Calves

Lest anyone actually start sending me money for a new camera, here is Chip, good as ever from my very nice little Nikon Coolpix L18. Small enough to carry in your pocket, big enough for what little I do with a camera. I think that’s Annie (Terri Ann) behind Little Chip.

And also the new camera does video. With sounds. Just look what you have to look forward to!!

The fun may never end!!

Carbon Credits

Here is an interesting story on trees. Bottom line:

“If a tree is submerged in water, its carbon will be stored for an average of 2,000 years,” said Richard Guyette, director of the MU Tree Ring Lab and research associate professor of forestry in the School of Natural Resources in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “If a tree falls in a forest, that number is reduced to an average of 20 years, and in firewood, the carbon is only stored for one year.”

Based on that, the California Air resources board want to include trees/farmers in the carbon credit game.

Let’s play.
I’m a farmer and I have 800 acres. 200 are filled with trees. 600 are farmed.

I register those 200 trees as being “potentially felled”. Why? Because now people will pay me not to fell them!!
All of a sudden the credits are coming out of no where!!!

People will do anything to “look” good (buy carbon credits to claim 0 carbon footprint). Now try actually doing what you think “look’s good”. Maybe buying the credit but not using it. Save a tree AND the carbon….

footnote:
If this post confuses anyone on my stance, I think trading credits is bs. Either we have a problem and need to trash the economy to fix it, or we need to just in general take care of the earth because it’s out job.

Aw yes, those political “freelancers”

Here in this NYtimes article we have a fair and balanced (cough, cough) look at the political freelancers working the internet this season.

Let’s see we have example 1:

The video blasted across the Internet, drawing political blood from Senator John McCain within a matter of days……………..it juxtaposed harsh statements about Islam made by the Rev. Rod Parsley with statements from Mr. McCain praising Mr. Parsley, a conservative evangelical leader.

Hits on Youtube, 5million. Results, Mr. McCain rejected Mr. Parsley’s support.

Moving on, example 2:

…..Paul Villarreal, who from his apartment in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., has produced a harsh series of spots that attack Mr. Obama and make some claims that have been widely debunked.

Hits on Youtube, 50,000. No results

example 3 produced by an Evil Evangelical Christian (maybe it doesn’t say evil):

The segment’s announcer notes that Mr. Obama’s father was Muslim, asserts that the candidate attended a Muslim grammar school in Indonesia for two years, and asks, “When we are at war with Islamic terrorism, can Americans elect a man with not one, not two, but three Islamic names?” One onscreen image shows Mr. Obama’s face morphed with that of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Mitchell says he sticks close to the factual record, but the video has been widely criticized as over the line. Mr. Obama is a Christian. The school he attended in Indonesia was secular.

Hits “millions”. Results, a “Fight the Smears” website for Obama.

Yes folks, there are freelancers out there taking what Mr. McCain says “out of context” and “smearing” Obama.

It’s a good thing someone at the times can do the limbo based on their smear of McCain in Feb.

The 2nd Amendment

This made me spit orange juice this morning. From the NYTimes editorial page:

In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.

The bold is mine.

Every other bill of rights is individual but somehow apparently this one became a right for the government? Hmmmmmm.
The Diplomad had it right back in May.

The Second Amendment is right in there with the other nine in the Bill of Rights restricting the powers of the state, making the argument that certain rights belong to the people merely because they are human beings. Among those rights is the right to self-defense. A free country need not fear an armed populace. An armed populace provides a serious restraint on the state by denying it the exclusive possession of the implements of violence. It is not about hunting.

That is why we have this right. “A free country need not fear an armed populace”, “an armed populace provides a serious restraint on the state….” How would all that work if by “armed” they meant armed by the government.

Right.

Racism: will this “news” ever go away?

Sorry – I have to post on this subject again. (At this rate, I expect there will be a lot of it.)

Why? Because Scott found an article where the governor of Kansas (Kathleen Sebelius) has determined that the Right uses code words that suffice for racist attacks.

You know…words like ‘inexperienced’ and ‘liberal’. Or ‘unqualified’. I suspect she could add ‘handsome’ and ‘charismatic’. Projecting I’d have to say that when someone writes something like, “I disagree with Barack Obama on taxes” that too is probably a racist statement.

Scott is looking for a decoder ring. I have to suggest that

if he doesn’t want to be accused,
then all the words he mustn’t use.

Just don’t talk of Obama anymore. Oh… but do vote for him. Then and only then can you prove that you are not a bigot.

As long as we’re talking about Obama, read Karl Rove’s piece today. It’s full of racist words too, like ‘ambitious’ and (gasp!) ‘black’.

Mr. Obama has now also played the race card, twice suggesting in recent weeks that Republicans will draw attention to the fact that he’s black. Who is unaware of that? Americans overwhelmingly find it a hopeful, optimistic sign that the country could elect an African-American president. But they rightly want to know what kind of leader he might be. They may well reject as cynical any maneuver to discourage close examination of him by suggesting any criticism is racially motivated.