Earth

Earth; that round ball we live on. It consists of water, air and land. There are many other components to earth, but these three are what are most important to those of us living here. And just who are we? People, animals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, plants. Again, you could break it down further, but these are the main players on this ball we call earth.

Now, our next question gets to be; How old is this earth? Well considering that I consider the Holy Bible to be the inerrant word of God, I believe that it is about 6,000 years old. Now there is some debate on what the word day in the Book of Genesis means. Some people take it to mean an indeterminate period of time while others consider the word day to denote a twenty-four period as it does today. I have considered it both ways and do not see why God could not have created the world in six, twenty-four hour days. Many of the things that non-believers say took millions of years were caused by the flood. Even non-believers now admit that there is a better than fifty-fifty chance that a worldwide flood took place. What has been happening over the years is that the more the scientists dig into the past, the more they prove the Bible to be true.

What all of this means is that we need to look at the earth in a completely different way. We need to discard the "theory of evolution" and concentrate on how and why things turned out the way they did. Did we have cavemen? Probably. Do you honestly believe that when God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden that they knew how to build a house, or even instantly make a tent? Besides, once Cain slew Able, he was sent away and no one really knows how or where he lived. So the possibility of there being cavemen is very real, even from a Biblical perspective. These first people had no knowledge of building tools or other necessities. They would have lived on what they could glean off the land. Those of you who read the Bible will remember that man was not to eat meat until after the flood. Thereby, there would have been no need of many of the items for hunting or cooking meat.

I think I am going to leave it here this week and give everyone that reads this time to digest where I am going with this discussion. I will continue along the same vein next week. Until then check out my other two blogs.

http://www.sasl.blogspot.com

http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

Wackos

Most environmentalists are wackos. I am now talking about the people like "Friends of the Earth", "Greenpeace" and other such organizations. these people are preservationists not conservationists. They believe that the plants and animals have more rights than humans. These are people that believe that it is okay to kill people to "save the planet". These people are communists and fascists or otherwise know as fasciunists. They will try every fascist tactic to turn this country and the whole world to communism.

They will lie about anything to get their way. For instance; the whole polar bear fiasco. They take one picture of a polar bear on an ice floe and try to palm that off as the normal thing that is currently going on. All of the ice is melting, thus, the polar bears are in danger. The fact that there are currently more polar bears than there were ten years ago and the population continues to grow is of no concern. Show the picture of a polar bear on an ice floe and enough bleeding hearts will believe that they are endangered. Another case is the gray wolves. Here in Wisconsin, we have an over abundance of gray wolves. Our game biologists have said that there are now more wolves in the state than thee should be. Yet the wackos will not allow the wolf to be taken off the endangered species list. The state biologists cannot manage the amount of wolves because the wackos say so.

All hunting, trapping and fishing is in danger of being lost. According to the wackos we are not supposed to use any of the wild game. We are just supposed to look at it and admire it. However, they are not around when the deer eat everything in the forest that they can possibly reach and ruin he forest. Then they come into cities and ruin everyone's yard. None of the wackos are around when the beavers make dams and flood and wash out roads causing accidents. They are not around when muskrats ruin farmers ponds ad then all get rabbis and infect all of the pets in the area.

Someday we may get all of this straightened out, but not until all of these wacko groups are put out of business. Many of these groups are terrorist organizations. They turn animals loose, burn down buildings and many other destructive things. The animal rights organizations such as PETA are some of the worst. Here in Wisconsin, one of the animal rights group broke into a mink farm and turned hundreds of mink loose. These poor animals did not know what to do without their keepers. Ninety-five percent of them were killed on highways within a couple of days. The group that took credit for the release had nothing to say about that, their silence was deafening.

More next week. Until then check out:
http://www.sasl.blogspot.com
http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

Global Warming

First of all I would like to apologize for not updating this blog for such a long time. After I began the blog I realized that I had to change some things as what I was basing my writing on was changing. This is almost like a restart and I will be covering current environmentalism as well as the items I was previously covering. Hopefully I will be doing one entry per week. Let's get started with today's biggest hoax.

Is the earth warming? Probably. Is it caused by mankind? I doubt that very seriously. This old earth warms and cools continuisly without the help of man. Since writing my book I have become much more convinced that the earth is a young earth. The Lord, God created this earth about 6,000 years ago. Since that time there has been much change in the weather patterns of the planet. I currently live in central Wisconsin. A few thousand years ago this area was totally covered by a glacier. Without global warming, I could not be living here. If mankind causes global warming, what caused the earth to warm enough for the glacier to melt. There is proof around this planet that it has been both much warmer and much colder in my area. At one time Greenland was considered temperate.

The wacko environmentalists try to tell us that carbon dioxide put into the air by mankind is what is causing global warming. I do not believe that carbon dioxide can cause global warming. Carbon dioxide is a necessity for life. The carbon dioxide given off from everything is used by plants in the process of photosynthises. these plants in turn give off oxygen, which we need to breathe. The more carbon dioxide the better the plants grow and the more of them. The better and the more plants, the better the oxygen content, thus making it easier to breathe. We need three things to live; water, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Take away any one of them and we are all dead.

Tthe wacko environmentalists would have us believe that we need to rid the world of carbon dioxide. That is just plain crazy, we would all die. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, it comes and goes. Actually right now we are in a cooling period.

More next week. Until then check out my other two blogs at:
http://www.sasl.blogspot.com
http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

Agriculture - 2

So, what is it that makes farming so terrible in the eyes of some environmentalists? too many commercial fertilizers, polluting the water, ruining the soil, too many herbicides and pesticides and causing air pollution are just some of the more common complaints. Before we look at these problems, let me say that we have the most efficient agricultural industry, providing some of the least expensive food in the world. People complain every time the price of food goes up. Yet those same people would have farmers use more expensive methods to produce the food in a more "environmentally safe" manner. Farmers are already working on an almost non-existent profit margin. To expect them to switch to more expensive methods without the cost of food going up would be ludicrous. Many of the methods used by farmers were put into place to get the cost of production down and realize at least a small profit. the two ends of the food chain get the least percentage of the food dollar. The farmer is lucky if he gets a very small profit above his production costs and the retailer works on a small profit margin. The bulk of the food dollar disappears between these two entities. Processing, storage, transportation, etc. are the big reason that food cost are what they are. Now many of the environmentalists say that the higher cost of food would be worth it to clean up the environment and that they would be willing to pay more for their food. first, I am not too sure just how willing the would really be and second, they would be forcing everyone else to pay too. Environmentalists have a tendency not to look at the overall picture when making some of their suggestions. There are people that can hardly afford the prices that food is now and could definitely not afford higher prices. However, environmentalists think with their emotions rather than their brains.

Let's take a look at some of the problems I listed in the previous paragraph. The use of too much commercial fertilizer is a good place to start. Why do farmers use so much commercial fertilizer? a lot of the reason is the ever growing need for more and more food. As the population grows and the farmland acreage shrinks, farmers need to produce more food from less land. This is also one of the main reasons for the extensive use of pesticides and herbicides. People want more and better looking food, so weeds and pests must be kept away so the crops will form better. Some of these things could be done almost as well without the use of all the chemicals, given enough time and manpower. Could natural fertilizers be used instead of commercial fertilizers? Yes, "but" where farmers use a lot of natural fertilizer (manure) they then get accused of polluting the ground water. The runoff goes into streams and part of the liquid seeps into the ground water. This leaves the farmer with very little options. Either he is accused of polluting the ground with chemical fertilizers or he is accused of polluting the water with the runoff from manure. That seems like a no win situation to me. When crops are grown on a field they take nutrients out of the soil. These nutrients need to be replaced and fertilizer of one type or another is the way it is done. Another problem is that on large crop farms there are no animals from which to collect the manure to use as fertilizer. In the past most farms were very diversified, having several different types of animals and several different crops. Except for the susistance farmer, you no longer find very many of this type of farm. Usually one or two crops or one type of animal are raised. For those people who wish all farm animals to be done away with and all of us to become vegetarians, this would be a real problem; no natural fertilizer at all. This is common of people thinking with their emotions. Another example of thinking with the emotions in this area is the people that believe that manure contaminates the ground and that bovine flatulence pollutes the air causing global warming. At the same time these people lament the fact that herds of bison no longer abound. What do they think happened to the fecal matter and flatulence from the huge herds that once were so common?

http://www.sasl.blogspot.com

http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

   

Agriculture

Farming is one of those thing that take a lot of heat from pseudo-environmentalists. Although farming is a necessity to sustaining life in these modern times, many Pseudo-environmentalists seem to want to do away with it. Everything that the farmers do seems to be wrong to some of these people. They seem to forget , (or do not realize in the first place), where their food comes from. I think the problem of not realizing where and how food is obtained may be more of a problem than most of us realize. I spent a number of years working in Chicago and it was amazing to me how little some people knew about the food chain. I actually met a couple of people that did not realize that a cow had to be raised and killed to obtain the meat for that "Big Mac" they loved so much. I met people who were born and raised in the city and had never had any contact with rural and farm life. They took their vacations to Disney World, Paris, London, the Bahamas or maybe Las Vegas. They never once rubbed shoulders with the people who grow the food they eat. To them, all food came from a supermarket or a restaurant. Apparently their education did not include farm topics, or if it did, they forgot it. A lot of these people had very strong feelings about the environment. However, they seem to think that "Somewhere else" is the place to clean it up. they could not grasp the concept that the factories that provided their living were just as guilty, if not more so, of causing environmental problems as were the farmers. A report come out that bovine flatulence was harming the ozone layer and some of them actually suggested ridding the world of bovines.When I asked where the would get their dairy products and meat, a couple actually said, "The supermarket". With this type of mindset and lack of knowledge, I can see where we need a lot of education in this field.

Farmers, as I have said before, are the last people that will intentionally mess up the environment. The great majority of them realize that if they do, they will lose their method of making a living. Probably no one knows better the value of good soil, pure water and clean air. These art the things that allow them to grow good crops, feed their families and make a living. Most farmers truly love the land and treat it better than many other people, including many pseudo-environmentalists, do. Some of that is changing with the influx of "factory farms". some of these farms are owned by large corporations and the people that own the farm never even see it. They have no idea of how the farm is being run or much else about it. Managers are hired, workers are hired and to all of these people, farming becomes just a job. The people who own the farm are concerned about only one thing: the bottom line. This can present a problem because the manager and the employees are also only concerned about one thing: keeping their respective jobs. This may cause them to do thing that a resident farmer would not do  beingemployees rather than land owners and farmers makes them react to problems differently. What it all boils down to is that when looking at farming and the environment, we may have to look at family farms different than factory farms.

There are a lot of differences of opinion as to what constitutes a family farm and what a factory farm is. For this book I will be using the term factory farm for the large farms owned by some entity other than the resident landowner. I will use the term family farm for farms, no matter how large or small, that are owned and operated by a person or family that actually resides on the land and is responsible for the day to day operation of the farm. there is a third group of farmers that I will also mention and this group I will refer to as subsistence farmers. these are farmers, who by today's standards have very small farms and probably have an outside job to help support their family. These people, like the larger family farmers truly love the land. They may even have more love and respect for the land than the person who farms the larger acreage and makes their entire living at it. Why else would they put up with the long hours and hard work, even though they need an outside job to support their family? The difference between the subsistence farm and a hobby farm is that on the subsistence farm the owner is adding product to the food chain and attempting to earn at least part of their living from it, whereas the hobby farmer usually is not.

Please visit my other two blogs.

http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

http://www.sasl.blogspot.com 

Plants - Animals - Mankind 4

The ability for vocal communication is another quality that makes humans different from the rest of the animal kingdom. This allows us to verbally communicate our ideas to others. The human is the only creature that has a voice box capable of the wide range of sounds needed for use of a spoken language. Human brains also have an advanced neuromotor mechanism, which gives them the ability to be able to use words and vocal symbols. This means that we not only can solve problems, we can pass the information on to others. Also being the only animal with an opposing thumb, gives us the advantage of using tools and writing. This ability to recognize words and write them down gives humans the advantage for leaving records for future generations. This is something that no other creature on earth has the ability to do.

Whether you believe, as I do, that were created and put here by God or you believe that man is descended from monkeys, it still leaves at the top of the heap. Looking at some of the unique features of mankind I do not have enough faith in dumb chance to think that we evolved from monkeys. When you look at the intricacy of the eye or the brain or the vocal chord voice box unit, it is impossible to see how that could have occurred by random chance. However, this is not the place to discuss that, it could fill a book on its own and has filled many on both sides of the argument. Either way being at the top of the heap puts mankind in a unique position. We are put in the responsible position of taking care of all of the rest of earth and the creatures that inhabit the earth. I have full faith in mankind that this can and will be done. We need to look at the entire picture and work with it. This does not mean that we need a lot of new laws, nor do we need to cry wolf and treat every little problem as a crisis. We may have to change a lot of our thinking. Many of these changes will have to take place in the pseudo-environmental movement. A great majority of this group seem to think with their emotions rather than their rational brain. They need to stop thinking in absolutes, that their way is always right and everyone else is wrong. They need to realize that discussion and compromise does much more good than crying wolf, declaring a crisis and trying to force everyone to do things their way. Given careful thought and planning, there is room in America for many different types of lifestyles. All of this is going to take a lot of education, compromise, changed laws, (not necessarily new laws), and cooperation. The next section of this book will contain, what I feel, are some good suggestions as to what might be able to be done. Do I have all the answers? Heck no, I do not even know all the questions and I do not believe anyone else does either. All I am doing is trying to throw out some ideas and possibilities. I am attempting to do this in a non-professional, non-scientific way, in a way that everyone, no matter their level of education feelings on the environment, can understand. I fully expect people to try, (and possibly succeed at times) shooting many of my ideas full of holes. That is fine, as long as they can offer an equally good or even better option. If getting my ideas shot down will get a discourse started that can lead to sensible environmental changes, let us get to it.

http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

http://www.sasl.blogspot.com 

Plants - Animals - Mankind 3

The difference between the passenger pigeon and the bison is that when mankind realized that there were  less and less animals every year, they did something about it. With the pigeon, there was no such realization. This probably has to do with the size of the creature and its habits. The bison was protected and we will always have them with us. There will never be the great herds again as the space for those herds to roam is gone. Considering today's population, the bison would probably have been pushed into a corner and the herd cut back anyway. I cover this aspect of environmentalism more thoroughly in the chapter on population. You could say that the bison have been replaced by cattle. I know that it is not the same, but they do provide a lot of food and a lot of clothing (leather)  for a lot of people, just as the bison did. As for it not being the same, that is what evolution is; change. For those who believe in evolution, this has to be totally natural. I am glad that some of today's pseudo-environmentalists were not around during the age of the dinosaur. I do not think I would enjoy spending my time hiding from or ducking dinosaurs or mastodons.

Now, let us take a look at mankind and see how the picture changes. Were some of the first homo sapiens to return to earth today they would think they were on the wrong planet. They would not recognize the plants, the animals, the landscape and perhaps not mankind itself. That is how much everything has changed (evolved) over the many years that homo sapiens have called this planet home. Many of the changes in that time period have either been caused or helped by mankind. While every species evolves within its own kind, I do not believe that one species can turn into a different species as do evolutionists. Some of the changes made by humans have been on purpose and some have been done unwittingly. The fact is, humans have been changing the face of the earth since they have been on this earth.

While animals do things by instinct, humans are a reasoning creature. Animals do not have wants and desires, only needs, while humans have wants and desires. Animals concerns are few; food, safety, sleep, warmth and reproduction. All of these needs are filled by instinct, gained over many years or possibly centuries. Not that animals cannot learn, they can. For instance, many years ago deer did not look up into trees for danger. They had no predators that attacked them from above. then humans started using tree stands from which to hunt. Now deer in hunted areas pay attention to things above them. They will probably not lose this trait unless they go many years without being hunted from tree stands. This is instinctive reaction, when danger comes from one area long enough, that becomes an ingrained part of the animals brain. Humans do not live by instinct. Yes, we do have some remnants of the old instinctive ancestors, like when the hair stands up on the nape of your neck under a dangerous situation or when you can "feel" someone looking at you. These traits are probably left over from the time when homo sapiens lived in caves and were hunted by large carnivorous beasts. Once the dangers were gone, these instincts faded, some of them completely. By and large humans are not instinctive creatures. We have a fairly large highly developed brain which allows us to process information, make decisions, plan, make and use tools and most important; reason things through. this is what makes humans different than, say, beavers. While the beaver is a very intelligent animal and a great engineer, building dams and houses, they do all of this by instinct. They have been doing this for thousands of years and it is always the same. Watching a colony of beaver build a dam or a house is a wonderful sight. There are a lot of interesting things going on during their construction. However, after watching several colonies doing their building you come to realize that everything is instinctive. Consider the location of the dam; it is all based on the availability of food and building materials, which are sometimes the same. The beaver does not look around to try to find a spot that would facilitate a dam with far less work. They do not check for water depth, speed of flow or anything else. Find food, build dam that is their instinct. Humans on the other hand would check out the stream for many of these things and maybe more before deciding where to build the dam. When the beaver builds the dam, there are no shortcuts, no better methods, no new materials, no new tools or anything else different that you would just normally expect from humans. that is the difference between instinctive engineering and sane, rationally thought out engineering.

I will finish this chapter next entry, until then;

http://www.therealamericanpolitics.blogspot.com

http://www.sasl.blogspot.com