Tuesday, December 27, 2005

A Civil War?

I heard something else from the compassionate, tolerant mouth of a Liberal on Christmas Eve. I guess it shouldn’t have surprised me too much, but it did. Surprised and amused me. Got me to thinking and giggling. Laughing so hard it brought tears to my eyes. And now you get to hear it, too.
This is what he said, “If things keep going like they are, maybe we Democrats need to start a civil war!”
Yes, you read that right, ‘we Democrats need to start a civil war!’
My God, I’m starting to chuckle just typing it.
Why is this statement so humorous to me, you ask? Well, first off let’s pick our sides. In this mental experiment, we must begin by listing who will be fighting whom. Well obviously, on one side we have the Liberals(or the Democrats, if you will) and on the other side, the Conservatives.
So what does this mean exactly? OK, here is where the fun starts. Let’s begin by listing the groups who will be fighting for the Left side...
Hmm, I guess we could start with the ACLU. They’re just the types of he-men I would want in a fox hole next to me. Threatening the enemy with law suits, while at the same time protecting them from torture and spying. Advantage: Conservatives.
Next we have the Cindy Sheehan anti-war crowd. They could sit outside Howard Deans office demanding he must appease the other side and bring their sons and daughters home. They could picket and chant and have a sit in. Damn it Dean, she’s the spark of the universe, you have to listen to her. Advantage: Conservatives.
How about PETA and ALF and the like. Well, they hate violence against animals, but injuring person and property doesn’t seem to bother them much. And many are well practiced in the arts of terrorism. I’ll give the Libs this one. Advantage: Liberals.
And here’s a Leftist group that strikes fear and terror in the hearts of their enemies...the anti-2nd Amendment group. While the Right is firing bullets, they could be firing barbs. The Right would be arming, the Left disarming. Advantage: Conservatives.
So what’s left....Oh yeah, the pro-choice, one issue Democrats. Sorry ladies, chanting “Keep your hands off my uterus’ seems kind of weak when the bombs start flying. Maybe you could borrow a scalpel from...you know what, I’m not going there. Advantage: Conservatives.
Can’t leave out the media. Sean Penn could act like he would fight. Barbara Streisand could sing propaganda tunes. The New York Times could write stories accusing their own side of barbarous acts. Air Euromerica could drone on about impeaching the leader of the enemy. ABC could have the ‘hottest new dramas of the season’, 'Chicks Make Great Presidents as Long as They Look Like Hillary', 'Everyone in Jail is Innocent', 'Lawyers are More Moral than Christians', 'Sluts Sleeping With Everyone in the Neighborhood', 'Tales from the Oral Office', and the in depth investigative special 'Heaven: Barbara Knows Where it is, You Idiots'. Advantage: Conservatives.
I guess we can’t forget the feminists. Or the homosexual marriage faction(although those gay cowboys could be scary). The isolationists. The secularists. The socialists. Well, whatever...Advantage: Conservatives.
Ok, enough of that, let’s look at the other side. Who, I wonder, would even dream of fighting for the Right side? Hmm, this is a tough one.
This is a stretch, but how ‘bout the military? They’re 80% plus Conservative. Advantage: Conservatives.
And how about hunters and fisherman? Bet they’d have a few weapons laying around. And my guess is they fall pretty hard to the Right. Advantage: Conservatives.
Ooh, and the military-industrial complex. They’d just love to be rid of the Socialists and that damn Progressive tax bunch. Get those foundries a pumpin’ boys. Advantage: Conservatives.
You know what, that’s about enough I’d say.
In fact, the more I think about it, we Conservatives wouldn’t even need to fire a shot. We could just leave the Libs to the Islamo-fascists. Without the adults to protect them, Liberals would be surrendering to the terrorists in no time. Heck, the two groups really have so much in common. I’m pretty sure the Wahhabists would appreciate their whole anti-religious, pro-anything-sexual-goes, feminizing, pro-criminal, multi-cultural agenda. Advantage: Bin Laden.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Get a Grip

I had the unfortunate opportunity on Christmas Eve night to be witness to hatred first hand. No, I didn’t see a mugging or murder. It wasn’t spousal abuse or a race crime. Not one homosexual was beaten or maimed. No children were raped or injured. No suicide bombs were detonated. A Conservative didn’t even want to keep more of his hard earned money, thus taking entitlements from the ‘less fortunate’, and sending children to bed hungry. No, it was none of that.
It was hatred born of investment and demonization. Hatred built on disappointment and bile. Fabricated out of helplessness and fear. It was hard and cold and deep. As tangible as the point of a burning steel poker.
And hatred like that will not be appeased. It can not be argued down or pacified. It has come from a special place deep in the soul. A dwelling erected just for its purpose. And tended, kept warm, and supplied with sustenance.
There is no logic inherent in this form of hate. All logic has been eagerly surrendered a long time ago. It is oh so much easier to nurture the beast if one never need look it in the face.
So what is this thing of which I speak? What evil sadistic vile creature could induce such loathing?
Of course, it is George Bush. The President of The United States.
At this point I ask the reader to ask himself if he really and purely hates this man. Not dislikes, or disagrees with, but hates..abhors. If you are one of those, it is time to get a grip.
“He is a dictator!” Do you really believe this? Do you know what a dictator is...what he does? Do you personally know of any friend, acquaintance, or loved one who has been jailed for speaking against the government? Take a trip to Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran and ask someone that question. You live in a country where pseudo-intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and Michael Moore are allowed to spew their propaganda freely and openly.
“He is stomping on civil rights!” Do you really believe this? Let me ask this question...What is in it for your President when he allows our intelligence community to listen in on calls to and from known terrorists? What has he to gain? Is it to enrich his oil buddies? To get some good press from The New York Times? Maybe just the joy that comes from wielding power. Come on, get a grip. Could it not be, instead, he does it to protect you and yours?
“Well, destroying civil rights, that is just how Hitler started!” Do you really believe this? Because it is wrong. I understand your hatred and your need to rationalize it, but it is not ‘just how Hitler started’. Hitler rose to power in a country whose economy and people were destroyed from a war of their own making. A country ripe for a dictator. Where in this country do you see such a thing? On the right, those who fight endlessly for the Second Amendment and its inherent personal protection from just this scenario? Or from those on the Left who question and undermine the President's every move.
If you do not see yourself in any of the above cases, then you need read no further. But for those of you who do, I will end by asking one further question. It may sound absurd, but notice your first instinct and truly think about your answer. If Bush found out hyenas were eating babies and personally decided to do something about it, would you back him?

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Now Look What Bush is Doing

When will we end the madness? This abuse as got to stop!
I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured," Saddam told the court before gesturing toward his seven co-defendants, "one by one."

OK, so there was this little, minor side story...

The deposed leader's lengthy complaint came after witnesses graphically described how their captors administered electric shocks and used molten plastic to rip the skin off prisoners in a crackdown following an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982...

...Al-Haidari said that he and other residents from Dujail - including family members - were taken to Baghdad and thrown into a security services prison, where people from "9 to 90" were held.

Blood poured from head wounds and skin was pale from electric shocks, he testified. Security officials would drip melted plastic hoses on detainees, only to pull it off after it cooled, tearing skin off with it, he said...
...Two witnesses later testified from behind a curtain. One of them, identified only as Witness No. 2, said security officials "attached clamps to my thumbs and toes and private areas and tortured me with electricity until foam came out of my mouth."

But this is not about those whiny Iraqis, this is about the torture endured by Mr. Hussien...and how surely Bush is behind it.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Adult Stem Cells Rule

You embryo haters won't want to read this, from reasearchers at the University of Louisville...
In a discovery that has the potential to change the face of stem cell research, a University of Louisville scientist has identified cells in the adult body that seem to behave like embryonic stem cells.

The cells, drawn from adult bone marrow, look like embryonic stem cells and appear to mimic their ability to multiply and develop into other kinds of cells, said Mariusz Ratajczak, director of the stem cell biology program at U of L’s James Graham Brown Cancer Center, who led the research project.

The finding, presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology in Atlanta, was announced Dec. 12 at the society’s news conference.

Stem cells are naturally-occurring living cells that haven’t yet developed into the specialized cells that form body parts.

A study by Ratajczak’s team published last year in the journal “Leukemia” was the first to identify a type of stem cell in adult bone marrow that acts differently than other marrow stem cells. The newly-identified cells, called “very small embryonic-like” (VSEL) stem cells, have the same structure and protein markers as embryonic stem cells.

Ratajczak and several other researchers from U of L will present a paper Dec. 13 showing that VSEL stem cells mobilize into the bloodstream to help repair damaged tissue following a stroke.

His team also has grown VSEL cells in a lab and has stimulated them to change into nerve, heart and pancreas cells. If other scientists can duplicate the process on a larger scale, it could reduce the need for embryonic stem cells in research and eliminate rejection problems associated with using stem cells from an outside donor.

“We are very excited about the tremendous implications of this discovery,” Ratajczak said. “Our preliminary success in growing and differentiating these cells is very encouraging.”

Researchers worldwide have said that various types of stem cells hold great promise for understanding and treating a wide variety of diseases. They also could become a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues that could be used to treat such illnesses, conditions and disabilities as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, burns, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and arthritis. The use of embryonic stem cells, which can evolve into any type of cell in the body, has been surrounded by controversy.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

A Dialogue on Moral Action

GBlagg: Merry Christmas.
Sticks and Stones: Yes. Merry Christmas to you, as well.
GBlagg: Something has been stirring in my mind lately that I hoped we could discuss...
S&S: Very good. Let’s have it.
GBlagg: Recently I overheard a group of ministers and such sermonizing about the ‘evils’ of cutting the Federal budget. They were bemoaning the immorality of this action and it got me thinking about morality...
S&S: Ok, this should be fun.
GBlagg: ...and what constitutes a moral action. It seems to me this should be a core issue at the very heart of the whole ‘values’ debate.
S&S: I believe you are correct. So let us begin with the notion of what actually constitutes a moral action.
GBlagg: Ok, I’m listening.
S&S: What is it, then, that separates any particular action from a moral one?
GBlagg: I don’t understand...
S&S: Well then, is every human action a moral one?
GBlagg: Of course not.
S&S: So there are, in fact, actions that are not immoral. This is a start. So, again, what makes an action moral? Here is an example. If a man’s unconscious act leads to a positive outcome, is this a moral action?
GBlagg: I would say not.
S&S: And why not?
GBlagg: Well, because there was no intent. There was no conscious decision to act in a way that would bring about the positive outcome. He basically dumb lucked into it. So his action, of itself, is not a moral action.
S&S: Correct. In order for an action to be considered moral, it must have a conscious intention. So what else is not a moral action?
GBlagg: Hmm. Is this where we get into the idea of right versus wrong...good versus evil?
S&S: There is an aspect of that. We now have conscious intent, but of what? Stemming from what?
GBlagg: A decision, obviously. To act in one way or another.
S&S: And what does this idea point to?
GBlagg: Ah...as always, choice.
S&S: Yes, ‘choice’. Whether right or wrong, as you say, or good or evil; there must be choice. Not only in that way, yet in another.
GBlagg: Explain...
S&S: Well, first let me ask you this...If a man is forced by another or by circumstance to act in a certain way and the outcome is a positive one, was his a moral action?
GBlagg: I would say no. If there is coercion, then his choice was not freely his. The act then is not in itself a moral one. And this point brings me to my original thought...
S&S: Go on.
GBlagg: These ‘religious’ men who claim it is moral to finance programs through taxation are, I feel, insulting the very definition of ‘morality’. The act of being taxed allows no choice, either ethically or intentionally. If a man does not pay his taxes, he will be fined or jailed. So there is no choice. As we have said, a lack of choice equals no morality. This is the same argument against using the word ‘compassion’ when dealing with many of these same issues.
S&S: Explain...
GBlagg: Again, it must be said, there is no true compassion where there is no choice. ‘Compassion’ can not be force fed. The taking of money through taxes and redistributing it to another is not ‘compassion’ it is coercion. And it is the same with the term ‘sacrifice’, as well.
S&S: You seem to be rolling, don’t let me stop you...
GBlagg: Let us look at a real life example of something that has a very real possibly of coming to fruition. Let us say the anti-WalMart activists do indeed reach their goal and unionize Walmart. This would raise the salaries of many employees, but dozens of tens of thousands of others would be laid off. The Walmart executives would surely cut the fat in-house...greeters and such, and likely raise the prices of their goods sold, as well, to make up the difference. This is basic economics. But if one was to point this reality out to the aforementioned activists, they would reply that some men must ‘sacrifice’ for the common good.
S&S: This is the Socialist’s mantra, but how does this relate to our discussion?
GBlagg: In the idea of ‘sacrifice’. ‘Sacrifice’ is only moral when it is self inflicted. When one man sacrifices another or even the property of another, neither have performed a moral action.
S&S: This seems to be the case. So what would you say all these things have in common?
GBlagg: Well, choice and intention, of course...
S&S: But there is more to it than that. Just what is it that has caused these terms we have discussed...moral acts, compassion, sacrifice, and such...to be misunderstood in the first place? Why have their definitions been usurped?
GBlagg: I see where you’re headed. It is the difference between the big ‘G’ and the little ‘g’.
S&S: Yes. When government becomes your god, meanings change. Choice is no longer governed by morality and conscience, by right or wrong; it is coerced through threat and fear. Government then defines right and wrong, what is moral, what is just. Tax cuts become ‘evil’, redistribution of wealth ‘compassionate’. ‘Sacrifice’ is no longer a personal choice, it is a duty compelled by government.
GBlagg: But why would any thoughtful man choose to live under such conditions? Ahh, I see, he does not choose...he is forced.
S&S: As you say.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Let the Truth Ring Out

Before I get to the point of this post, here are two items of interest...
From Statesman.com:
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead...It wasn't the first time Coulter has had trouble at a university speech. In October 2004, two men ran onstage and threw custard pies as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona.

And from CNN's Larry King Live...

King : All right, Dennis...

PRAGER: I've always wanted to ask the sister a question. Do you feel that Israel was immoral when it executed Adolph Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust, responsible for the death of a million Jews?

PREJEAN: There is no comparison between the Holocaust and killing six million people. In the United States of America...

PRAGER: So you're not against this.

KING: Let her finish.

PREJEAN: ...which has the constitution, which is supposed to assure due process, and equal justice under law. We don't have to do the death penalty. And, in fact, if you look at it we are shutting the death penalty down in the United States. There is less than half the death sentences now that we had four years ago.

PRAGER: But I didn't get a response. This is a big thing on your show, sister, do you think that it was moral to execute Adolph Eichmann?

PREJEAN: All I want to say is when you draw up Hitler or Eichmann, you're dealing with something of such gravity--we don't have to kill people in the United States we have prisons.

PRAGER: They didn't have to kill Eichmann.

PREJEAN: And Tookie Williams is an example of why we don't have to kill people.

KING: All right. Sister.
PREJEAN: So making your comparison does not apply to the United States.

PRAGER: So if you murder one you should live, but if you murder a million you should die.

KING: Thank you, sister

Ok, so what do these two events have in common?
Well, let us look a little closer at each example.
Story one points to the lie, so often repeated, that Lefties care about free speech. Unfortunately, it seems, they believe only in the freedom of Left leaning speech. Any ideas or speakers who oppose or attack Progressive ideology are at best, protested and shouted down; or at worst, physically attacked. How can not allowing Conservative thought or speakers to be heard be in any way described as a belief in freedom of speech? Here’s how, it can’t.
Story two demonstrates an event that occurs so often that I believe its point is missed more often now than it is even noticed. And that is the Lefty who will not answer the question posed of him/her. Who will simply ignore a question whose answer he/she fears will show his/her true ideology and/or feelings. He/she either understands 1) that his/her thoughts on the issue are so far out of the main stream that he/she will be seen as a fool, 2) that his/her stances can not stand the brunt of intelligent debate, or 3) that to honestly answer the question would surely illuminate his/her true thoughts, feelings, and agenda. Think about this last point for a moment... the Liberal can not espouse his/her true thoughts and ideas. One of the great things about being a Conservative, as I see it, is that I can say exactly what I think and feel, as these things are based in common sense and do not cause me to engage in mental and linguistic gymnastics.
So let's get to the point of this post.
The following statement should explain, I believe, just what the above two issues have in common. Modern Liberals are terrified to let intelligent Conservatives get their true thoughts and ideas out into the realm of open debate, whereas intelligent Conservatives would love for modern Liberals to actually espouse their true thoughts, ideas, and feelings in any debate. Modern Liberals fear the truth of Conservative thought, Conservatives would just love the truth of modern Liberalism exposed.
In that light, the following are a few examples of the rare times the Libs let their guard down enough for this to actually happen...

Here's Richard Daley, Democratic Mayor of Chicago on a smoking ban in restaurants and bars...
'“If it's the right thing to do, why don't restaurants do it today? Very interesting. It's called greed. They want to make money,” said Mayor Richard Daley.'

From Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on his back door funding of stem cell research...
"While we are forced to live in a democracy with several branches of government, sometimes in a democracy the process is frustratingly slow."

How about the esteemed Walter Cronkite's take on democracy...
"We're an ignorant nation right now. We're not really capable I do not think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency of course. I don't think we're bright enough to do the job that would preserve our democracy, our republic. I think we're in serious danger."

And Mr. John F. Kerry Democratic Senator from Massachusetts on his view of the American military...
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women..."

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean with his thoughts on American strength...
"The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."

And this on his tolerance and compassion for differing ideas...
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

How 'bout this from Patty Murray, Democratic Senator from Washington state, on why terrorists are better than Americans...
"He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

And from Democratic Senator from New York, Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, on what true feminism consists of...
"They went to school; they participated in the professions, they participated in the government and business and, as long as they stayed out of [Saddam's] way, they had considerable freedom of movement."

From Robin Morgan, editor of MS. Magazine on the politics of the ‘oppressed’...
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

And lastly, we have Nancy Soderberg, a member of Clinton's National Security Council on the possibility of a positive outcome in Iraq...
"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us . . . . There's always hope that this might not work."

Ah, the sweet sound of honesty. Let the truth ring out.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Words Have Meaning

Anyone who has read my previous posts on ‘euphemism’, here and here, may well have surmised that my hatred of politically correct verbiage and the usurping of meaning is one of my biggest beefs against the so called Progressives. It is only surpassed by my disgust for the pea sized, history denying brains of Socialists. OK, another assault on the Left, so what’s my point?
This attack (and it is in fact an attack) on Christmas, just sickens me. As one who would not be deemed conventionally religious, I come from a completely different angle in my disgust with the anti-Christmas crowd. My problem is this...words do have meanings. A cat is a cat, it is not a monkey or a Marxist(sorry Karl, nature don’t play your games). To call something other than what it truly is, is at best a lie and at worst propaganda.
The replacement of the word Christmas with the word ‘holiday’ is a perfect example.
First let us bring light to the lie that this practice is performed in the spirit of inclusiveness. Secularists and atheists couldn’t care less about inclusiveness, lest they would see the hypocrisy in the way their actions would exclude many more than they ever could include. The very existence of Christmas is insulting to them personally and there is little in the world more dangerous than stepping on the wrong side of a Leftie’s ‘feelings’. Besides this, they understand how upset many on the Right get in regards to their synonymic abuse of the word Christmas, and they revel in this knowledge.
But worse, and what should upset Lefties as much as Conservatives, is what we see in the commercial arena. Although for different reasons, I suppose. As we all are aware, many large retail establishments have now banned the word Christmas, not only from their advertising, but from the mouths of their employees. To be inclusive? Sure, to ‘include’ even the anti-Christmas crowd in their bottom line. Yes, Lefties, they want to ‘include’ you in the season in order to up their profits. And as you know, PROFIT=BAD. Heck, when I actually think about it, maybe this is one area where both sides can be in agreement on a down side of commercialism.
As much as replacing the word Christmas with ‘holiday’ or ‘season’ or some other such tripe, the omission of it altogether, is very nearly as bad. In Target’s latest sale flyer, they are not selling ‘Christmas trees’, they are selling ‘artificial trees’. ‘Artificial trees’ with colored lights on them. A lot of call for lighted ‘artificial trees’ in non-Christian homes, I guess.
Is seems to me that if we as men are ever to come together in understanding at all, we must at least agree on the meanings of the words we use. And we must, in honesty, call things what they most actually are, no matter how personally painful. No matter if it fits our agenda to do otherwise. So one needn’t call a thing Christmastime, Christmas tree, or Christmas card because he feels Christ is Lord; but merely because that is exactly what it is.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Friday, December 09, 2005

Great Quote

I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live.

Martin Luther King Jr., Speech in Detroit, June 23, 1963

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Katie Couric-Air Marshall

Air Passenger: I’VE GOT A BOMB!!!
Air Passenger: I’VE GOT A BOMB!!!
Air Marshall: GET ON THE GROUND!!!
Air Passenger: I’VE GOT A BOMB!!!
Air Marshall: ARE YOU BI-POLAR?!?
Air Passenger: Eh?
Air Passenger: What the hell are you talking about...
Air Passenger: Didn’t you hear what I said, I’VE GOT A...
Air Passenger: What are you, an idiot? I HAVE A BOMB, YOU FOOL!!!
Air Passenger: THAT’S IT, I’M BLOWIN’ YOUR ASS UP...
Air Passenger: I’VE...
Air Marshall: MIGRAINE?!?
Air Passenger: GOT...
Air Passenger: A...

Monday, December 05, 2005

Of Wolves and Lefties

Not satisfied with force feeding their inane societal senselessness on humans, it now seems some from the party of Marx wish to expand their reign of fantasy into the animal community. To that of our brothers in spirit, the wolf.
We will return to this idea, but let us begin with this...

Brookfield Zoo officials call it a case of nature.
Animal rights activists are calling it neglect.
Whatever the case, zoo visitors recently got an eyeful as a pack of wolves violently turned on a new member, bloodying the animal in a mauling one eyewitness estimated lasted more than five minutes.
"It was really scary,'' said Bruce Pankratz of Barrington, who, along with dozens of other zoo visitors, saw five wolves attack a younger wolf on Saturday. "People were screaming.''
Pankratz, 41, a hospital executive, said a group of wolves were eating meat off a bone in a corner of their exhibit when one wolf suddenly ran down a hill and began attacking the newcomer. That prompted most of the other wolves to join in.
"Two of the dogs grabbed the back of his neck and another one grabbed his throat and dragged it about 20 yards,'' Pankratz said. "One was taking its head and twisting it.''
A man ran to the exhibit fence, threw wood chips at the fighting wolves and screamed "Stop! Stop!'' said Pankratz.
The animal is recovering from wounds to its ears and hind legs but suffered no permanent injuries, a zoo official said.
Cause of fight a mystery
The two-acre exhibit, a $2.5 million facility dubbed a "Hilton for wolves,'' opened in June 2004 with five adult Mexican gray wolves. About six weeks ago, zoo officials introduced three new animals -- each about a year old -- obtained from Ohio's Columbus Zoo.
Some adjustments were apparent while trying to blend the two all-male packs, including "test charges'' where the older wolves rushed at the younger ones, said Brookfield curator of mammals Ann Petric. The confrontations included "a couple nips every now and then,'' said Petric, who described the bites as a normal shakeout in a hierarchical social grouping.
"The yearlings all along have been acting submissive and showing the adult animals they would stay on the bottom of the hierarchy, which is the behavior we expected from them,'' Petric said.
While keepers kept a constant eye on the animals during the first two weeks, none were present during the Saturday attack, said Petric. Human contact is kept to a minimum because zoo officials hope to release some of the animals back into the wild in Arizona.
Petric said she did not know how long it took for keepers to get to the exhibit. When they arrived, the animals had separated and the injured dog lay motionless.
The two packs of wolves have been placed into different areas, and Brookfield intends to transfer the new pack to another zoo, Petric said.
"Although it was natural behavior for wolves, it was more intense than we expected to see this far into the introduction,'' Petric said. "We won't be putting these animals together again.''
What sparked the fight is a mystery: "Maybe the yearling was moving in a direction the adults didn't want it to,'' Petric said.
Activists request USDA probe
The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which abhors zoos in general, has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate.

‘Cause of fight a mystery’? I am no expert in animal behavior, but I would predict even the average pet owner could easily decipher the ‘cause’ of this so called ‘mauling’. How about this tidbit...’a group of wolves were eating meat off a bone in a corner of their exhibit...when one wolf suddenly ran down a hill and began attacking the newcomer’? This obviously an issue of dominance. An alpha wolf asserting its dominance in no uncertain terms. This is basic canine dominant feeding behavior.
Sure, it may not be pretty. And it may not easily fit the nostalgic view of nature most PETA and Sierra Club members would like to see, but it surely is as much part of nature as are cute penguins on the march.
It is this dualistic aspect of the natural world that must be honored, or at the very least accepted, if one is to label oneself a lover and protector of nature. No matter the rose colored glasses, nature is just as horrifying as it is beautiful.
But now let us return to the wolves, and more pointedly, to the original premise of this writing.
Most who study canine behavior would agree that it is the natural state of a wolf pack to establish a dominance hierarchy. This is simply the nature of the wolf.
Or is it?
I have recently stumbled upon a paper, written by one L. David Mech titled ‘Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs’, circa 1999.
Normally I would have read his thesis, smirked, and moved on; but something about it struck me deeper. Made me think...
Mr. Mech’s basic assertion is that wolf packs in the wild do not in actuality form hierarchies, that there is in fact no 'alpha' wolf. Here is a just a short sampling, but I would advise readers to take in the whole article...

Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in
a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the
alpha male and female are merely the breeding animals, the
parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other
wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers
observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none...
...The concept, nature, and importance of the dominance
hierarchy or pecking order (Schjelderup-Ebbe 1922) itself in
many species are in dispute (summary in Wilson 1975).
Similarly, in a natural wolf pack, dominance is not manifested
as a pecking order and seems to have much less significance
than the results of studies of captive packs had
implied (Schenkel 1947, 1967; Rabb et al. 1967; Zimen
1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979). In a natural wolf pack, the
dominance rules bear no resemblance to those of the pecking
order, that of a group of similar individuals competing for

He argues the above, despite the simple fact that canine behavior has been studied and understood, basically, since the dawn of written history. And that wolf behavior has been closely studied for over half a century.
He argues the above, despite the fact that much in the theory of canine training is based on the ideas of dominance/submission. Does he not find it odd that an animal would be imprinted with the understanding of dominant/submissive behavior if it was not a natural part of that animal’s behavior?
He argues the above, despite the fact that the study of captive wolves should hold equal, if not greater merit, as they can be observed on a constant basis. Even with his ‘13 summers observing’, how much behavior was he simply not privy to?
So the question arises, why? Why would he seem to choose to ignore facts that most scientists and dog trainers so readily and easily accept?
Well now, finally, we get to my premise.
Let us begin first by looking at the Left’s view of humans and human behavior for a moment. They feel no man is greater than any other. They feel any advantage one man has over another is simply a fluke of nature, a lucky role of the dice. This is the very reason socialist ideas run so rampant in the ideology of the Left. They argue, ‘why should one man have more property or prominence than another simply because of the whims of fate’(which also explains their hatred of God, but that is another paper). It is this very idea that demands of them to tear down the achievers, to attack the strong. ‘How is it fair for one man to be advantaged, when all men cannot?’ They call this injustice, I call it reality.
Yet, it is with these very ideas that many on the Left view all of nature, the totality of the universe. How can one with such feelings look at a wolf pack’s behaviors, framed by dominance and submission/the strong and the weak, and not be tempted to redefine it? If the universe runs as the Leftist envisions it, this definition of behavior can not stand.
So the Leftist changes it. He sees nuance where it does not exist. He attributes actions where there are none. He ignores behaviors that oppose his ideology. He disregards reality.
But at least, through his self inflicted dismissal of reality, he no longer need call the wolf his brother. For now he can simply call him comrade.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Pull Them Out Now!!!

Oh my God!

Recently released crime statistics show the homicide rate in California is 265 percent higher than the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq.
According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period.

Let’s get our sons and daughters out of there immediately! Seriously, would you send your child to die in San Diego?
We must put an end to the Schwarzenegger regime’s failed policies!
Our children should not have to die to enrich the big orange orchard conglomerates!
Can't you see that Californian’s don’t want freedom anyway!(Well, that much is true...look how they voted on a union members right to decide where his dues are to be spent and for impinging on a citizen’s choice to smoke). They want us out!
This is what happens when we let Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo invade California unilaterally! Where was our ‘grand coalition'?!? This is the wrong time, wrong place, wrong state!
Where are the Weapons of Ass Destruction, Mr. Governor? And don't try to convince us they're buried under the bath houses in San Francisco.
Even Barbara Boxer agrees there is no hope, "Every day, there's another message. ... They don't seem to know what they're doing. We are in a mess because they have no plan, and now it seems they don't even talk to each other. ... What's happening there is not working; it's a disaster."
Can't you see that before American's entered California there was no violence and death? This is our doing...our actions drew this violence like a magnet!
I don't care if the surf's up...our people in there are broken, worn out and living hand to mouth!
Please, Arnold, just bring our people home...the killing has to end.