What About Fracking?

Let me start this off by saying I’m not a hydrologist. I don’t even play one on TV, so this may be totally wrong, but….

Can someone please explain this to me? The opponents of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) say that they don’t want you to pump something into the ground because they are worried about polluting the aquifer, ground water. Without giving that any real thought that makes sense.

But upon further reflection I have to ask a couple of questions.

First would be, isn’t oil, or even natural gas, considered to be a pollutant to water? Haven’t we been pumping oil out of the ground since Edwin Drake’s first purpose drilled oil well in 1858? Other than the oil that has been spilled when gushers came in, I don’t recall hearing of any water pollution from the drilling itself.

Secondly I must ask, if the oil is and has been down there all along without polluting the aquifer, and for 155 years we have been extracting it without major (or even minor that I’ve heard of) pollution of ground water, why is it a problem now?

And if in the fracking process I am pumping a liquid down to the level where the oil has been for eons, without polluting the water, and I then pump the oil back up past the water, as we have done safely for over 150 years, where is the danger?

My final question is, if Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado would, could and did drink fracking fluid without any ill effects, what’s the big deal if some of it did, though there is no evidence that it ever would, make its way into the aquifer? Remember, the oil itself has been down there for millions of years without polluting the water.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Amnesty To Fill Jobs In The Throws Of Recession?

Is it just me or does there appear to be a disconnect here somewhere?

MARRIOTT CEO: We need immigration bill so we can staff our resorts...

AT&T CEO says more guest workers needed...

208 CEOs endorse call for amnesty, visas for 'lower-skilled workers'...

Report: Unemployment crisis for minority youths...

I just finished reading these four headlines and thought, “Wait a minute!”

On one hand we have CEOs saying we need to get all these illegals legalized and at the same time we are having a crisis of unemployment with our minority youth.

If we were to put our unemployed minority youth to work in the ‘lower-skilled workers’ positions the CEOs are crying for “amnesty” to legally fill, wouldn’t we be obviating the need for legalizing the illegals?

(Oh, did I offend some of the politically correct among you by using the word illegals? Well to effing bad! Somebody who enters a country, any country, illegally has broken the law. They are not “undocumented”, they are illegal! They are criminals. A person who robs a bank is not an “undocumented withdrawer” they are a criminal!)

So think of the positive affects this would have. We would have many of our unemployed young people put to work. This would remove them from any welfare rolls they may have been on (a savings to us all). They would be a contributing member of society who pays taxes and would thus understand what it is to actually be vested in the society from a contributor’s standpoint. Every active member of the workforce is then in a position to improve their lot through effort and education. Employed individuals are less likely to commit crimes, so the crime rate would decline, which would reduce pressure on the legal system and the prisons, allowing more time and resources to be spent on other law breakers. (See earlier parenthetical comment.)

So why are these jobs having to be filled by illegals? Why aren’t our businesses filling these vacancies with our unemployed?

I would posit that there are a myriad of reasons, but topping the list might well be that our governmental welfare system has created a culture where living off of the dole is not viewed as something to be looked down upon. That getting a job and being productive is viewed as a negative. Why work when I’m doing OK without working?

Intentionally or unintentionally, the do gooders in Washington have so successfully removed the stigma of living off the government that they have created an entire underclass that will be perpetually on the take. They have little to no incentive to get off the dole. The system has been set up were a high percentage of our perpetual poor have heat in the winter and AC in the summer. They have flat screen TVs and cell phones. They have computers and the internet. They have EBT cards so as not to harm their egos by having to use food stamps in front of the other folks in the store, singling them out as takers instead of contributors.

So what then do our business leaders and political class see as the answer? Why let’s just make all these law breakers legal with the stroke of a pen. Then we will have all of these “legal” workers at our finger tips to pay taxes and pay for the welfare.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating downward spiral that will draw more folks into the country illegally and entice more people onto the dole, so we have to legalize the illegals to pay for those on the dole, that will then draw more illegals, and on and on and on……

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Artistic License Or Lying To Further Your Cause?

A mural was recently unveiled during a protest of Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The article I read says the artist created the painting of George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/10/mural-of-george-zimmerman-shooting-trayvon-martin-unveiled-in-florida-state-capitol/) In place of Trayvon's face the artist has a mirror and the title of the work is "We Are All Trayvon Martin".

I am deeply offended by this work. The way the artist portrays Zimmerman in a two handed shooters stance firing a weapon is done to evoke a feeling of the shooter being the aggressor. To believe this to be a portrayal of what happened requires you to deny the facts of the case. Zimmerman should have been portrayed flat on his back, attempting to fend off blows with one hand while firing, with no real aiming, one handed. While Trayvon straddles him raining punches down. But that doesn't convey the "lets disarm the American citizenry" message the artist is hoping to make.

Had the artist given a true rendition of the facts of the case, it would have directly argued against the political position he/she was championing. If confronted with the facts that he/she is giving a completely false representation of what happened, I'm sure he/she would have claimed artistic license as his/her justification for his bald faced lie.

Fact: Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman.

Fact: Trayvon Martin was significantly larger than George Zimmerman.

Fact: George Zimmerman was legally carrying a firearm.

You can argue all day whether Zimmerman should have followed Martin, the fact is he was within his legal rights to do so.

Only one person alive truly knows how the fight started. Testimony from the girl friend would seem to indicate that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman about following him. My GUESS on what happened is that Trayvon, in a fit of young male machismo (aided by the fact that he was noticeably bigger than Zimmerman) punched Zimmerman and knocked him down. Martin followed him to the ground where he continued to beat him. (More speculation on my part coming) Zimmerman, fearing for his life as he is on the bottom being beaten, pulls his gun and fires.

A tragic conclusion to the situation.

Had Zimmerman's hand not been at exactly the wrong angle, Martin would be alive today to tell his side of the story.

I believe (more speculation) that yet another example of the old axiom played out that night. "Young men fight for pride. Old men fight to stay alive."

The artist's saying that any of us could have been Trayvon is simply wrong. Only a very small percentage of us would have, as I speculate, confronted Zimmerman. An even smaller percentage would have engaged in a fight. A smaller still group would have gone to the ground and continued to beat George.

This was a tragic event that ruined the lives of all directly involved.

Unfortunately, there were those who saw this as an opportunity to get themselves in the public eye, or to further a political position, or to increase their base of followers. All at the expense of the lives of those involved and racial relations within America. This artist is just one more of these leaches to do so.

Or so it would seem to an Old Country Boy.

What Happened To The Pioneer Spirit In America?

Two hundred thirty seven years ago a group of English citizens residing here on the North American continent got fed up with an overly intrusive and burdensome government and said "ENOUGH!"

The king had said the colonists couldn't manufacture things like cloth. Their raw products had to be sold to English businesses where they would be turned into cloth and sold back to them. They were told that the English government could put troops in their homes to live and they would have to shelter and feed them. Those very same soldiers who would enforce the king's laws over them. They were told that the government could come to their homes and places of business and search them without cause. And on, and on, and on it went. Until finally a group of English traitors said "NO MORE!"

And a funny thing happened. The mouse roared! This tiny group of rebels stood up to the most powerful force in the world.........and WON! Virtually no one thought it was possible, but it lit a flame that turned into a beacon for the world. It became an example for people to aspire to. It gave hope to the oppressed and showed what a FREE people can accomplish when not repressed and restrained by government.

In America an individual could go as far and rise as high as their talent, ambition and effort would let them. People were not restrained by where they were born or where they went to school. Our history is littered with stories of individuals who have risen from modest beginnings to great heights. That has been the glory of this nation. That is why people have sought to come to this country for generations.

But I have to ask myself, "What has happened to this nation?"

Where did the pioneer spirit go? There seems to be a decided lack of individuals who want to achieve on their own terms and an accompanying rise in the number of folks who want what others have without doing what it takes to get it on their own. They want the government to do what, if they did it themselves, would land them in jail. Take from those who earned and give to those who didn't.

In exchange for this unchecked government expansion, the receivers cede more and more of their individual freedoms, making them ever more dependent on the government. This is a vicious cycle in which corrupt government officials suck up more and more power as they make a perpetual under class ever more dependent on them. They encourage this dependence, even advertising to get more people on their food stamp and welfare roles.

This loss of the pioneer spirit has led to a general malaise where large numbers of the population believe the government should care, cloth and feed them. Somehow they are owed these things from society. That they have a "RIGHT" to health care, housing, a cell phone, an education, a flat screen HD TV, transportation, and on, and on!

Well if those things are "rights" than this ain't America any more! It has become the United Socialist States of America, because in the United States of America that I knew, you had the "right" to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Emphasis on pursuit. There were no guarantees of success, only the right to try and the opportunity to succeed.

Or so it would seem to an old Farmboy.

Breast Implant Explodes While Using iPhone

Headline: “Woman’s Breast Implant Explodes After Playing Game For 4 Hours On iPhone”

If you read this headline and no further, what is the logical assumption to make? Answer: the iPhone is to blame for the breast implant exploding.

This would, in fact, be a faulty assumption. Upon reading past the headline, one sees the woman had a low quality breast implant and lay on her stomach, thus increasing the pressure on the cheap implant, for four hours. She happened to be playing a game on an iPhone, but could just as easily have been reading “Mother Jones” or “The New Republic”.

You are probably asking yourself “What in the world difference does that make Farm Boy?”

The reason it makes a difference is that it is another example of how the media can tweak a story subtly to influence the reader’s emotional response. If the writer of the headline had not meant to influence the way you felt about the story it would have been written “Woman’s Breast Implant Explodes After Lying On Stomach For 4 Hours”. Adding the iPhone was clearly an attempt to influence you into thinking the iPhone had some causal effect on the exploding implant.

It would not be surprising at all to find that the writer of the story had either had a bad experience with an iPhone or had some direct or even tangential relationship to Samsung or some other iPhone competitor.

This subtle use of language to influence the consumers’ feelings about a story happens literally thousands of times a day. I do not believe it is done unintentionally. These tweaks are made by communication specialists. People who went to college, generally under very liberally leaning professors who believe in activism in journalism, to learn how to effectively communicate a message. They know how to phrase things to get the reaction they are striving for.

This is not just a tactic of the left though. You can find examples of the same behavior on the right also. Read any NRA publication, or Republican National Committee publication and you can see examples of the same on the other side.

I guess my real gripe is, why can’t the so called news outlets just give us the news without their own personal agendas being introduced. They have enough influence just by controlling the stories they choose to tell and not tell. They don’t need to be secretly editorializing during the telling of the news.

It would seem to me that if an organization is going to call itself a “news” organization, or if it is going to call its product a “news” paper, TV show, radio show, then it should not editorialize without indicating that that is what it is doing. If it clearly states that what is to follow is an editorial comment, then they can knock themselves out. If they fail to do so and do their editorializing in the underhanded way by choosing to use adjectives that will predispose you to feel one way or another, this should be stopped.

If I pick up a “Shooting Sports USA”, I know it is written from a certain perspective and they make NO secret about it. If I read “The Democratic Strategist”, I know it will be written from the opposite perspective. If, however, I pick up a newspaper, I should be able to feel comfortable that the only editorializing I find will be on the Editorial Page. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case.

I think we should all boycott any media stream that claims to be giving the news while subtly editorializing.

Or so it would seem to an Old Farmboy!

Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

Can I ask you to please help a poor old farm boy out? I’m just a little confused.

Al Gore is still pounding his drum about Global Warming and how it’s proven science and that “scientists are not in a conspiracy to lie to us.” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milken-conference-al-gore-rocks-449247) At the same time the esteemed congress woman Barbara Lee of California has introduced a bill related to Global Warming in order to save women from being driven into “transactional sex”( http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex), which I take it means prostitution, due to the effects of global warming.

Well, we certainly can’t have the world going to hell in a warm hand basket if it means the ice caps are going to melt and we are going to have droughts and people starving or having to sell themselves as sex slaves if they are to survive this disaster. Let’s jump right on these proposals by Al and Barbara. Who cares how badly it will affect the everyday citizen due to increased costs and lowered standards of living.

Oh, wait a minute.

Back before the earth cooled and there were no polar ice caps, what was the planet like? Humm, oh yeah, that was back in the time of the dinosaurs. These scientists that Al tells me to believe say the planet was basically one big jungle in the middle and near the top and bottom of the planet I seem to recall them saying it was fairly moderate. Both climates would be suitable for sustained agriculture, not death due to starvation or women having to sell themselves just to get a bite to eat.

So Al and Barbara, which story the scientists tell am I to believe? The planet is going to warm up, the ice caps are going to melt, deserts everywhere and helpless women having to sell their bodies to avoid starvation? Or, should I believe the scientists who tell me that when the planet has warmed in the past, that growth on the planet has exploded? Both flora and fauna expanding because conditions for growth have been so great now that temperatures have increased throughout the world and there is more water available as both water and water vapor due to the melted ice caps. Just as it did in the past.

I’m so confused Al and Barbara.

Now add to this the fact that this very week (the week of 4/29/13), Russian scientists (you remember them Al, the guys who are not in a conspiracy to lie to us) are saying that we are heading into an expected era of global cooling that will last between 200 and 250 years. (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2013/April/Russian-Scientists-Global-Cooling-on-Horizon-/)

Al, you tell me the science on global warming is settled (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642). It’s impossible to question because some scientists (who we have seen are not beyond fudging the data), have said it’s so. Never mind that following a course of action that you claim will slow this global warming, which you say is a settled question, will make you millions and millions of dollars. I feel certain you would never lie to us and that neither you nor your scientist opinions would ever be affected by the lure of the dollar.

I mean, we all know that scientists live on air and have no need of worldly possessions, so they would never promote a cause that would enrich themselves on a personal level. Everything scientists do is for the betterment of the universe as a whole. And Barbara and Al, neither of you are self-aggrandizing assholes who would do or say virtually anything to increase your wealth and/or power.  Right?

So that leaves this poor old farm boy dazed and confused. If the science is settled, and if scientists would never lie, and if Al and Barbara are just looking out for our welfare, how in the ever loving name of anything that’s holy can there be so much bovine produced fertilizer for these folks to be shoveling out?

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

How Come Liberals Want To Compromise?

In the current political climate, the Liberal/Progressives (LibPos) have successfully labeled conservatives as inflexible and unwilling to bend or compromise. They have done this with the support and full cooperation of the LibPo mainstream media.

So why are the LibPos always asking for compromise? No one ever seems to ask. It would seem to be a logical question, but no one ever does, and thus it is never answered.

Well, I think I have the answer.

Conservatives are interested in keeping things the way the Founding Fathers intended. To them, any change that isn’t moving things back towards the original intent is degrading our country and by definition, bad for the country.

LibPos on the other hand, are continuously trying to drag the country into a more socialist position where the government relentlessly increases its presence within our society.

So as a LibPo establishes a position that is diametrically opposed to what a conservative sees as good for the country, they know that the conservative will oppose it. The LibPo then says, “If you don’t want to go this far, what is your compromise position? We are willing to compromise. We don’t have to have all that we want. We are reasonable folks. Let’s hear what you’re willing to accept.”

What has this done?

It has set up a premise that a reasonable person will meet somewhere between what each party wants. The problem with this is, that ANY movement in the direction of the LibPo takes us further away from what the Founding Fathers intended and closer to what the radical LibPos want. When the LibPos establish the beachhead position on their side of the line, any compromise position then moves the conservatives in their, the LibPos, direction.

You never see or hear about from the media, when a conservative position is established and they say we can compromise, but we are headed in this direction. As an example, if the conservatives were to say, “We want to completely close the boarders to illegals entering the country.” The LibPos don’t come back with some compromise like, “OK, let’s close the Arizona portion of the boarder and study the effects.”

If the conservatives establish the beachhead position on their side, the word “compromise” never crosses a LibPo’s lips or their sycophantic medias keyboards/monitors. They are never framed as the inflexible ones.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.