Shoot a moose; save the planet!
A full-grown moose belches and farts the methane equivalent of 2,100kg of carbon dioxide a year — equal to about 8,000 miles of car travel. Shoot a moose and save the carbon footprint equivalent of two flights between Oslo, Norway and Santiago, Chile.
Had the Democrats been aware of this perhaps they would not have made quite so much fun of Sarah Palin’s moos-hunting prowess.
(Source for moose-emission information: London Times, August 23, 2007; “Moose with wind are worse than gas guzzlers.”)
— Gretchen L. Chellson
Capitalism demands responsibility from the owners of property; socialism calls for collective responsibility from someone.
As a home owner, I am the one who suffers most, and most directly, from any neglect of my property. Logic and self-interest demand that I maintain all aspects of the property so that I can maximize its value. Any actions, or inactions, that bring about devaluation of the property are counter- productive. By maintaining the value of my own property a secondary effect occurs: I add to the value of the neighborhood. This too is in my self-interest since having good relationships with the neighbors can add enjoyment to my living experience in the community. Free market advocates, from Smith to Friedman, patriots, from Washington to Reagan, philosophers, from Aristotle to Rand, and fans of freedom have understood the principle of self-interest and embraced it for centuries. Leftists, from before Marx and continuing on to Obama, object to private property, and they cannot see that this rejection has a direct and negative effect on the environment they claim to love.
The logic is simple but it escapes the left’s intellectual grasp (or to state a cynical perspective: the Loony Left fully understands it, but they are so obsessed with power, they speak disingenuously or dissemble without restraint): if everyone owns the land then no one truly owns it. Environmental damage goes uncontained; responsibility for the land is so nebulous that responsibility is rendered effectively meaningless. No one stops to maintain the land because someone (anyone but me) will do it later. This position, someone else and some other time, is logical from the collective ownership perspective: since I (any individual) can only take a percentage of good from the commons, my investment is diluted by all others who take from it without making a similar investment. It is, therefore, logical to maximize my use of the commons with making the least possible investment into said commons.
As an inner-city teacher, I have entered and observed numerous school buildings. The buildings where students feel they have an investment in learning and in the institutions itself are the ones least scarred with graffiti and other forms of destruction. When students, as well as most other human beings, have a feeling of ownership, they not only maintain the environment, they enforce the rules of common decency and civility within that property. When the students feel alienated and lack attachment to the learning process and facility, they lay waste to the building in a fashion that would make the Vandals and Visigoths proud.
If you want to celebrate Mother Earth, embrace capitalism. It’s good for you and it is good for your Mother.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
BULLY FOR HIM
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khruschev:
Of course, Nixon lived and worked out of the United States. He didn’t work for or live under the rule of Khruschev. One cannot conceive one of Khruschev’s underlings speaking to him in that manner — or, at least, not until one of these underlings removed him from power and took his place.
— Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” — Baudelaire
Would not the true messiah recognize the devil when he shakes the devil’s hand?
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
NOT EXACTLY AN ENDORSEMENT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s The Arrogance of His Power:
Yes, early on Obama poked his head out to see if the coast was clear to attack America. Undoubtedly pleased and surprised no one chopped it off, and encouraged by the warm appeasement of his vituperative remarks by the evil big media, the beast is slowly emerging farther out of his hole to vent progressively the full vials of his bottled up hatred against his own country.
— Robert Henderson
BLEEDING INK AND MONEY
Re: Nicole Russell’s The Sinking Strib:
Better and better.
Spring has returned even to my step. The swooping birds sing. Bees buzz the blossoms. The market has spoken…rebukingly.
As the great American philosopher Nelson Mundt says, “HA-ha!”
— David Govett
SEAL OF DISAPPROVAL
Re: George Neumayr’s Brave New Barbarism:
Four pirates threaten on the sea.
A Seal’s bullet; now there are three.
Three pirates yet; a motley crew.
Hot lead leaves Seal; now there are two.
Perhaps the end is evident.
Pirates to hell will be Seal-sent.
— David Govett
BECAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS
Re: Andrew Cline’s It’s Way Past Tea Party Time:
How did it become “fair” for an American family to give to government a third of its income?
Let me word the question correctly.
What makes us think government can take so much as a penny?
— Mark Yannone
PHISHING FOR COMPLIMENTS
Re: Bill Croke’s What’s a Conservative Deadhead to Do:
What does a Dead Head say when the grass runs out? Man, this music sucks!
— Robert Reynolds
AXELROD OF EVIL
Re: Peter Hannford’s Obama’s Tea-Leaf Readers:
It is amazing to me that David Axelrod, until recently the head of a successful PR firm, is now, suddenly, the “guru” on all matters government. One wonders how much of Obama’s policies are the brainchildren of Axelrod and his ilk. Scary, isn’t it?
— Robert Mandraccia
Ft Myers, Florida