April 19, 2014

Why Newspapers Can’t Be Relied on as Intelligent, Factual Source of Information

DontUnderstandIt began this way. On April 4, 2014, Pulse published an article by Jim Lundstrum called, “Wolves at the Door.” That same day Jim Beers, a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper with a comment to make about the substance of the article, “Wolves at the Door.”

The entire back and forth between Mr. Beers and the newspaper editor would make a fantastic comedic routine for any pair of standup comics. The problem is, this actually really happened. Beers introduces the act this way:

Talking to a (WI) Newspaper about Wolves

The following interchange followed a Letter to an Editor regarding an article about wolves recently arriving in his popular and populous NE Wisconsin County, where one would (mistakenly evidently) assume a modicum of familiarity with wolves. It is enlightening for anyone dealing with wolves and the media. I say this not to impugn my skill or this editor’s response, but only to present this rare glimpse of what often is the case when we assume we are having a conversation that is merely gibberish, for whatever reason, to a listener. Jim

“Are you Druids?

When you quote a respected warden regarding wolves in Wolves at the Door, to wit “It comes back to, what can the landscape tolerate” you are simply using your human-owned newspaper to promulgate a secular animal rights’ belief to justify government force to oppress rural people with dangerous and deadly urban fantasies.

To paraphrase the good warden, wolf presence and tolerance “comes back to what those being forced to live with them can tolerate.” It is really quite simple and quite American, I might add.

Jim Beers
Eagan, MN
4 April 2014″

The editor of the newspaper writes back to Beers and says:

“I have no idea what you are implying. I can’t run a letter that makes no sense.”

Perhaps a bit frustrated or something more, Jim Beers makes another attempt at making his point:

I imply that you present the matter of the presence and abundance of wolves as only limited by what “the landscape” can tolerate.

What you publish is literally that human objections and perceived harm to human values are of no importance. In other words, humans and their objections are of less importance than the amount of food and surface conditions wolves encounter.

This philosophical difference supports the value difference between us that establishes people like myself believing that the threats and harms from diseases, dog loss, livestock loss, game reduction and human safety concerns caused by wolves are not justifiable and others like Druids (?) or nature worshippers that believe that human enterprise and society like the rest of “the landscape” must and should adjust to whatever wolves cause much like, for example, what is happening to the Minnesota moose, European sheep flocks and The Northern Yellowstone elk herd thanks to wolves placed and protected by the force of government fiat.

I assume the warden’s job security is tied to such a statement and that your paper would only engender strong reactions from readers that obviously are not hosting many or any wolves to date and like other public factions from urban donors and environmental activists to bureaucrats and politicians whose families and livelihoods remain unaffected by what we are talking about here. It might be better stated (though more words) as:

When you report that a Wisconsin warden believes that the presence and abundance of wolves is limited only by “what can the landscape tolerate” you and he are legitimizing an environmental falsehood that dates back to ancient pagan nature worship. This justification for forcing wolves and their continued presence by government fiat on local communities where residents strongly object to them is greatly flawed because it treats human concerns as equal to or lesser than food availability and other survival conditions that affect wolves. Human concerns about wolves in settled landscapes are always superior to other factors. These concerns include but are not limited to, diseases and infections, livestock losses, dog losses, game herd reductions and most important the human safety of those forced to “live with wolves”.

To paraphrase the warden, wolf presence and abundance is ultimately limited only by “what those being forced to live with them will tolerate.”

It is really quite simple, quite sensible, and it reflects American traditional cultural values I might add.

To which the editor once again responded”

“Sorry. I still don’t get it.”

Grofaz and American Guinea Pigs – Take a Deep Breath and Hold It

“President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has been subjecting unknowing human guinea pigs to high levels of carcinogens and potentially lethal pollutants in order to justify tough new air quality standards.

To make matters worse, EPA has been carrying out these egregiously immoral and unethical human experiments in which subjects are made to inhale freshly pumped-in diesel truck exhaust fumes without advising them of the risk to their health.

Such EPA-funded studies have reportedly been carried out at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Rochester (N.Y.), University of Southern California, University of Michigan, and elsewhere.”<<<Read More>>>

To Avoid Bear Attacks, Stay Out of Trees and Yell

You can’t make this stuff up!

“People who come across black bears should keep in mind that they aren’t aggressive, and will run if they hear a yell, according to Jeff Collins, director of ecological management at the Massachusetts Audubon Society. And while it is always good to keep in mind the old adage “never come between a mother and her cubs,” black bears hide their young in trees, a fact that should diffuse almost all potential confrontations.”<<<Read More>>>

Call The Police! A Man Has a Gun……….Tattoo

GunTatooGasp! I just couldn’t let this story go by without sharing with others. In Maine, a tree company sets up in front of a man’s house and are about to start cutting trees and limbing branches for the electrical lines running overhead. The man, who works nights and sleeps days, is awoken by the noise of crunching ice.

Scurrying, the man throws on only a pair of pants and rushes outside, into the frigid air, to stop the men from cutting his trees. The man is shirtless and half asleep. He asks the men to stop working and they do.

The man returns to his bed to get back to some needed sleep, when he hears a knock on the door. Answering the door, he discovers the Maine State Police. They report that a worker for the tree company called police to report that the man who lived there had confronted them and that he thought the man had a gun.

As it turns out, the man did have a gun, or at least a facsimile of a gun. He had a tattoo of a gun on his abdomen that made it look like a gun was tucked into the waist of his pants. See the photo.

Here’s the link to the story.

Obama Says No More Eating Foods That Cause Global Warming

Obama Administration to Insert Global Warming Activism into Dietary Guidelines Mandated by Congress

Climate Change Activists to Meet Food Police at Closed-Door Meeting March 14

New York, NY / Washington DC – At a closed-door meeting to take place March 14, the Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services plan to update the nation’s “dietary guidelines” — a document with significant repercussions for food stamps, military and school meals programs — to include anti-global warming activism.

In an article, “Obama administration pollutes guidelines for healthy eating with unhealthy ideologies,” published Sunday by the Washington Examiner, National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier says environmental activists within the U.S. government plan to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”

In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”

No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.’”

What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.

“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,’” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”

The full Washington Examiner article can be read here.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Washington-based Amy Ridenour, founding CEO of the National Center and currently co-CEO with her husband, David Ridenour, has been interviewed on television or radio thousands of times, and had her op-ed published in newspapers thousands of times, on nearly every major public policy issue since the National Center’s 1982 founding. Newspapers running her op-eds within the year include the Denver Post, Providence Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Arizona Daily Star, Boston Herald, Deseret News, Duluth News Tribune, Orange County Register, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Omaha World-Herald and many others. She discusses issues on Twitter at @AmyRidenour.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Perverse PETA Seeking Roadside Memorial For Chickens

If approved, a memorial would be placed at a Georgia site where a truck hauling live chickens overturned Jan. 27.<<<Read More>>>

$2,984 A Deer for Birth Control

Madness

The latest round of village deer sterilizations removed ovaries from 12 deer in December and cost taxpayers $35,808.

Does were shot with tranquilizer darts and taken to a temporary surgical facility, according to a report by White Buffalo Inc. The company conducted the sterilizations and reported that no deer died during capture, surgery or release….

Costs for this winter’s doe sterilization were well above early estimates, set at $1,000 per animal. The cost for the December sterilizations was $2,984 per deer.<<<Read More>>>

Polar Vortex: I Voted For It Before I Voted Against It

This is hilariously funny and yet few Americans or people globally will really get the fact that we are being conned by the masters of con.

“Open my eyes that I may see,
Glimpses of Truth Thou hast for me;
place in my hands the wonderful key
that shall unclasp and set me free.”

According to Ed Driscoll and information in his article published at Pajamas Media, back in 1974 Time Magazine published an article blaming global COOLing on the Polar Vortex. In case you don’t remember and I suspect the largest number of “True Believers” of global warming are too young to remember, it was back in the 1970s that we were all going to freeze to death because of global cooling.

Ah, yes! That darned ole, Polar Vortex! It was going to freeze us all out.

‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

God save us! Well, maybe he did, or was it Al Gore and Algorism.

Now, Time Magazine is saying that the Polar Vortex is the result of global WARMING.

‘But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles.’

And there’s that “inconvenient truth” again. It sucks when the inconvenient truth is that you’re a stupid, lying shill for the ruling establishment, comprised partially by those wishing to scare the living money right out of you; to cause fear and disruption of your life.

It was a big, Big, BIg, BIG lie in 1974 and it’s an even bigger lie today. Algorism: and Time Magazine has it bad.

I Can’t “Bear” The Nonsense!

Oh, please! Somebody save me from the onslaught of human ignorance, nonsense and general emotional clap trap!

Save Bears, an organization that seems to think much more of bears than humans, or at least think bears are humans, promote complete bear nonsense in order to get a better shot (no pun intended) at non thinkers’ bank accounts.

From Save Bears website, we find this:

savebears1

And so, according to these misled people, bears express emotions. And just how do they do that? Is it that you have to catch up with one in the forest and just ask them how they feel? Will they answer you? Give you a thumbs up or thumbs down? It has already been determined that the only way anyone can truly assess whether any animal can feel pain or “express emotion” is by being able to communicate intelligently with them.

Then there’s this:

savebears2

Bears are bright, that is as far as animals go, but fall short from being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Bears do have a remarkable sense of smell, as some studies seem to suggest a bear’s sense of smell is many times better than that of a bloodhound, but a bear doesn’t have X-ray vision, nor can he fly faster than a speeding bullet.

To state that a bear is “intelligent and quickly learn[s] from experience” is just a bit too foolish I’m thinking. If a bear is that smart then why do they keep coming back raiding dumpsters, trashing barbecue grills, busting down bird feeders, raiding garbage cans, tearing into cars, etc., only to get hauled away and released someplace? And if they are so damned intelligent, why do they find their way back to the same sites and then end up dead? Smart animal, cuddly too, and probably forgot to express some emotions, like the nonsensical ones on display by the not so intelligent bear lovers who don’t seem to learn any quicker than the bear.

Just nonsense!

savebears3

PETA Asks Girl Attacked by Bear to Sympathize With Bear

What is on display in this video, at least out of the mouth of the woman from PETA, is that she is either a useful idiot, robotically repeating the lies she has been brainwashed to believe about animals (bears) and hunting, along with the usual suspect of claiming animal rights on an equal playing field with humans. If more than a useful idiot, she is change agent, trained by the agencies that are run by the ruling elite to turn what once was right to wrong and wrong to right.

However, make no mistake about it, the news anchor is trained to do the same thing and for this reason it is extremely difficult to disseminate between lies and truth.


Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com