit carefully, spelling errors can kill you.
This passage is an example of poor grammar and factual inaccuracy.
- ” Buttcrack Yomamma, Harvurd Law Perfessor, and formr United Staetes Senatorr, haz a perfuct rekurd of hawnesty wile in offus. Hee wuz born in Hawayee, and haz the awthentik byrth certyfikut to show it! He is a faythfull Christun, and luvs Umerika. He haz been the pyllur ov ethuks and transparencee wyle in offus.”
Edit carefully, examine your facts, and make spell check your best friend. The following is an example of good grammar and factual veracity:
- “Barack Obama and his pleasantly plump wife have completely redecorated the White House. Its historical decor, rugs, curtains, paintings, fixtures and presidential china, have been replaced with items which can only be described as “Voodoo Chic.” Joe Biden also made significant contributions by renovating the East Wing into a Gay Bear Biker Saloon complete with a mud wrestling pit and hookah lounge. The new West Wing Food Court, recreated to meet the gastronomic needs of the plumpy-plump Michelle, is the White House version of a state fair, complete with fried-food booths, an alligator wrestling venue, and an all-you-can-eat ribs joint, occupying the space where the Oval Office once stood.”
Credibility is everything.
Finally, sell a unique, one-of-a-kind product.
As you formulate your public persona, reject the hackneyed labels that already exist on the internet. Internet readers are already saturated with blogs like these:
- Cage-free Transgender Librarians on Motorcycles
- Botox Central: The Aging Socialites of Aspen
- Survivors of Alien Butt Probes
- Copophobic Brain-dead Hollywood Directors
- Bitter Feminist Lesbian Furries
- Elect My Armpit
- Emotive Writers Who Think That Using Lower-case “i” Makes them Interesting
Give the American public the images and ideas for which they really hunger.
- People Who Work for a Living
- Men Who Love Women
- Women Who Love to Raise Children
- Happy Families
- Ammunition before Contraception
- Hot Cowboys in Tight Wranglers
- Bite Me You Freakin’ Liberal Idiots
- I Miss George Washington
- Capitol Hill Detox
For the truly adventurous, try an angle that is totally untouched. Explore the great emptiness of cyberspace with something completely untried such as;
- Honest Liberal Politicians
- Successful Democrat-run cities
- Good Socialism
- Successful Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaigns
- Hardworking Welfare Recipients
- How to Pass Good Legislation in the Senate
- Attractive Liberal Women
- How Marijuana Raises IQ
- Hot Liberal Cowboys in Tight Wranglers
- Liberals Who Clean Up Their Own Messes
Okay my friends, this is my gift of great writing expertise and wisdom to you. Blog your little brains out. Let me know how it goes.
By Marjorie Haun 10/30/15
Feds Want to Shut Off Oil & Gas Lights Near Parks
WASHINGTON (CN) – The National Park System has proposed updating 36-year-old regulations regarding oil and gas operations on its public lands. Monday’s action follows on the heels of a federal judge’s ruling at the end of September to delay a similar Bureau of Land Management action.
The NPS proposal includes rules for surface and groundwater contamination, fracking waste water disposal, disruption of wildlife, visitor hazards such as hyrogen sulfide gas, and views being spoiled by manmade items such as light pollution from operations’ burning “excess” natural gas, among other subjects.
Under the rule, the 60 percent of operations previously exempt from NPS oil and gas rules because they were “grandfathered” in when the rules were written, would no longer be exempt.
Both agencies are under the umbrella of the Department of Interior. In mid-March, Interior’s Secretary Sally Jewell announced the department’s intentions to support the Obama Administration’s ambitious clean energy and climate change reform agenda, and referenced both the recently stalled BLM action and the NPS proposed action.
“We will release a final rule related to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. The rule will include measures to protect our nation’s groundwater, requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use, and to safely recover and handle fluids used in the process,” she said of the BLM rule, then continued “I’m talking about places at the doorstep of Utah’s national parks, North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park or the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only should we actively avoid damaging special or sensitive places, but we should also permanently protect some areas for their conservation values. Future generations of Americans deserve to enjoy those incredible places, just like we do,”
The NPS proposal would apply to 534 non-federal oil and gas operations on a total of 12 NPS sites, and would address issues such as surface contamination, leaks, spills, odors, noise, disruption of wildlife migration routes, adverse effects on sensitive species, archaeological damage from blasting, and visitor safety hazards such as hydrogen sulfide gas, and explosions and fires from leaking oil and gas. Specific regulations concerning fracking impacts to water quality and waste water disposal are included in the proposal. Also of concern are impacts to the visitor experience, such as “viewshed” intrusions by roads, traffic, pipelines and drilling, and night sky intrusion from artificial lights and gas flares.
“Oil rigs are visible from several parts of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and natural gas flaring has punctured what was once one of the darkest night skies in the entire park system. Evidence suggests that the concentrated drilling operations in the Pinedale area south of Grand Teton National Park are associated with regional ozone problems in Grand Teton’s gateway, with pollution recorded at levels that cause respiratory problems,” Nicholas Lund, manager of the National Parks Conservation Association’s Landscape Conservation Program, said in the group’s response to the proposal.
The BLM final rule, published shortly after Secretary Jewell’s announcement, came under immediate fire from the oil and gas industry, as well as from the states of Wyoming, North Dakota and Colorado.
The legal issue cited in the Sept. 30 injunction by the U.S. District Court of Wyoming that delayed implementation of the BLM’s rule revolves around the federal agency’s authority to regulate these industries on state lands.
“We are pleased to see Judge Skavdahl agrees with our request to first hear the merits of our case before this final federal rule goes into effect. [The] decision is consistent with IPAA’s position that BLM’s efforts are not needed and that states are, and have for 60 years been, in the best position to safely regulate hydraulic fracturing,” Independent Petroleum Association of America’s President Barry Russell said in response to the ruling.
The NPS proposed rule closely follows the BLM regulation, but the parks agency took pains to emphasize the basis of its authority to do so, citing the NPS Organic Act, in which Congress mandated the agency “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the system units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the system units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations,” including the authority to put forth regulations “necessary or proper for the use and management of system units,” according to the action.
Comments on the proposal are due Dec. 28.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 10/27/15
October 22, 2015
Like everyone with a shred of human kindness, I’m worried about the survival of tigers. They’re legitimately endangered, that’s clear, and the reasons listed for their declining numbers are many; loss of habitat, poaching, and deadly interactions with humans. But what people are not talking about is why tiger habitat is lost, why humans have encroached further into the forests and swamps tigers traditionally call home, or why they’re killed for their body parts.
Tiger advocates, seemingly well-intended, take in hundreds of millions in donations each year by casting humans and human progress as the key villains threatening these wondrous big cats. The simplistic portrayal of conditions encroaching on tigers’ survival as; bad man vs good tiger, or evil human development vs pristine tiger habitat, is a formula that works to bring in the big bucks. But actually thinking about why, despite decades of heartrending media campaigns and countless millions of dollars, tiger populations, until recently, were plummeting to near extinction, is a different matter. And the answer to the question of tiger survival is not one bleeding-heart environmental non-profits want to talk about.
In 2010 India’s tiger populations began to stabilize, and have rebounded modestly since then. What has changed in India in recent years to cause this? Has the human population of India declined, opening up habitats where it once encroached? Not so much. India has undergone an economic transformation in recent years, and currently has one of the world’s fastest growing economies. It’s not a decrease in human population or a reversal in human progress that is giving tigers a glimpse of hope, but industrial and economic advances in this Asian democracy.
India now produces automobiles, fossil fuels, and is emerging as a world leader in hi-tech companies, banking and consumer goods. So why isn’t the tiger completely extinct considering the boom in India’s economic activity–including energy production and manufacturing–and a human population that holds an upward trend? Because democracy, industrialization and free-market economic activities are good for species that require special protections and care from humans. India’s tiger management practices were updated, farming practices are undergoing modernization, using new technologies and better plant strains that require less acreage and water.
Despite benefits from growing economies in the Indian subcontinent, and modern industrial practices in farming and manufacturing, tigers in all parts of Asia are still swimming in dire straits because of poaching. Poachers kill tigers, especially breeding-age males, for their fur, glands, testicles, and other body parts which are marketed as folk remedies for everything from curing disease to enhancing virility.
It may take more than free-market economics and industrial progress to stem the threat poaching poses to tigers in Asia. A good dose of Western culture may be the answer. Think of it this way; “folk remedies” are often founded in superstition where voids exist in the understanding of objective scientific fact. Scientific processes; hypothesis, research, testing, patient trials, bring us the pharmaceuticals that treat illness, reverse the ravages of disease, and make impotent men virile. Western medicine is based in reason. Western civilization is based reason as well. So long as superstitions linger in backward civilizations whose thinking is lagging behind industrial modernization, things like tiger poaching for body parts to make folk remedies will linger.
Saying that Viagara– and the science and reason that have gone into its development–could save the tiger from extinction is not unreasonable. Modern medical practices which supplant superstition and folk medicine, along with industrialization, modern technology, democratic governments, and free markets, enhance human life in countless ways. In a time when industry is cleaner, more efficient, and more cognizant of its impact on animals and the environment than ever before, species, such as the tiger, are endangered not by a human progress, but by the absence of it.
by Marjorie Haun 10/22/15
October 13, 2015
In a case of serendipitous happenstance, the details of which we cannot disclose, Reagangirl.com has obtained a list of questions prepared by CNN whose moderators will confront the Democrats at tonight’s debate. Below are the incisive and heavy-hitting inquiries you can expect from CNN.
Unfortunately, we don’t know the complete order in which the questions will be posed to Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, or Hillary Clinton, but here they are:
- Red Vines or Twizzlers?
- Would you lift the restrictions on SPAM in Afghanistan?
- What would you do about the Doritos shortage in Colorado?
- Do you find women’s underwear to be oppressive? (Sanders will go first on this one)
- What’s cuter, kittens or wombats?
- What measures should be taken to stop the alarming increase of foot blisters in the Military?
- Does Putin turn you on, just a little?
- Is there anything more evil in the world than fossil fuels, and if so, why do you hate mass murderers?
- Please choose the top two most important services Planned Parenthood provides: 1. dog washing 2.pedicures for the homeless 3.providing cookies for church Bingo night 4.square dance lessons 5. classes on urban squash farming
- What will you do to protect America from the Tea Party?
- Do you wax or shave?
- If you had a Soviet KGB name, what would it be?
- Who’s your favorite Communist of the 20th Century?
- Will you redecorate the West Wing when you’re elected.
And finally, to close out the night with the question that has been on Americans’ minds for the last 7 years…
15. If you could be a Disney princess, which one would you be?
God bless the Democrats and their paid marketing wing, the media.
posted by Marjorie Haun 10/13/15