Ammo For Sale

« « Taser & Background Checks | Home | What’s missing from this story? » »

In the news today…

Today we learn that “Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours.”

“Su Taylor, the press officer for the Vegetarian Society, told New Scientist: “Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints, but one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat.”

Hmmm….the Vegetarian Society cares about Global Warming? Who knew?

In other news, we see at the Huffington Puffington Post, Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour. Max Blumenthal has a video piece on “a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders.” The Chickenhawk paradox is one of the great philosophical debates of all time. Perhaps the great philosopher Toby Keith will write a song about the bravery of our protesters. They are the real patriots aren’t they?

Blumenthal makes an interesting point, why should we be fighting them “over there”? Which makes you wonder if Blumenthal would prefer that we fight them “over here”? Whether or not you agree with Max Blumenthal no one can doubt his courage.

34 Responses to “In the news today…”

  1. Greg Morris Says:

    They can take my steak… from my cold dead hands…. er um. yeah.

  2. countertop Says:

    Except what they don’t tell you is that the same UN report they cite praised US production systems (while the enviros and anti animals guys attack it) because the US livestock and therefore provide a means of capturing emissions (and are capturing emissions).

    What the UN was worried about were so called “free range” animals – which is the condition of most livestock in the rest of the world (and specifically Africa).

  3. Madrocketscientist Says:

    Greg,

    If you have a steak in your cold dead hands, and it is still good, I bet I could warm it up and enjoy it :-)

    As for the ChickenHawks

    I would have had a much different view of the war in Iraq if I saw more of the people who called for it and cried for the need of it putting their own asses on the front line.

  4. Manish Says:

    Hmmm….the Vegetarian Society cares about Global Warming? Who knew?

    People become vegetarians for a number of reasons. Some are ethical, some are resource-related. It takes on the order of 10 lb of feed to create 1lb of beef. I know a couple of people who are vegetarians on the grounds of the resources that it takes to produce meat. Some of them will eat seafood as seafood has less of an impact on the environment.

  5. #9 Says:

    I would have had a much different view of the war in Iraq if I saw more of the people who called for it and cried for the need of it putting their own asses on the front line.

    Please correct my memory if I am mistaken, the United States, the UN, and the World told Saddam Hussein very clearly that he must allow inspectors in Iraq and Hussein choose to play games until time ran out. This went on for a very long time.

    Who chose this war? Saddam Hussein did. Has this been forgotten or just revised?

    If I also remember correctly the great majority of people in this country wanted those inspections and supported U.S. Armed Forces making those inspections if negotiations with Hussein failed.

    The Chickenhawk reductio absurdum gambit is asinine because it depends on revising history.

  6. BobG Says:

    “Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours.”

    How much greenhouse gas does a whining Su Taylor generate?

  7. markm Says:

    If I switched from beef to beans, I would probably produce enough methane to make up for the cows…

  8. Phelps Says:

    I was thinking the same as markm, where is the study on how much greenhouse gas is produced by the farm making all the beans for your lentil soup, and then how much is produced by your diet that relies on it?

  9. Lyle Says:

    This flatulence bit goes way back, but a mere 10 to 12 years ago there was that futurist sci-fi TV show about that submarine with the talking dolphin as part of the crew. In one episode it came up that one of the crew had been illegally eating hamburgers– beef had been banned because of all the bovine farts…

    Damned good thing we slaughtered all those buffalo back in the 1800s. Who knew we were helping Mother Earth in the process? Now what about bears, deer, elk and moose? Maybe we need to hunt more so as to reduce their fart output.

    Bill Whittle at ejectejecteject.com put to rest the whole chickenhawk mantra a long time ago in his essay, “Seeing the Unseen”. In short: If you can only support the war if you serve in the military, that pretty well nukes the whole Constitutional concept of having a civilian-controlled military doesn’t it? Furthermore, it would mean that only military people should be deciding what to do in Iraq. Since they are overwhelmingly in favor of completing the current missions, it means we stay as long as it takes.

    If only those who serve may comment on the war, it also means that the leftist anti-war, anti-American BDS types should be the first to shut their festering pie holes. Not being military people, they are the most unqualified bunch in the country when it comes to commenting on the military or its missions.

  10. Metulj Says:

    “If I also remember correctly the great majority of people in this country wanted those inspections and supported”

    Was there a vote I missed?

  11. #9 Says:

    Lyle, that post from Bill Whittle at ejectejecteject.com is a must read. I really appreciate you posting that. I know a lot of people here may have already seen that but it was a first for me and it is very well written and thought out.

    Some highlights from Bill Whittle’s post SEEING THE UNSEEN Part 1:

    The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

    The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

    If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

    But wait! There’s more!

    If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

    Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

    Salute to Bill Whittle. That is fine writing. Thanks Lyle for a great link.

  12. Lyle Says:

    We get some insight into the Leftist mentality from the following bumper sticker I often see near the local natural foods co-op:

    “Thank you for not breeding”

    They see humanity as an ugly stain on an otherwise pristine and beautiful Earth. Accordingly, they want to reduce human activity and reduce the human population.

    To them, anything people do, or especially anything that makes people successful, capable, or is enjoyable, needs to be attacked, defaced, taxed, and eventually stamped out.

  13. Metulj Says:

    >“Thank you for not breeding”

    This assumes that they are talking about humans.

  14. #9 Says:

    “Thank you for not breeding”

    Metulj I have often wondered about this. The conservatives and libertarians breed like rabbits. Yet the liberal/progressives etc will actually think about that bumper sticker and some will succumb to it’s logic. That Mother Earth is more important.

    You love to quote Dr. Strangelove Metulj, do you not see the inherent “mineshaft gap”?

  15. Metulj Says:

    “Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state.”

    And Heinlein was no libertarian either. Bad source from a children’s book.

  16. gattsuru Says:

    “I know a couple of people who are vegetarians on the grounds of the resources that it takes to produce meat.”

    World hunger doesn’t occur because we have too few resources. There’s more than enough food to have every single human on the planet be obese just with current output.

    The problem is trying to actually get that food in place. See Somalia, et all. Africa has incredible resources available, they just aren’t actually used properly if at all.

  17. Metulj Says:

    I’ve am a firm proponent of total fertility rates of 2.1.

  18. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    Africa has incredible resources available, they just aren’t actually used properly if at all.

    This is not exactly correct. The statement as written suggests that Africa simply lacks the infrastructure to harvest and distribute those resources. This passive problem is true, but is not the actual cause of the problem. The cause is that the gov’t actively pursues using the lack of resources as a weapon against their subjects. They redirect the resources away from their enemies and toward their goons as political favors.

    Famine is no longer about a simple lack of food, but intentional murder by the gov’t.

  19. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    What I want to know is why all those who want to enforce our laws aren’t signing up to be policemen.

    Especially those that want to create new laws. How dare they send other peoples kids to go out and enforce them and not be willing to do it themselves.

    I propose all lawmakes be policemen.

    I, for one, welcome our police state overlords.

  20. #9 Says:

    I’ve am a firm proponent of total fertility rates of 2.1.

    Including wingnuts?

  21. chris Says:

    Max’s dad, Sid, who was Clinton’s apologist in chief during his second administration, sued Drudge for $30,000,000 for libel.

    Sid ultimately paid Drudge $2,500 in court-imposed sanctions so he could drop his own suit against Drudge.

    Then, reminiscent of his theatrics in front of the D. C. Grand Jury courthouse after his Grand Jury testimony, he issued a statement saying that he and his family could pay no more to defend themselves against the evil Drudge, ignoring the inconvenient fact that it was he who was suing Drudge.

    Always a victim.

  22. Lyle Says:

    I know what “Thank you for not breeding” means.

    This meme first came to my attention as an elementary school student in the early 1960s, but it probably goes back much farther. In school we were taught to live in morbid fear of the ticking “Population time bomb” which was going to wipe out civilization as we know it.

    Its been furthered with international birth-control efforts, held up as the answer to world poverty, and so on.

    More recently its been pick up by the socialist, man-hating, enviro-fascist movement, who, by the way, have a higher rate of militant vegetarians among them.

  23. Metulj Says:

    Including wingnuts?

    The proportions remain the same as a TFR of 2.1 is merely replacement. The US has a TFR of 2.1. The population only grows because of immigration.

    More recently its been pick up by the socialist, man-hating, enviro-fascist movement, who, by the way, have a higher rate of militant vegetarians among them.

    Yes, the Three Rivers Market is a hotbed of crypto-communist fifth columnists. Market?

  24. straightarrow Says:

    em>Famine is no longer about a simple lack of food, but intentional murder by the gov’t.

    Wouldn’t that fall under improper use? Just as the original point was made.

  25. #9 Says:

    More recently its been pick up by the socialist, man-hating, enviro-fascist movement, who, by the way, have a higher rate of militant vegetarians among them.

    It is a flashback to the days of the Chicken Little experts. DDT, overpopulation, the Ozone Layer, Nuclear Power Plants, processed foods, chemical additives, stress, coffee, alcohol, meat, poultry, pork, Global Cooling, plastics, cars, sex, motorcycles, bikes, computer radiation, junk food, lack of sex, Global Warming and the beat goes on.

    Of course the humorous part is when revisions occur. Now coffee and alcohol are good for you. In moderation of course. And who decides what moderation is?

    Chicken Little experts of course.

    There is no measure of the gullibility of hippies. They want to believe. This makes them the easiest marks. Thank God for those that don’t have the need to believe. They serve a purpose few appreciate. Belief should be earned.

  26. Metulj Says:

    Belief should be earned.

    Now we know how Joan of Arc felt.

  27. #9 Says:

    It looks like there is a response to this post.

    What a response it is:

    Hari mingled in with the NR faithful who, unaware that he was a reporter, provided him with material like this:

    I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, ” Of course, we need to execute some of these people,” I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. “A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country,” she says. “Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that’s what you’ll get.” She squints at the sun and smiles. ” Then things’ll change.”

    And, at a dinner Hari attended on the first day:

    To my left, I find a middle-aged Floridian with a neat beard. To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parkers, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones. “You must live near the UN building,” the Floridian says to one of the New York ladies after the entree is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. “They should suicide-bomb that place,” he says. They all chuckle gently. How did that happen? How do you go from sweet to suicide-bomb in six seconds?

    Metulj, we understand some on the very far right might be just as crazy as some on the very far left.

  28. #9 Says:

    Chickenhawk Part II

  29. Metulj Says:

    “we understand some on the very far right might be just as crazy as some on the very far left.”

    Are you in therapy? Self-awareness is a wonderful thing.

  30. #9 Says:

    Self-actualization is a wonderful thing. All people have self-awareness.

  31. SemiPundit Says:

    The classic Chickenhawk Parry Defense that the messenger is being confused with the message is the last slender thread available to those unwilling to fully support the administration’s military policy in the Middle East. There is nowhere else to go in the discussion. Either you are willing to serve in the work or go on to something else safer and more rewarding in which you are far more likely to be alive several decades from now.

    No one is insisting that such individuals serve, only that they have honorable and justifiable reasons not to do so.

  32. SemiPundit Says:

    When will politicians, media personalities, and country singers start calling for recruiting to help alleviate the problem of multiple tours? Not once have I seen or heard one of them make a patriotic call for service.

  33. #9 Says:

    That is such limited thinking. So the extension is only school teachers can serve on the school board? That is just the opposite of what people are saying now.

    It is one thing to be against the war, but the chickenhawk gambit is a fools errand. It is not a logical construct. It’s appeal is emotion. Whether or not someone has served in the Armed Forces they have every right to expect and demand from our government that the nation be secured and protected from those who wish to do harm to America and Americans.

    The chickenhawk thesis really states that no nation can have an army unless all people serve. It is an anti-war Utopian fantasy. Before you ask if I am pro-war, I am not. However, I have every right to demand the Armed Forces protect the country. They have to have troops to do that. If you feel a better answer is to reinstate the draft, then make that point.

  34. SemiPundit Says:

    Reinstatement of the draft at this time would provide an unlimited supply of young men to this deranged regime–young men, of course, who lack the connections to run out the clock drunk in frathouses.

    Here’s what I propose that those fervent supporters who opt out might do: Spend some time in our military hospitals helping amputees to the bathroom, drop by and visit a widow and two toddlers, and maybe attend a funeral or two.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives