Sunday, July 27, 2014
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Friday, December 10, 2010
Taking aim at Sarah Palin
So I guess Sarah Palin has some stupid reality show. And I guess on this reality show she shot a caribou in Alaska. Well, as you can imagine, the liberal press took aim at Palin.
On Huffington Post Aaron Sorkin wrote In Her Defense, I’m Sure the Moose Had It Coming. (Before even reading the article you have to wonder what credibility some big city yuppy has when he doesn’t even know the difference between a moose and a caribou). In this piece, Sorkin responds to Palin’s tweet that “Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation.” In this bit, Sorkin explains that he does eat meat and use other animal products. He states:
Okay, so we’ve established that Sorkin likes to eat meat but doesn’t like killing animals. I suppose that’s a fair thing to say, as I’d prefer someone kill my meat for me too. But where I don’t track is that he’s condemning the killer.
I fail to see the difference between someone who hunts for meat and a butcher. Both kill animals. One kills it so he can eat it; the other one kills so you can eat it. Either way, a man kills an animal for its meat. Don’t pretend that someone who does it for themselves is any more evil than someone who kills it for you. I can’t help but simply Sorkin’s position to: “I love eating meat but I hate animals dying.” I have little respect for that position, as I’ll explain later.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd took a few shots too in her piece Pass the Caribou Stew. Dowd points out that Palin doesn’t need to hunt to fill her freezer with meat. Well, of course not. Few Americans do.
This seems to be a prevailing attitude. Someone replied to my post on the Sorkin article by saying hunting is only okay in his mind if the only other alternative is starving:
But I don’t see what difference that makes whether you’re starving or you’re hunting instead of buying a side of beef. Look, I’m not saying we shouldn’t criticize Palin for using killing of an animal for political gain, or for her snotty quote about how we shouldn’t condemn her. But we shouldn’t be attacking anyone for hunting and eating the meat.
Hunting is better for animals, our environment, and our health than buying most of the meat available at supermarkets. Wild game is free-range and organic. Hunting is more humane. Hear me out. Shooting an animal might not be a better way to go than a blow to the head in a slaughter yard. However, there's absolutely no question the animal the animal led a better life than the hormone and antibiotic full cow in the stockyard or the genetically-modified chicken in a tiny tent with hundreds of other birds. Hunting is better for the environment. There are no environmental contaminants in processing. Game doesn’t eat processed grains, grown in environmentally destructive mega-farms. The carbon footprint is often smaller. Most our meat is imported from far away placed like New Zealand or Argentina. Hunting is quite sustainable at its current levels. Elk and deer herds are growing despite all the hunting tags the wildlife agencies give out. It wouldn’t be sustainable if everyone hunted for their food, but I’d argue our current mass-produced meat isn’t sustainable either. The meat is better for the health of my family. Seems like a win-win to me.
I also like hunting because it forces a person to realize that an animal has to die in order for them to obtain meat. I believe this connection, as obvious as it is, is lost to some people. Read the comments on the Sorkin thread and you’ll see that’s the case. I’d rather have someone fully know and realize than animal must die to provide meat instead of a bunch of holier-than-thou liberals thinking they support animal rights because they’re not the one pulling the trigger.
Now there’s definitely a chance that Palin won’t be eating this caribou. If she doesn’t then we I’ll jump on the bandwagon and take aim at her too. I draw a major distinction between trophy hunting and hunting for meat.
In Moffat County, a man recently shot a 703 pound black bear. He shot the hibernating bear in its cave. Now bear tags are apparently issued during the fall/winter for some reason, which is not this man’s fault. But still it makes me sick that this guy can brag about bagging this bear. Killing a sleeping bear make you feel like a man now, buddy? I have no issue with comparisons of Michael Vick and trophy hunters. But I do have an issue with liberal yuppies gulping up factory chicken that someone killed for them while condemning those who kill meat for themselves.
On Huffington Post Aaron Sorkin wrote In Her Defense, I’m Sure the Moose Had It Coming. (Before even reading the article you have to wonder what credibility some big city yuppy has when he doesn’t even know the difference between a moose and a caribou). In this piece, Sorkin responds to Palin’s tweet that “Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation.” In this bit, Sorkin explains that he does eat meat and use other animal products. He states:
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them.
Okay, so we’ve established that Sorkin likes to eat meat but doesn’t like killing animals. I suppose that’s a fair thing to say, as I’d prefer someone kill my meat for me too. But where I don’t track is that he’s condemning the killer.
I fail to see the difference between someone who hunts for meat and a butcher. Both kill animals. One kills it so he can eat it; the other one kills so you can eat it. Either way, a man kills an animal for its meat. Don’t pretend that someone who does it for themselves is any more evil than someone who kills it for you. I can’t help but simply Sorkin’s position to: “I love eating meat but I hate animals dying.” I have little respect for that position, as I’ll explain later.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd took a few shots too in her piece Pass the Caribou Stew. Dowd points out that Palin doesn’t need to hunt to fill her freezer with meat. Well, of course not. Few Americans do.
This seems to be a prevailing attitude. Someone replied to my post on the Sorkin article by saying hunting is only okay in his mind if the only other alternative is starving:
Given the choice between eating factory meat and hunting, hunting is by far the more irresponsi¬ble, unsustaina¬ble and selfish choice. In America, you do not need to hunt for food. And if you don't need to do it, yet you do it anyway, then you are killing for fun. Simple as that.
But I don’t see what difference that makes whether you’re starving or you’re hunting instead of buying a side of beef. Look, I’m not saying we shouldn’t criticize Palin for using killing of an animal for political gain, or for her snotty quote about how we shouldn’t condemn her. But we shouldn’t be attacking anyone for hunting and eating the meat.
Hunting is better for animals, our environment, and our health than buying most of the meat available at supermarkets. Wild game is free-range and organic. Hunting is more humane. Hear me out. Shooting an animal might not be a better way to go than a blow to the head in a slaughter yard. However, there's absolutely no question the animal the animal led a better life than the hormone and antibiotic full cow in the stockyard or the genetically-modified chicken in a tiny tent with hundreds of other birds. Hunting is better for the environment. There are no environmental contaminants in processing. Game doesn’t eat processed grains, grown in environmentally destructive mega-farms. The carbon footprint is often smaller. Most our meat is imported from far away placed like New Zealand or Argentina. Hunting is quite sustainable at its current levels. Elk and deer herds are growing despite all the hunting tags the wildlife agencies give out. It wouldn’t be sustainable if everyone hunted for their food, but I’d argue our current mass-produced meat isn’t sustainable either. The meat is better for the health of my family. Seems like a win-win to me.
I also like hunting because it forces a person to realize that an animal has to die in order for them to obtain meat. I believe this connection, as obvious as it is, is lost to some people. Read the comments on the Sorkin thread and you’ll see that’s the case. I’d rather have someone fully know and realize than animal must die to provide meat instead of a bunch of holier-than-thou liberals thinking they support animal rights because they’re not the one pulling the trigger.
Now there’s definitely a chance that Palin won’t be eating this caribou. If she doesn’t then we I’ll jump on the bandwagon and take aim at her too. I draw a major distinction between trophy hunting and hunting for meat.
In Moffat County, a man recently shot a 703 pound black bear. He shot the hibernating bear in its cave. Now bear tags are apparently issued during the fall/winter for some reason, which is not this man’s fault. But still it makes me sick that this guy can brag about bagging this bear. Killing a sleeping bear make you feel like a man now, buddy? I have no issue with comparisons of Michael Vick and trophy hunters. But I do have an issue with liberal yuppies gulping up factory chicken that someone killed for them while condemning those who kill meat for themselves.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tea Party Hypocrites
In the latest political poll in Colorado, respondents were asked their opinion of the Tea Party. They were asked if they viewed the Tea Party favorably (37%), unfavorably (29%), neutral (21%), or no opinion(14%). Then the other poll questions were run up against these categories. This is where it gets interesting. Let’s take a look at three questions.
The first question was: Are Colorado's current laws on medical marijuana ... too loose? Too restrictive? Or just about right? 61% of people with a favorable opinion of the TP believe marijuana laws are too loose. Only 37% of people with an unfavorable opinion of the TP think the laws are too loose. What happened to “keep the government out of our lives!”? What happened to personal freedom?
Another question asked: Should Colorado pass an immigration law similar to the one recently passed in Arizona? Or not? Not surprisingly, 91% of TP supporters thought Colorado should pass such a law. 28% of people unfavorable to the TP thought Colorado should pass such a law. So here we have the small government cheerleaders advocating expanding a government agency, thousands more government jobs (you know, those jobs that don’t count as “real jobs”), and billions more in government spending.
But this one is the kicker. Finally, the respondents were asked, Who should be responsible for cleaning up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico? British Petroleum? The federal government? Both BP and the federal government? Or someone else? While 75% of people viewing the TP unfavorably said BP should be responsible for the cleanup, only 50% of TP supporters agreed, fewer than any other TP category.
This makes me sick. So much for the government staying out of the private sector. The private sector screws up and now the government is responsible for it? Excuse me? How does that jive with your talking points? A group preaching small government would make the government accountable for the private sector's mistake. What, is the philosophy that the government should stay the heck out of the way and let industry have free reign, but then when the private sector messes up, taxpayers are responsible?
And Tea Partiers profess to be “libertarian.” Bullshit. I can tell you with certainty at least 50% are complete and utter frauds. We’ve already seen TPs support cutting government programs but don’t you dare touch my Medicare or Social Security. Now we see it again. It looks pretty clear they’re a bunch of raging hypocrites.
Pick your favorite new theme for the Tea Party:
“Big government for me. Small government for everybody else.”
“Keep government out of the private sector; well, except make tax payers responsible for the bill when they fuck up.”
“We want accountability from our government but expect none from the private sector.”
“Keep government out of our lives! But not out of the lives of Mexicans or pot smokers who are minding their own business.”
“The Tea Party: Gimme mine but screw you.”
The first question was: Are Colorado's current laws on medical marijuana ... too loose? Too restrictive? Or just about right? 61% of people with a favorable opinion of the TP believe marijuana laws are too loose. Only 37% of people with an unfavorable opinion of the TP think the laws are too loose. What happened to “keep the government out of our lives!”? What happened to personal freedom?
Another question asked: Should Colorado pass an immigration law similar to the one recently passed in Arizona? Or not? Not surprisingly, 91% of TP supporters thought Colorado should pass such a law. 28% of people unfavorable to the TP thought Colorado should pass such a law. So here we have the small government cheerleaders advocating expanding a government agency, thousands more government jobs (you know, those jobs that don’t count as “real jobs”), and billions more in government spending.
But this one is the kicker. Finally, the respondents were asked, Who should be responsible for cleaning up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico? British Petroleum? The federal government? Both BP and the federal government? Or someone else? While 75% of people viewing the TP unfavorably said BP should be responsible for the cleanup, only 50% of TP supporters agreed, fewer than any other TP category.
This makes me sick. So much for the government staying out of the private sector. The private sector screws up and now the government is responsible for it? Excuse me? How does that jive with your talking points? A group preaching small government would make the government accountable for the private sector's mistake. What, is the philosophy that the government should stay the heck out of the way and let industry have free reign, but then when the private sector messes up, taxpayers are responsible?
And Tea Partiers profess to be “libertarian.” Bullshit. I can tell you with certainty at least 50% are complete and utter frauds. We’ve already seen TPs support cutting government programs but don’t you dare touch my Medicare or Social Security. Now we see it again. It looks pretty clear they’re a bunch of raging hypocrites.
Pick your favorite new theme for the Tea Party:
“Big government for me. Small government for everybody else.”
“Keep government out of the private sector; well, except make tax payers responsible for the bill when they fuck up.”
“We want accountability from our government but expect none from the private sector.”
“Keep government out of our lives! But not out of the lives of Mexicans or pot smokers who are minding their own business.”
“The Tea Party: Gimme mine but screw you.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
