The rush to make money has once again worsened an existing problem.
The U.N., and others, is warning the world that water resources, already strained by over population, will become even more scarce from the increased production of corn and other crops for biofuels.
Also, since more corn is being sold to biofuel producers, diverting it away from food producers, the price of corn for food is increasing. The price of every other crop that is being diverted away from traditional uses to biofuel production is going up as well.
Winners and losers? In the short term, the winners are the farmers who convert their lands to grow more palm trees, more sugar cane, more of anything that biofuel producers will buy. In the long term, the losers are those very same farmers, along with anyone else who requires food. It may sound like a bit of an over-simplification and melodramatic, but it is true.
These problems and others, such as increased pollution from the increased use of synthetic fertilizers to support the additional crops and the conversion of forests into agricultural lands, have been discussed in length by ecologists, scientists, farmers, food producers, environmentalists and bloggers who can see beyond the need to make an extra buck, for quite some time now.
I don’t mean to get down on those poor countries who are struggling to make more money. They need to eat too. But their shortsightedness is going to affect everyone else. Using more land that hastens the shortage of one of our most limited resources and polluting it even more borders on lunacy.
The use of biofuels is a double-edged sword. It is better for the environment than fossil fuels and it increases energy security for many countries. The pitfalls affect social as well as environmental issues.
New studies from scientists, private agencies and governments are saying biofuels could do more harm than good. Instead of helping the environment, deforestation to grow more energy crops is increasing the threat of global warming.
Converting more land to agricultural use will prevent an ever increasing population from finding land to build homes on.
Pollution from synthetic fertilizers creates the need for more water purification systems which takes up more land.
There needs to be controls put in place to decrease the competition of agricultural lands in order to maintain a percentage of land for food production only. Developing countries will benefit most from this.
We need to look at long term solutions and not jump on the first immediate answer. How many times have individuals been burned in their personal lives by doing exactly this? When are we going to learn from our mistakes. This mistake is global and will have global consequences.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Drug use is violence
Drug violence in other countries is spurred on by American citizens.
There is no denying it, drug use in this country directly supports murder and other violence in the countries where the drugs come from. Drug use in this country supports murder and other violence in this country.
Gangs are supported directly and indirectly by our drug use (not just heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana or cocaine, but ecstasy and steroids too). You can access any news source in the world and read about how drug trafficking has claimed another life, either by taking the drug or killing to control the traffic of the drug.
People find themselves doing things for drugs that they never would have considered doing before their drug addiction. Stealing from others, prostituting themselves, submitting their free will. These are extremes that we have all heard of that are definitive reasons against drug use. Those ‘casual’ drug users who haven’t reached these extremes are just as guilty of sustaining the drug trade and therefore the violence that supports it.
Is the high worth it? People who do drugs do so for a few very selfish reasons. They want to ‘feel good’, they want to escape from reality, they do it because their friends do it and therefore think it is ‘cool’ to be one of the crowd.
Our legal system is not curtailing drug use. The threat of jail time or financial loss due to fines or losing a job or even their family and the stigma that goes with these losses is not enough to stop most drug users.
Society is approaching the illegal use of drugs from the wrong direction. Education is not working. Scare tactics don’t work. Drug users come from loving families that communicate with each other as well as from abusive households so that isn’t working either.
A personal choice. The potential user needs to ask whether doing this drug is going to improve my life. And I don’t mean in the way that it provides a temporary escape. This is not improving anything. I mean, is doing drugs going to make me a better person. It might make you feel like you are the ‘life of the party’ but again, that is only temporary and it comes at a very high price. What if the answer is ‘I don’t care if it makes me a better person’?
Too many young people are getting sucked into the mystique of the drug culture. The glamour needs to be dispelled. Whatever draw there is to starting drugs that first time needs to be identified and examined so that we can finally put a halt to the useless and expensive incarceration of the user (save tax dollars by not having to support them while in jail), clear space in rehab centers for others, lessen the demand for drugs so gangs in foreign countries and the U.S. cannot make a profit from drug traffic.
Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s opium because it brings more money to farmers than growing food crops; Argentina, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia are increasing their coca production because they make more money on this than from food crops; Suriname has become a transshipment base for South American cocaine to the world; Myanmar is directly benefits from illegal drug traffic; Mexico benefits from drug trafficking.
What is it going to take to get U.S. citizens to see beyond their own personal desires to get high and recognize the effect they are having on those people who choose to become involved in the drug trade?
Stronger role models would defiantly help. Finding value in yourself will help the desire to not become a junky. Giving support to other people who need it to feel better about themselves can go a long toward finding that valuable side of you. Encouragement and support from family and friends can make a great deal of difference in valuing yourself.
We are the cause and effect. And as such, we hold all the power to change it. Please, lets not add to the problem.
The thing is that after coming back down, reality is still there. And possibly worse because you didn’t tackle whatever it is that made you want to get high in the first place.
Here is a list of drug treatment centers for yourself or someone you love. It is not too late.
Here is a list of support groups for ex-drug users.
Here is a website for parents of a drug user.
There is no denying it, drug use in this country directly supports murder and other violence in the countries where the drugs come from. Drug use in this country supports murder and other violence in this country.
Gangs are supported directly and indirectly by our drug use (not just heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana or cocaine, but ecstasy and steroids too). You can access any news source in the world and read about how drug trafficking has claimed another life, either by taking the drug or killing to control the traffic of the drug.
People find themselves doing things for drugs that they never would have considered doing before their drug addiction. Stealing from others, prostituting themselves, submitting their free will. These are extremes that we have all heard of that are definitive reasons against drug use. Those ‘casual’ drug users who haven’t reached these extremes are just as guilty of sustaining the drug trade and therefore the violence that supports it.
Is the high worth it? People who do drugs do so for a few very selfish reasons. They want to ‘feel good’, they want to escape from reality, they do it because their friends do it and therefore think it is ‘cool’ to be one of the crowd.
Our legal system is not curtailing drug use. The threat of jail time or financial loss due to fines or losing a job or even their family and the stigma that goes with these losses is not enough to stop most drug users.
Society is approaching the illegal use of drugs from the wrong direction. Education is not working. Scare tactics don’t work. Drug users come from loving families that communicate with each other as well as from abusive households so that isn’t working either.
A personal choice. The potential user needs to ask whether doing this drug is going to improve my life. And I don’t mean in the way that it provides a temporary escape. This is not improving anything. I mean, is doing drugs going to make me a better person. It might make you feel like you are the ‘life of the party’ but again, that is only temporary and it comes at a very high price. What if the answer is ‘I don’t care if it makes me a better person’?
Too many young people are getting sucked into the mystique of the drug culture. The glamour needs to be dispelled. Whatever draw there is to starting drugs that first time needs to be identified and examined so that we can finally put a halt to the useless and expensive incarceration of the user (save tax dollars by not having to support them while in jail), clear space in rehab centers for others, lessen the demand for drugs so gangs in foreign countries and the U.S. cannot make a profit from drug traffic.
Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s opium because it brings more money to farmers than growing food crops; Argentina, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia are increasing their coca production because they make more money on this than from food crops; Suriname has become a transshipment base for South American cocaine to the world; Myanmar is directly benefits from illegal drug traffic; Mexico benefits from drug trafficking.
What is it going to take to get U.S. citizens to see beyond their own personal desires to get high and recognize the effect they are having on those people who choose to become involved in the drug trade?
Stronger role models would defiantly help. Finding value in yourself will help the desire to not become a junky. Giving support to other people who need it to feel better about themselves can go a long toward finding that valuable side of you. Encouragement and support from family and friends can make a great deal of difference in valuing yourself.
We are the cause and effect. And as such, we hold all the power to change it. Please, lets not add to the problem.
The thing is that after coming back down, reality is still there. And possibly worse because you didn’t tackle whatever it is that made you want to get high in the first place.
Here is a list of drug treatment centers for yourself or someone you love. It is not too late.
Here is a list of support groups for ex-drug users.
Here is a website for parents of a drug user.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
State’s are forced to address immigration issue
U.S. states are enacting immigration laws because the federal government won’t do it. Border states are fed up with federal governments inaction and have begun passing strict immigration laws that are pushing immigrants further north. This is only delaying the Fed’s inevitable involvement and is basically forcing illegals to leave the state to become someone elses problem.
Arizona recently passed legislation to punish business owners who hire illegals, Oklahoma passed legislation to punish anyone harboring or transporting illegals.
Many states are passing or proposing legislation to make English the official language of their state. This, to me seems absolutely ludicrous, that an American state has to pass a law to make our native language the only official language.
Worker shortages are adversely affecting struggling businesses, immigrants are afraid of being on the street for fear of being arrested. This country is becoming likened to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.
People often use the argument that we Americans were once illegal immigrants and that we have forsaken our heritage. This is a gross over-simplification of this situation. When we arrived on these shores, this country was largely uninhabited. There was no organized society of taxpayers. The was no established economic group being threatened by persons trying to take advantage of it without supporting it.
America grew out of the promise of religious freedom, of freedom of persecution, of promise of financial security, and now that this great undertaking has proven itself successful we are fearful of foreigners undermining these promises and freedoms by partaking of the advantages without paying for them.
We are a caring nation, usually the first to spring to action to offer aid and assistance to any natural disaster no matter where in the world it strikes. But why should we give away what we have struggled and sacrificed for to someone who has not helped us achieve it?
I have personally been struggling with this question for years. On the one hand, a good neighbor should extend help to those less fortunate, on the other hand if you see a trend of being taken advantage of you come to see yourself as a fool to continue offering that help.
There is a belief that you should do everything you can to help yourself and not rely on others to do it all for you. This individual self reliance is what has made America strong. Those people living here in America who would rather live off of other’s generosity are a detriment to this society. They are counterproductive and create a financial and psychological drain on hard working American taxpayers. There are American citizens that fall into this category just as there are those who are not citizens that are guilty of this behavior.
Racism has nothing to do with this. If you can come into this country, legally, and offer yourself as a citizen of this country, learn our language, work to improve this society without bringing it down then you are welcome.
If you come into this country to prey on others, to take jobs away from American citizens and then send all your money back to your country without paying our taxes then you are not welcome. It is as simple as that. Americans that give jobs to foreigners instead of American citizens for the sake of saving themselves money are un-American, low-life leeches and should be ferreted out and punished.
The federal government needs to step up and create meaningful legislation to help everyone involved instead of leaving it up to individual states that only seek to push the problem off onto someone else. So far states have ‘solved’ their immigration problem by using punishment against its own citizens. This is not a neighborly way to behave and sadly leans on the fascist form of government. Forcing an individual state to address this problem causes the neighboring state to enact similar legislation which will push the immigrant into yet another state and sets a dangerous path of fascist precedents. Where are they to go at this point?
Building that wall is enclosing us in as well as keeping others out. I don’t think this is the way to go. It is a poor substitute for federal political action.
Arizona recently passed legislation to punish business owners who hire illegals, Oklahoma passed legislation to punish anyone harboring or transporting illegals.
Many states are passing or proposing legislation to make English the official language of their state. This, to me seems absolutely ludicrous, that an American state has to pass a law to make our native language the only official language.
Worker shortages are adversely affecting struggling businesses, immigrants are afraid of being on the street for fear of being arrested. This country is becoming likened to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.
People often use the argument that we Americans were once illegal immigrants and that we have forsaken our heritage. This is a gross over-simplification of this situation. When we arrived on these shores, this country was largely uninhabited. There was no organized society of taxpayers. The was no established economic group being threatened by persons trying to take advantage of it without supporting it.
America grew out of the promise of religious freedom, of freedom of persecution, of promise of financial security, and now that this great undertaking has proven itself successful we are fearful of foreigners undermining these promises and freedoms by partaking of the advantages without paying for them.
We are a caring nation, usually the first to spring to action to offer aid and assistance to any natural disaster no matter where in the world it strikes. But why should we give away what we have struggled and sacrificed for to someone who has not helped us achieve it?
I have personally been struggling with this question for years. On the one hand, a good neighbor should extend help to those less fortunate, on the other hand if you see a trend of being taken advantage of you come to see yourself as a fool to continue offering that help.
There is a belief that you should do everything you can to help yourself and not rely on others to do it all for you. This individual self reliance is what has made America strong. Those people living here in America who would rather live off of other’s generosity are a detriment to this society. They are counterproductive and create a financial and psychological drain on hard working American taxpayers. There are American citizens that fall into this category just as there are those who are not citizens that are guilty of this behavior.
Racism has nothing to do with this. If you can come into this country, legally, and offer yourself as a citizen of this country, learn our language, work to improve this society without bringing it down then you are welcome.
If you come into this country to prey on others, to take jobs away from American citizens and then send all your money back to your country without paying our taxes then you are not welcome. It is as simple as that. Americans that give jobs to foreigners instead of American citizens for the sake of saving themselves money are un-American, low-life leeches and should be ferreted out and punished.
The federal government needs to step up and create meaningful legislation to help everyone involved instead of leaving it up to individual states that only seek to push the problem off onto someone else. So far states have ‘solved’ their immigration problem by using punishment against its own citizens. This is not a neighborly way to behave and sadly leans on the fascist form of government. Forcing an individual state to address this problem causes the neighboring state to enact similar legislation which will push the immigrant into yet another state and sets a dangerous path of fascist precedents. Where are they to go at this point?
Building that wall is enclosing us in as well as keeping others out. I don’t think this is the way to go. It is a poor substitute for federal political action.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Getting high has many hidden costs
How many times have you been to the zoo? Any zoo. I have been to several zoos across this country, multiple times. I have never seen any animal become aggressive towards any human. Oh, I have heard stories of an animal attacking or becoming aggressive with a feeder or trainer, while in the enclosure with the animal, but not towards the general public.
This recent case involving the tiger that attacked and killed a teenager at the San Francisco zoo illustrates several behaviors that humans continue to engage in, that, in this case, resulted in the death of a young man, the death of a wild animal, wasted police manpower, wasted taxpayers money, allowing more lawyers to peddle their trade of lies and shifting blame, and nearly caused a zoo to lose accreditation.
All this, because three men felt they could not enjoy themselves on a visit to the zoo without getting ‘high’. They ignored warning signs by taunting wild animals, they shunned common sense by taunting wild animals, they broke the law by being drunk in public, they broke the law by possessing and using illegal drugs, they are helping to keep the illegal drug trade alive (one of our biggest roadblocks to making this society as strong and productive as it could be) and they paid a terrible price. But so did a bunch of other people.
The public can no longer enjoy the pleasure of seeing that tiger at the zoo because of the careless and stupid actions of these three young men.
On Christmas day, 2007, there were reports of a group of men taunting animals at the zoo. The public saw these actions and reported it to the authorities. Carlos Sousa Jr, 17, Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal 24, were witnessed yelling at the tiger, waving their arms aggressively and standing on the railing of the enclosure. This, obviously, must have been acceptable behavior from their alcohol induced point of view.
What this tiger saw was some humans exhibiting some unusual and extraordinary behavior directed towards it and the tiger reacted.
Once the animal climbed over the fence, an action he never had reason to attempt previously, he attacked the provokers. Just wild animal reactionary behavior.
The lawyers say, “if the wall was higher this would not have happened”. I say bullshit to that. If these guys had not acted like damned fools the tiger would not have acted like he did. If you are going to use hindsight for cause/effect then go the whole way. If we didn’t live in a society where we thought it acceptable to cage wild animals, this would not have happened. If we didn’t live in a society where lawyers are allowed to lie to keep criminals and wrong doers from being punished, these lawyers would not make stupid statements like this. Well, actually, this is a real stretch because they would still lie due to their twisted view of what justice is.
After these guy’s actions had been reported to zoo authorities, and after the tiger reacted to their taunting, their cries for help were ignored. Why? Because since these intoxicated men had exhibited such rowdy behavior no one believed their story of an escaped animal. This is just human nature. We figure they are drunk or mentally unstable, so how can we take them seriously about anything? We tend to ignore people who have shown themselves to be idiots. Plain and simple. How can anyone know when these guys calls for help is serious after displaying such idiotic behavior? There is no way to know unless witnesses verify their need for help. This is another good reason not to drink and behave like children I public.
After it was verified that their story was indeed true, calls went out to 911 and help did arrive.
Their lawyer is trying to put the blame back onto the zoo by saying if help had arrived sooner the boy would still be alive. In reality the blame lies with the men themselves due to their previous behavior. If they had not acted like fools then their story would have been taken seriously when it was first told. This action by their lawyer is just another underhanded trick they like to use called shifting the blame and placing doubt where it does not belong. So, yeah, we can all speculate. The bottom line is they alone are responsible for their actions. They alone chose to ignore common sense and tease a wild animal. It doesn’t matter that the animal was caged it is simply a stupid thing to so.
Paramedics arrived on the scene as quickly as they could after receiving the call and found a large puncture wound in the victims neck. It is doubtful he could have survived the attack if they had gotten there any sooner.
Police found the tiger sitting down not bothering anyone and when they approached it got up and moved away. Just as you would expect it to. At this point, they claim it started to attack another person, which I personally think is bull. They saw this as justification for killing the animal rather than try to get it back into the enclosure, a particularly daunting task I am sure.
How long has this tiger lived in this enclosure without being a threat to the public? As a result of these idiots actions, the zoo will have to spend more money to protect the animals and the public from fools such as these guys.
Toxicology results show Paul Dhaliwal’s blood alcohol content at 0.16, twice the legal limit. Why is it still acceptable to go out into public drunk? His brother, Kulbir, was within the legal limit, which showed some responsibility on his part since he drove them to the zoo. But still, he was drinking and driving.
Upon first being questioned they both lied about taunting the tiger or any other animal, even though many others had reported them doing exactly this. They have finally admitted to this only after they realized other people actually saw them do it and told authorities. They thought is was okay to lie to authorities. Another problem with this society, in general. They thought everyone would believe that they were innocently strolling past the tiger enclosure when it lunged at them. They actually believed that the thousands of people who have walked past this same enclosure without any indication of aggressiveness on the part of the tiger would believe their story.
Their lies brought about the possibility of a law suit against the zoo. Did they think there would not be an investigation? Why would they risk being found out that not only were they stupid enough to do what they did but would also be found to be liars and lawbreakers by being intoxicated in public?
I know, I know, they were trying to cover their own butts. But this is exactly my point. If they had told the truth to begin with, accepting their own responsibility, then the taxpayers would not have had to pay for the investigation and these lawyers would not have been given the chance to participate in their lies by trying to shift the blame from them to the zoo.
This lawyer could have kept his mouth shut and waited for the investigation to conclude to determine whether or not his client was lying. But no, he had to back up their story in the press. Is he stupid enough to believe their story of innocence or just jumping at the chance to get his name in the paper even if it is based on a lie? This is another problem with this society, lawyers who try cases in the media in an attempt to cover up these guys responsibility.
Where is the common sense and common decency that we are born with? Where is the intelligence that we humans know these are not actions to be taken against a wild animal and against the society that we live amongst?
Oh, and yes, there was marijuana involved. Can’t these guys get high enough with just one or the other? Marijuana is supposed to make you mellow not stupid like alcohol does. The waste of money spent on ingesting two different drugs that counteract each other just shows another level of stupidity and weakness.
When they told police they each had a couple of shots of vodka, everyone knows instinctively that ‘a couple of shots’ always translates to more than just ‘a couple of shots’. So they lied to police about this as well.
Lack of respect for authorities, and themselves, and personal weaknesses resulted in the death of their friend and the outing of themselves in public as liars. Was getting ‘high’ worth it?
This recent case involving the tiger that attacked and killed a teenager at the San Francisco zoo illustrates several behaviors that humans continue to engage in, that, in this case, resulted in the death of a young man, the death of a wild animal, wasted police manpower, wasted taxpayers money, allowing more lawyers to peddle their trade of lies and shifting blame, and nearly caused a zoo to lose accreditation.
All this, because three men felt they could not enjoy themselves on a visit to the zoo without getting ‘high’. They ignored warning signs by taunting wild animals, they shunned common sense by taunting wild animals, they broke the law by being drunk in public, they broke the law by possessing and using illegal drugs, they are helping to keep the illegal drug trade alive (one of our biggest roadblocks to making this society as strong and productive as it could be) and they paid a terrible price. But so did a bunch of other people.
The public can no longer enjoy the pleasure of seeing that tiger at the zoo because of the careless and stupid actions of these three young men.
On Christmas day, 2007, there were reports of a group of men taunting animals at the zoo. The public saw these actions and reported it to the authorities. Carlos Sousa Jr, 17, Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal 24, were witnessed yelling at the tiger, waving their arms aggressively and standing on the railing of the enclosure. This, obviously, must have been acceptable behavior from their alcohol induced point of view.
What this tiger saw was some humans exhibiting some unusual and extraordinary behavior directed towards it and the tiger reacted.
Once the animal climbed over the fence, an action he never had reason to attempt previously, he attacked the provokers. Just wild animal reactionary behavior.
The lawyers say, “if the wall was higher this would not have happened”. I say bullshit to that. If these guys had not acted like damned fools the tiger would not have acted like he did. If you are going to use hindsight for cause/effect then go the whole way. If we didn’t live in a society where we thought it acceptable to cage wild animals, this would not have happened. If we didn’t live in a society where lawyers are allowed to lie to keep criminals and wrong doers from being punished, these lawyers would not make stupid statements like this. Well, actually, this is a real stretch because they would still lie due to their twisted view of what justice is.
After these guy’s actions had been reported to zoo authorities, and after the tiger reacted to their taunting, their cries for help were ignored. Why? Because since these intoxicated men had exhibited such rowdy behavior no one believed their story of an escaped animal. This is just human nature. We figure they are drunk or mentally unstable, so how can we take them seriously about anything? We tend to ignore people who have shown themselves to be idiots. Plain and simple. How can anyone know when these guys calls for help is serious after displaying such idiotic behavior? There is no way to know unless witnesses verify their need for help. This is another good reason not to drink and behave like children I public.
After it was verified that their story was indeed true, calls went out to 911 and help did arrive.
Their lawyer is trying to put the blame back onto the zoo by saying if help had arrived sooner the boy would still be alive. In reality the blame lies with the men themselves due to their previous behavior. If they had not acted like fools then their story would have been taken seriously when it was first told. This action by their lawyer is just another underhanded trick they like to use called shifting the blame and placing doubt where it does not belong. So, yeah, we can all speculate. The bottom line is they alone are responsible for their actions. They alone chose to ignore common sense and tease a wild animal. It doesn’t matter that the animal was caged it is simply a stupid thing to so.
Paramedics arrived on the scene as quickly as they could after receiving the call and found a large puncture wound in the victims neck. It is doubtful he could have survived the attack if they had gotten there any sooner.
Police found the tiger sitting down not bothering anyone and when they approached it got up and moved away. Just as you would expect it to. At this point, they claim it started to attack another person, which I personally think is bull. They saw this as justification for killing the animal rather than try to get it back into the enclosure, a particularly daunting task I am sure.
How long has this tiger lived in this enclosure without being a threat to the public? As a result of these idiots actions, the zoo will have to spend more money to protect the animals and the public from fools such as these guys.
Toxicology results show Paul Dhaliwal’s blood alcohol content at 0.16, twice the legal limit. Why is it still acceptable to go out into public drunk? His brother, Kulbir, was within the legal limit, which showed some responsibility on his part since he drove them to the zoo. But still, he was drinking and driving.
Upon first being questioned they both lied about taunting the tiger or any other animal, even though many others had reported them doing exactly this. They have finally admitted to this only after they realized other people actually saw them do it and told authorities. They thought is was okay to lie to authorities. Another problem with this society, in general. They thought everyone would believe that they were innocently strolling past the tiger enclosure when it lunged at them. They actually believed that the thousands of people who have walked past this same enclosure without any indication of aggressiveness on the part of the tiger would believe their story.
Their lies brought about the possibility of a law suit against the zoo. Did they think there would not be an investigation? Why would they risk being found out that not only were they stupid enough to do what they did but would also be found to be liars and lawbreakers by being intoxicated in public?
I know, I know, they were trying to cover their own butts. But this is exactly my point. If they had told the truth to begin with, accepting their own responsibility, then the taxpayers would not have had to pay for the investigation and these lawyers would not have been given the chance to participate in their lies by trying to shift the blame from them to the zoo.
This lawyer could have kept his mouth shut and waited for the investigation to conclude to determine whether or not his client was lying. But no, he had to back up their story in the press. Is he stupid enough to believe their story of innocence or just jumping at the chance to get his name in the paper even if it is based on a lie? This is another problem with this society, lawyers who try cases in the media in an attempt to cover up these guys responsibility.
Where is the common sense and common decency that we are born with? Where is the intelligence that we humans know these are not actions to be taken against a wild animal and against the society that we live amongst?
Oh, and yes, there was marijuana involved. Can’t these guys get high enough with just one or the other? Marijuana is supposed to make you mellow not stupid like alcohol does. The waste of money spent on ingesting two different drugs that counteract each other just shows another level of stupidity and weakness.
When they told police they each had a couple of shots of vodka, everyone knows instinctively that ‘a couple of shots’ always translates to more than just ‘a couple of shots’. So they lied to police about this as well.
Lack of respect for authorities, and themselves, and personal weaknesses resulted in the death of their friend and the outing of themselves in public as liars. Was getting ‘high’ worth it?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Cloned steaks and burgers, is it worth it?
The FDA just announced that they will not require tracking of cloned beef and have approved its sale to consumers. They basically have washed their hands of the entire debate.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with eating cloned meat products. There are no new chemicals introduced into the food chain by cloning an animal and clones are produced from naturally existing genetic material (no additives or enhancements).
Those approximately 30 percent of U.S. adults who say they won’t eat cloned meat regardless of FDA approval are simply objecting to science getting involved with creating a living ‘something’ that only nature should be allowed to create.
No disrespect is intended regarding these people’s choice but, a cloned animal provides the same edible meat as its progenitor.
The question of finding cloned meat in our food supply may be moot anyway because food producers say the process of creating cloned animals is too expensive and inefficient. Of course, the cost may come down in the future much like electronic products seem to get cheaper over time. Due to some unforeseen event that adversely affects our ‘natural’ food supply, cloning may become the best alternative and we will end up eating cloned meat anyway.
Once an animal has been cloned it’s offspring are just as natural as those from non-cloned animals, so, again, where’s the problem?
A senior member of the agricultural advocacy group, Center for Food Safety, said there is no way for the consumer to know they’re getting cloned meat or their offspring.
The process involves removing the nucleus from an egg and inserting the nucleus from the egg of a more desirable animal. The desirability of the animal can be based on several factors. If, for instance, you have a race horse that consistently wins races or a stud animal that generates a hefty revenue stream for the purposes of artificial insemination then these animals would be worth cloning. In the food chain, the desirability would be for an animal that can produce heavier weight or more milk (therefore creating more financial benefit). Likewise, if you have a chicken that is a mega-producer of quality eggs then why not make several hundred or several thousand of them?
Cloning came about to improve the chances over the old methods of selective breeding and artificial insemination.
The process, however, is far from perfect. The road from freshly cloned embryo to birth is fraught with errors. That's why so few implanted cloned embryos are actually born, and why so many of those end up dying young.
Dolly, for example, lasted just six years before dying from a progressive lung disease. Cloned pigs have a nasty habit of dropping dead from heart attacks. Cloned cows sometimes die shortly after birth -- and those are the lucky ones.
Washington Post's Rick Weiss described the outtakes of livestock clones this way:
Many are monstrously overweight -- several times their normal size -- and filled with fluids to the point of looking like they're about to burst. Others are born with normal bodies but big, hideous, so-called ‘bull heads.' Others look okay on the outside but have peculiar abnormalities of the heart, lungs or other organs -- including livers that are mysteriously filled with fat -- or defective thymus glands that blunt normal development of the animals' immune systems.
Those animals that are the result of successful cloning will not pass any genetic alterations to their offspring. So the question arises, why bother? Aside from show animals and fast horses there really isn’t any economical benefit for cloning. This is simply another aspect of science that some scientist feel the need to conquer. In other words, because we can do it, let’s perfect it. Perfection has not yet been achieved and it doesn’t look like it will be in the near future.
The biggest concern I have in creating herds of cloned, genetically identical cattle, or any other animal, is that any disease can wipe out an entire herd. Nature has many fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent the domination of one species over another and we, with our limited understanding of these natural rules, cannot begin to understand how and when a disease becomes ‘necessary’ from nature’s viewpoint.
This whole process subverts natural selection. Mankind has now stepped in and declared himself as the authority on which genetic material best suits our needs. In doing so, we are diluting the genetic diversity that is natures realm.
Cloning may have its place in reproducing show animals and sports animals, but it will never equal in-vitro fertilization for producing a better quality food product.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with eating cloned meat products. There are no new chemicals introduced into the food chain by cloning an animal and clones are produced from naturally existing genetic material (no additives or enhancements).
Those approximately 30 percent of U.S. adults who say they won’t eat cloned meat regardless of FDA approval are simply objecting to science getting involved with creating a living ‘something’ that only nature should be allowed to create.
No disrespect is intended regarding these people’s choice but, a cloned animal provides the same edible meat as its progenitor.
The question of finding cloned meat in our food supply may be moot anyway because food producers say the process of creating cloned animals is too expensive and inefficient. Of course, the cost may come down in the future much like electronic products seem to get cheaper over time. Due to some unforeseen event that adversely affects our ‘natural’ food supply, cloning may become the best alternative and we will end up eating cloned meat anyway.
Once an animal has been cloned it’s offspring are just as natural as those from non-cloned animals, so, again, where’s the problem?
A senior member of the agricultural advocacy group, Center for Food Safety, said there is no way for the consumer to know they’re getting cloned meat or their offspring.
The process involves removing the nucleus from an egg and inserting the nucleus from the egg of a more desirable animal. The desirability of the animal can be based on several factors. If, for instance, you have a race horse that consistently wins races or a stud animal that generates a hefty revenue stream for the purposes of artificial insemination then these animals would be worth cloning. In the food chain, the desirability would be for an animal that can produce heavier weight or more milk (therefore creating more financial benefit). Likewise, if you have a chicken that is a mega-producer of quality eggs then why not make several hundred or several thousand of them?
Cloning came about to improve the chances over the old methods of selective breeding and artificial insemination.
The process, however, is far from perfect. The road from freshly cloned embryo to birth is fraught with errors. That's why so few implanted cloned embryos are actually born, and why so many of those end up dying young.
Dolly, for example, lasted just six years before dying from a progressive lung disease. Cloned pigs have a nasty habit of dropping dead from heart attacks. Cloned cows sometimes die shortly after birth -- and those are the lucky ones.
Washington Post's Rick Weiss described the outtakes of livestock clones this way:
Many are monstrously overweight -- several times their normal size -- and filled with fluids to the point of looking like they're about to burst. Others are born with normal bodies but big, hideous, so-called ‘bull heads.' Others look okay on the outside but have peculiar abnormalities of the heart, lungs or other organs -- including livers that are mysteriously filled with fat -- or defective thymus glands that blunt normal development of the animals' immune systems.
Those animals that are the result of successful cloning will not pass any genetic alterations to their offspring. So the question arises, why bother? Aside from show animals and fast horses there really isn’t any economical benefit for cloning. This is simply another aspect of science that some scientist feel the need to conquer. In other words, because we can do it, let’s perfect it. Perfection has not yet been achieved and it doesn’t look like it will be in the near future.
The biggest concern I have in creating herds of cloned, genetically identical cattle, or any other animal, is that any disease can wipe out an entire herd. Nature has many fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent the domination of one species over another and we, with our limited understanding of these natural rules, cannot begin to understand how and when a disease becomes ‘necessary’ from nature’s viewpoint.
This whole process subverts natural selection. Mankind has now stepped in and declared himself as the authority on which genetic material best suits our needs. In doing so, we are diluting the genetic diversity that is natures realm.
Cloning may have its place in reproducing show animals and sports animals, but it will never equal in-vitro fertilization for producing a better quality food product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)