Sunday, August 31, 2008

Polar Bears are now listed as an Endangered Species


Article Found Here

Ten polar bears have been spotted swimming in open water during an aerial survey as the peak of summer sea ice melting nears.

Drowning polar bears has only been seen as a threat to the species in recent years as the extent of sea ice recedes to historic low levels. Last year, there was more open water than ever before recorded; this year's melt, while dramatic, won't reach the same extent as 2007.

Swimming until an exhausted death sounds like a nightmare scenario from a human perspective. Polar bears are used to swimming. It's the growing distance that matters. Polar bears at this time of year should be out hunting seals, fattening up for the winter. If they're instead burning fat reserves swimming for solid ground, they're less likely to survive the winter.

“To find so many polar bears at sea at one time is extremely worrisome because it could be an indication that as the sea ice on which they live and hunt continues to melt, many more bears may be out there facing similar risk,” said Geoff York, the polar bear coordinator for WWF's Arctic Program. “As climate change continues to dramatically disrupt the Arctic, polar bears and their cubs are being forced to swim longer distances to find food and habitat.”

Polar bears have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, though with enough caveats that environmentalists have accused the Bush Administration of recognizing the threat to polar bears without committing to addressing the problem. That's because the problem starts with every tailpipe and smokestack, every farm and development project. The Arctic sea ice is melting to such unprecedented degrees because of global warming.

In the excitement of the Olympics, the run-up to the presidential conventions and the flurry of late summer vacations, it was easy to miss the Bush administration's stealth attack on the Endangered Species Act last week. A proposed regulation would simply eliminate independent scientific reviews that have been required for over 30 years.

"I have been working on the Endangered Species Act for 15 years and have never seen such a sneaky attack," declared John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation.

In a proposal, first reported by the Associated Press, biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would no longer have input into the actions of many other federal agencies in evaluating projects that could impact endangered species.

Essentially it would be up to officials at agencies like the Forest Service, the Minerals Management Service and the Department of Transportation to decide for themselves if a new timber allotment, mining project or road would harm endangered animals and plants, without consulting third-party biologists from Fish and Wildlife.

Many of the agencies, which would now be making decisions affecting the fate of species themselves, don't even have biologists on staff to make such determinations. The proposal presents a conflict of interest, which could effectively gut the Endangered Species Act, by asking the very agencies the act regulates to also enforce it. A 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum obtained by environmentalists states that when agencies regulated themselves in the past, they consistently violated the Endangered Species Act.

More Information Here

Sarah Palin, McCain's VP running mate, sued, the Bush administration for adding Polar Bears to the endangered species list. Sarah Palin does not believe that mankind has caused global warming. Hmmmmm, me thinks maybe the cold Alaskan air has gone to her head?? Maybe it is just not warm enough in Alaska to believe in global warming?

"In defending her position, Palin has discounted the findings of nine recent U.S. Geological Survey studies which concluded that the polar bear's habitat is threatened by global warming, and the animals could be extinct before this century ends.

Three of Palin's own state scientists reviewed the USGS studies and found them sound, according to internal documents released to an Alaska professor earlier this year under the state's open records law. But she has argued, in a New York Times editorial and elsewhere, that "there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future."

(ABC News Photo Illustration)

Palin's position, she wrote, is based on "a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."

"Essentially, she lied," said University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner, who wrangled with the Palin administration for months to obtain the documents. "She came out and said, 'our scientists agree the polar bears are fine and should not be listed'" when that wasn't the case, said Steiner, a conservation specialist who studies climate change. "

Read More Here

And Here

And Here

And Here

Stop bear hunting in Katmai Preserve


While there is no hunting in Katmai National Park, if bears wander outside of the park boundaries they can be shot. Attached to every National Park in Alaska, is a “preserve” where hunting is allowed. This spring, habituated bears in Katmai Preserve were hunted. Journalists captured this slaughter on film, and it caused quite an uproar in Alaska.
Read the news story here.

"KATMAI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, Alaska -- The hunt for bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve opened Monday,Oct 5th 2007, much to the anger of bear-viewing guides and biologists.

Katmai National Park encompasses more than 4 million acres and boasts one of the premier brown bear viewing areas in the world. But a legal hunt of brown bears has also taken place there every other spring and fall for decades.

The national preserve area of Katmai is approximately 423,000 acres. State biologists and National Park Service officials contend there are more than enough brown bears there to sustain a hunt; others disagree.

Brown bears are drawn to the protected areas of the park and preserve by the abundant salmon resources that local waterways provide. Narrow Cove in particular provides spectacular feeding grounds for many bears.

Ken Day owns Emerald Air Service and conducts bear viewing trips.

"These are very gentle, loving, peaceful critters," Day said.

Day and his wife, Chris Day, have made a living as tour guides each summer in Katmai for the past 20 years. But in recent years, Ken Day claims they are seeing fewer and fewer bears.

"We watched the bears here for 10 years before we ever started saying anything. It's when they started decimating the population of these bears that we started trying to get a stop to roll it back," Day said.

In the fall season of odd-numbered years and the spring season of even-numbered years, an open bear hunt takes place in the preserve, part of Game Management Unit 9C.

Hunters need a license in order to participate, but no permit to take any one bear they want, with the exception of a female with cubs.

There is no cap on the total number of bears that can be harvested in GMU-9C.

Recent numbers show the fall harvest has more than doubled from 12 bears in 2001, to 29 in 2003 and 26 in 2005.

Dr. Grant Hilderbrand, a biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, emphasized it's a legal hunt. He also said the increase in harvest is likely due to an increase in population in that area, as more and more bears are drawn to the large amount of salmon available to them.

"Our recent population estimates and our recent surveys, which were done just a few weeks ago indicate a very high density, very healthy bear population. So on a landscape scale we are very comfortable with the strategy we are employing," Hilderbrand said.

Chris Day contends that strategy is not working and has been mismanaged.

"We've seen average daily numbers of bears go from 60 to sometimes 80 bears, (down) to 10 to 15 adult bears," Day said. "

Despite the outpouring of protest to the hunting of bears in the Katmai Preserve, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Board of Game have yet to close hunting in the preserve. Even the majority of sport hunters in Alaska oppose the shooting of habituated bears, yet Palin and officials choose to ignore even them. The Alaskan government has such a vested interest in maintaining sport hunting, and destroying the bear viewing industry that generates millions of dollars a year for the state. It makes you wonder what kind of pay off they are getting to ignore the wishes of the majority of Alaskans in regards to this issue.


Is this who you really want in office?

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Sarah Palin


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The top 11 things you should know about Sarah Palin:



1) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power

2) She strongly supports big oil (her husband works for oil company BP)

3) She stands for everything that Hillary Clinton stood against

4) She is adamantly opposed to reproductive rights for women

5) She has no federal or international experience. Prior to being governor (for less than two years) she was only the mayor of a small town and a beauty queen!

6) She believes global warming is a farce and is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species

7) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools

8) She supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and anywhere else big oil wants

9) She supports Pebble Mine which will destroy the richest salmon run in the world

10) She supports aerial shooting of bears and wolves in Alaska

11) She is pro-war

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you know? <<< Click This Link

The following was copied and pasted for you from the above link. Make sure to click the link and check out the comments people left for more information.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Is this a joke?” That seemed to be the question du jour when my phone started ringing off the hook at 6:45am here in Alaska. I mean, we’re sort of excited that our humble state has gotten some kind of national ‘nod’….but seriously? Sarah Palin for Vice President? Yes, she’s a popular governor. Her all time high approval rating hovered around 90% at one point. But bear in mind that the 90% approval rating came from one of the most conservative, and reddest-of-the-red states out there. And that approval rating came before a series of events that have lead many Alaskans to question the governor’s once pristine image.

There is no doubt in my mind that many Alaskans are feeling pretty excited about this. But we live in our own little bubble up here, and most of the attention we get is because of The Bridge to Nowhere, polar bears, the indictment of Ted Stevens, and the ongoing investigation and conviction of the string of legislators and oil executives who literally called themselves “The Corrupt Bastards Club”.

So seeing our governor out there in the national spotlight accepting the nomination for Vice Presidential candidate is just downright surreal. Just months ago, when rumors surfaced that she was on the long version of the short list, she was questioned if she’d be interested in the position. She said she couldn’t answer “until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day. I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here….”

There is no doubt that Palin has fierce territorial loyalties. When elected governor there was much concern because she came right out and said she would favor her own home town of Wasilla (where she was mayor) and its surrounding environs collectively known as “the Valley” while leading the state. And it’s obvious from her statement that Alaska was on her mind when accepting the VP nod (see my emphasis above).

So what is it that we’re “trying to accomplish up here”?

  • Palin is currently in the middle of a controversial gas pipeline project in Alaska. She’s favored the ‘Trans Canada’ proposal that will run the pipeline through Canada, in effect shipping US jobs over the border. Many Alaskans, including former governors, have favored the “All Alaska Route”.
  • She is also sueing the federal government over listing the polar bears as a threatened species. The science was even compelling enough to convince the Secretery of the Interior that the bears needed to be listed. But acknowlegement of this issue, and the potential disruption to development on Alaska’s oil-rich north slope spurred Palin to attempt to stop the listing.
  • Does she want to open ANWR? Yes. Every politician in Alaska wants to open ANWR. It’s basically a requirement if you ever hope to get elected for anything. Even Mark Begich, the progressive Democrat running against the indicted Senator and Alaskan institution Ted Stevens, is pro-drilling. That’s the sea we swim in up here. There are a few anti-drilling folks, but you have to look hard to find them, and work hard to have them admit it.

Will all this wash with voters in the ‘Lower 48′? Time will tell.

18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling

It was obvious anyway, but became beat-you-over-the-head-with-a-two-by-four obvious when Palin referenced the ‘glass ceiling’ line, that this choice is a blatant pander to women. I would like to believe that women will actually feel insulted by this. Yes, it would have been historic if Hillary had gotten the nomination. It was historic that she made it as far as she did. Yes, it would be great to have a woman in the oval office, or in the VP slot if they are the right woman…a woman who got there with her own drive, grit, determination, intelligence, skill and merits. When you’re hand-picked by a man to win votes simply because you are a woman, that doesn’t count, and it doesn’t break any kind of ceiling. Would we have had a Stan Palin as our VP pick? No. So choosing a woman because you think her gender will get votes is insulting.


Continue to read by CLICKING HERE




Currently Reading Part Two


This is definitely a book I recommend adding to your collection. The formulas are easy to concoct and there is a ton of information. This writer did her research! The book is very easy to read and very well organized.

Here is a short excerpt from the beginning of the book;

What are the dangers? ( To using non-eco friendly products)

While only one in five of the four million household chemicals created since 1915 have actually been tested for their adverse health effects on humans, that is a surprising amount of alarming information that underscores their negative impact. Consider the following statistics:

  • Ninety percent of all accidental poisonings occur in the home. According to the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, more than seven million cases of poisonings are reported each year. That equates to 14,000 each day! Young children are the primary victims, with the elderly being the next most affected.
  • According to a five-year EPA study, the air in an average American home has chemical contamination levels 70 times greater than outdoor air. The EPA maintains that half of all illnesses occurring in the United States can be attributed to the chemical contamination of indoor air. In fact, a 1985 EPA report states that household cleaners are three times more likely to cause cancer than outdoor air pollution.
  • A study by the Toronto Indoor Air Commission concluded that, due to increase exposure to household carcinogens, women who work at home have a 55 percent greater chance of developing cancer than woman who spend the majority of their time outside the home.
  • The National Academy of Science estimates that 15 percent of all Americans are multi-chemically sensitive due to chronic exposure to household and cosmetic products.
  • In 1990 alone, more than 4,000 children under the age of four were given emergency treatment for poisoning by consumption of household cleaner. In the same year, 18,000 pesticide related incidents were reported in which 74 percent of the victims were younger than the age of 14.

Pick up the book at your local bookstore or Amazon.com.

Also included in is book is the harmful chemicals that companies are NOT required to put on their labels and the harm they can cause. Later on in the book there are more than 100 recipes to make quick and super easy cleaning solution for every aspect of your home . The areas covered are;

The Kitchen

The Bath

The Laundry

Wood Care

Walls and Carpeting

Cleaning Metals

Clearing the Air

The Garage and Basement

The recipes are as simple as the following recipe from The Bath section of the book;

Pine Disinfectant

2 Cups water
2 teaspoons borax
8 drops pine essential oil
4 drops cedar essential oil

Combine all ingredients in a clean spray bottle. Shake before each use. Spray onto bathroom surfaces and wipe clean with a damp cloth.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Currently Reading


I just received a fabulous book in the mail. Which I am enjoying reading today! I purchased the book off Amazon.com and it took about a week to get here.

The book is called The Naturally Clean Home by Karyn Siegel-Maier and you can purchase it new or used from Amazon.com. The price from Amazon is $10.36 or you can visit the other companies selling it on Amazon and find it for about $5.79.

Later I will update this blog with some excerpts from the book. Overall though I am thoroughly enjoying the read and there is some fantastic information and directions in this book to creating your own cleaners with herbs.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Blog Award - Arte Y Pico


ThreadBeaur has just informed me that I am one of her favorite blogs! And has awarded me the above award! This is what she has to say about the ECO blog;
"This blog always has something great about the environment! Thanks for trying to get everyone to go green."
I am flattered to be recognized by a fellow blogger! I am always wondering how many faithful readers I have! Thank you so much!!


This award recognizes a blog’s creativity and overall contribution to the blogger community. Once you’ve been selected, please follow these guidelines and pay it forward:

1) Choose 5 blogs that you consider deserving of this award based on creativity, design, interesting material, and overall contribution to the blogger community, regardless of the language.
2) Post the name of the author and a link to his or her blog by so everyone can view it.
3) Each award-winner has to show the award and put the name and link to the blog that has given her or him the award.
4) The award-winner and the presenter should post the link of the “Arte y pico“blog , so everyone will know the origin of this award.
5) Please post these rules.


I pass this award on to my favorite blogs!

1). Cake Wrecks- I love Cake Wrecks. I used to be a cake decorated. Someone on a forum pointed me in their direction and I go there daily for some humor!

2) The Steampunk Home- I love steampunk. I stumbled upon the genre/fashion/art about a year ago. This blog has amazing DIY pieces to give your home some Steampunk Aesthetics.

3)Etsy Bitch - I am not one to make drama, but I cant help it, I love to read about it. And while the points made about the site Etsy are trues, it is more hilarious and less stressful to read about others bitching about it than starting my own forum posts about problems I am having on Etsy.

4) The Reluctant Vegetarian- While I might not be a vegetarian myself, this blog has some hilarious posts on it. Not to mention the comedic pictures!

5) Post Secret- If you have not come across this blog you should most definitely check it out. New blog posts are made every Sunday. The blog is a release from the everyday norm. You can read other's deepest darkest secret or light hearted secrets, who knows you might find a secret up there that you didnt even know you had!


The original website where the award started is Arte Y Pico

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Destroying

Photobucket

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

How to start- Going Green


Going green: where to start?

If you are interested in living a more ECO-friendly lifestyle, this is for you. . You don’t even have to switch to tofu. The great thing about modern green living is that there is truly room for every lifestyle - from green consumers to chic ECO moms to tech-obsessed geeks. green living is for people interested in living harder, better, faster, stronger (to paraphrase Daft Punk). If that sounds like you, you’re in the right place. Do you view life as an ongoing learning experiment?

Then here’s what you need to do to go green:

1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

This classic mantra is still the most important one. Next to the crisis of climate change, resources (particularly petroleum, water and food) are getting ever more scarce. We must relearn the “three R’s” - and we’re not talking about grammar school. There are literally thousands of things you can do, large and small, to help the environment. Most of them benefit you in addition to helping the planet. Some are cheap, some are expensive, and many are free. But before you go and purchase carbon offsets or consider a hybrid, first just shift your mindset. Reuse, reduce, recycle - it’s fundamental for anyone who wants to go green.

Getting started: just begin observing your daily habits and purchases. Do you need to throw everything away? Is there something permanent you could use instead of that disposable version? Can you donate, compost, or trade that "junk"? Once you decide to make the most of what you are buying and contribute the rest (instead of throwing it out) you are set to go green!

Compost that extra food instead of throwing out. Donate those outgrown, unused items that have plenty of life left. Recycle that paper, receipt, paper clip, cereal box, empty jar, plastic bag, ...etc


2. Transportation

We’re not only running out of accessible petroleum reserves - the global political climate isn’t exactly friendly to gas prices. If you didn’t worry about the environmental effects before, the cost of filling up the tank has just about everyone looking for ways to save green. Take the bus, pick up a friend that lives on the way and shares the same shift, share a taxi, ride a bike or walk if you are close enough.


3. Shopping

Purists may deride “eco products” as nothing more than greenwash or a new marketing opportunity, but consider:

- We are consumers and that’s not going to change soon.

- Some of the latest and best green innovations are coming from consumer-driven trends. Buying organic jeans is not going to save the planet, but green consumption is helping to “mainstream” green living. Besides, green these days is pretty cool. You won’t believe how hard you can geek out on all kinds of green tech, green gadgets, and green hacks. Think rechargeable batteries. Think a water container that won’t give you cancer, soap that doesn’t dry your skin out and a safer toilet-scrubbing experience. And dont forget about your children and pets when it comes to going green there are plenty of products for them!

When you buy GREEN products, you produce the want for them, from the companies and stores selling them. By producing a want for Green products, companies will respond by making more green products and stores will respond by making greener choices when buying a product for their store.

Getting started: look for fair trade, organic, and eco-friendly labels or certification on goods you buy. Choose local meat, dairy, and produce when you can. Try not to buy “fast fashion” and needless gadgets that are cheap but will soon fall apart. Invest in quality over quantity. Buy your furnishings and electronics used when you can. Read your favorite magazines and books online instead of choosing print versions. Avoid plastic when a sustainable or recycleable alternative is available such as wood, metal, or fiber.

4. Food

Green grub is not just tofu and organic carrots. Really. Look for the locally grown products and the labeled organic products. Try it before you knock it. The best grapes we, as a family, have ever had were the organics ones I picked up last week, I have never tasted grapes so delicious and there wasn't a sour one in the bunch!

Getting started: for now, start shopping at the farmers’ market for your veggies because they’ll be a lot cheaper and healthier and safer. Eat a vegetarian dinner one day a week. Cut back on the soda, fast food and other overly-packaged and processed junk. You don’t have to do it all at once - try going “100% whole food” one day a week to start.

5. Your Pad

The home is the easiest place to start greening. There are literally hundreds of relatively easy home hacks - many free and most inexpensive.

Getting started: you can switch dead light bulbs with CFLs, buy a programmable thermostat, toughen up a little and adjust your heat and A/C by two degrees of comfort, buy a compost bucket, and give up disposables like paper plates and paper towels and napkins. You can also use eco-friendly detergent, carpet cleaner, soap, plant fertilizer, pet food…it goes on and on! Many of these things you can make yourself for pennies.

6. Lifestyle

This ties into Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, but goes a little deeper. Is your laundry green? What about your workplace? Are you greening your travel? What gifts can you give at holidays that aren’t going to hurt the environment (without annoying your friends and family)? Maybe you are addicted to the latest gadgets, or you’re a die-hard designer shoe girl. Maybe you refuse to give up your burgers. That’s O.K. - there is a green way of doing things for every lifestyle. No challenge is impossible to solve with creativity, investigation, and a little bit of humor. If you think that’s too ambitious, that is ok come back to learn more and take it a little bit at a time.

Getting started: Get out a notebook and write down the following: how often you travel; how often you dine out; how many family members/dependents you have; how far you drive to work; where you shop for your food, clothing, household products and electronics. This will give you a pretty good idea of your lifestyle. You should also figure out your carbon footprint. Don’t worry; no changes to make yet. Simply take stock of how you live so you can make smart changes down the road.

7. Habits

This is a bit different from lifestyle; the lifestyles people lead - based on family size, location, profession and so on - are diverse. But habits are more about the daily actions we take, often without thinking. You will find helpful tips, hacks and tricks in the future to live a little greener without too much stress. Sane green living is the goal. Whether it is turning off your lights or saving water, doing all your shopping in one trip, or using a reuseable shopping bag.

Getting started: like “reduce, reuse, recycle”, simply make it a goal to consciously think about your habits this week. Do you order take-out or do you shop at the farmers’ market and prep your veggies for fast meals during the week? Do you shop at stores that use sweat shop labor to produce their goods, or do you look for products that are either fair-trade certified or made in the U.S.A.? Do you buy heavily processed junk food on a regular basis or do you try to avoid it? What cleaning products are you using? Simply start thinking about your habits. There are so many habits where, with slight modification, you can quickly reduce your carbon footprint.


Sunday, August 24, 2008

Don't buy Plastic Bottles


* Plastic bottles take 700 years to begin composting
* 90% of the cost of bottled water is due to the bottle itself
* 80% of plastic bottles are not recycled
* 38 million plastic bottles go to the dump per year in America from bottled water (not including soda)
* 24 million gallons of oil are needed to produce a billion plastic bottles
* The average American consumes 167 bottles of water a year
* Bottling and shipping water is the least energy efficient method ever used to supply water
* Bottled water is the second most popular beverage in the United States


Try Aluminum or Stainless Steel Bottles. My family likes the Sigg Bottles.

If we are out and about and we are without our Sigg Water Bottles, I always look for Snapple. Their bottles are glass and recyclable.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

More Info on Bees- I really had no idea, did you?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: This is an extremely informative article of what is happening with bees. I encourage everyone to read it in it's entirety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Found at this SITE

Give Bees a chance
Pat Thomas

Recent reports of catastrophic declines in bee populations have had scientists buzzing around looking for a plausible explanation. Is it mites? Is it GM crops? Is it mobile phones or habitat loss? It's all of these things, says Pat Thomas, but it's also so much more than that.


Forget everything you thought you knew about the sedate and rarefied world of beekeeping. Bees are big business. In 2006, a Cornell University study found that in the USA, bees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seed and crops - mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts. In the UK they are responsible for the pollination of around £200 million worth of food crops.

Bees' role in the natural order of our world is crucial and their importance as pollinators, both for agriculture and for wild plants, can't be underestimated. Nor can it simply be quantified in monetary terms. Bees are what is known as a keystone species, ensuring the continued reproduction and survival not only of plants but other organisms that depend on those plants for survival. Once a keystone species disappears, other species begin to disappear too - thus Albert Einstein's apocalyptic and, these days, oft-quoted view: 'If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.'

This vision may be coming true. Our bees are dying. In record numbers. The recent disappearance of catastrophic numbers of bees from their colonies, in the USA especially but also in Europe, has been dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The most striking symptom of CCD is that the bees appear to die away from the hive. One day they fly away and never return. Those few that are left behind, say scientists, are very ill indeed. Virtually every known bee virus can be found in their bodies; some are carrying five or six viruses, as well as several fungal infections, at the same time. The other worrying factor is the way that other bees and insects avoid these abandoned nests. In nature, nothing is wasted and an abandoned hive would normally be taken over by other creatures opportunistically looking for food and shelter. But hives suffering CCD remain empty, suggesting that there may be something toxic in the colony itself.

At one time, a 10 per cent loss over a season was considered normal; when parasitic mites became a common problem that number rose to around 30 per cent. With CCD, average colony losses have been reported at around 70 to 80 per cent.

Huge numbers of theories abound as to why the bees are dying, but so far no single one explains why, or provides a clue about how to remedy the situation. Perhaps our search for the cause is too narrow, however. If we want to understand why our bees are dying off, then a useful first step would be to examine the myriad ways we have exploited them and corrupted their natural behavior for our own convenience...

Mobile colonies

As the number of crops we grow increases, the need for pollinators grows too, and these days beekeepers can make more money renting out bees to pollinate food crops than they ever could selling home-made honey. Migratory pollination is a multi-billion-dollar industry. But transporting bees huge distances in giant 18-wheel juggernauts with the hives stacked on top of each other, also stresses the insects out. Higher levels of stress in turn make them more vulnerable to disease. Studies show that CCD is most prevalent in transported bees, with losses of up to 90 per cent of the colony.

By transporting bees across great distances, beekeepers are also transporting mites and any other parasites, viruses, bacteria and fungi, to places it might not otherwise have spread to.

Overcrowding

Industrial-size colonies may have a bigger market value but they also bring the same problems to bees that industrial poultry farmers have visited on their chickens and turkeys: the easy spread of disease. In March of this year, a survey of Ohio beekeepers found that the average loss of live colonies in the previous six months was 72 per cent. A close look at the figures, however, revealed that beekeepers with fewer than 100 colonies had an average 55 per cent loss, but the loss rose to 75 per cent for those with 500 or more colonies. In addition, the boxy structure of modern commercial hives, which makes it easier to squeeze several colonies into a small space, and the configuration of bee yards, have largely been designed for the convenience of human beekeepers and not necessarily with the health and natural biology of the bees in mind.

Unnatural diets

The natural diet of a bee is pollen and honey - a mixture rich in enzymes, antioxidants and other health supporting nutrients. But to beef their bees up for the heavy work of pollination, commercial beekeepers feed them on the bee equivalent of protein bars and Lucozade - a mixture of artificial supplements, protein and glucose/fructose syrup. These sticky mixtures are freighted around the country in tankers to wherever the colonies happen to be. It's expensive and occasionally it proves cheaper to kill off whole colonies rather than feed them over the winter.

The artificial diets are in part a response to the decline of the bees' natural forage areas. Fewer plants means less natural food for the bees. But taking any living creature off its natural diet and force-feeding it junk food will inevitably result in poor immunity. Bees in particular have a much less adaptive immune system than we do, so if a bee becomes infected with a virus, its body can't respond by making specific antibodies.

Intensive bee farming

In a normal colony the queen can live and produce eggs for several years. In commercial beekeeping, breeding better queens is a profitable business and queens are regularly killed and replaced - sometimes as often as every six months. The queen is often subjected to the stress of having her wings clipped to identify her and also to temporarily prevent 'swarming' - when bees leave one colony, with a new queen and form another one elsewhere (this is the natural way for bees to ensure their survival and genetic diversity).To ensure that colonies express the genetic qualities that beekeepers value, however, some virgin queens are artificially inseminated with sperm from crushed males. This practice, while not universal, is gaining in popularity as it becomes more difficult for honeybees to survive naturally.

Parasites

Bee populations have been affected by two types of mite infestations in recent years: a tracheal mite and the varroa mite that attacks the intestines. Varroa, in particular, depresses the bees' immune response, making it more prone to infection. Varroa also makes the bees more vulnerable to a crippling viral disease that produces wing deformity. These viruses can be spread from bee to bee but are also passed on from the queen to her brood.

In a healthy colony, varroa could to some degree be seen as useful, helping to cull the weaker members. But in already weakened artificial colonies we treat the infestation with insecticides such as coumaphos, a dangerous organophosphate to which mites rapidly develop resistance. This resistance can be passed on from generation to generation, and some evidence suggests that resistant mites actually thrive with repeated exposure. Likewise, fluvalinate creates resistance in the mite and disrupts the bees' feeding behaviour and ability to navigate. A bee that can't find its way back home will eventually die.

Pesticides

Pesticides used on food crops and other crops can affect bees, even at sub-lethal doses. Exposure can produce a kind of pesticide intoxication that makes the bees appear 'drunk', disrupts navigation, feeding behavior, memory, learning and egg laying.

Fipronil, for example, impairs the olfactory memory process - which honeybees use to find pollen and nectar. Spinosad can make bumblebees slower foragers even at low doses. The insecticide imidacloprid can cause bees to forget where their hives are located. The French government banned imidacloprin in 1999 due to its toxicity to bees, the effects of which French beekeepers labeled 'mad bee disease'.

GM crops

GM plants account for around 40 per cent of US cornfields. A small study from the University of Jena in Germany found that pollen from Bt corn made the bees more vulnerable to death as a result of carrying the varroa mite. The bacterial toxin in the GM corn appeared to alter the surface of the bees' intestines, weakening them enough to allow the parasites to gain entry.

Bees can be exposed to GM in other ways - for instance, when they are fed supplements produced from GM crops such as high-fructose corn syrup. The effects of such a diet have never been studied.

Electromagnetic fields

As stories of CCD became more prominent, other theories have emerged. Mobile phones and overhead power lines have been blamed for interfering with bees' homing radar and preventing them from getting back to their colonies. It is not clear how sound this theory is. However, what is more well known is that high background levels of electromagnetic radiation can suppress immune response and disrupt the nervous system in a variety of living creatures. It is unlikely that bees are the exception to the rule.

Is it our fault?

Having been co-opted into industrial farming, commercial bees have become just another type of farm machinery. But the machinery is breaking down. Ironically, the giant farms that destroy natural habitats and use large quantities of pesticides are the ones that need bees the most, and are at the same time important contributors to their decline.

As far back as 1923, the philosopher and scholar Rudolf Steiner predicted that commercial beekeeping would wipe out bees within 100 years. Was he right?

Bees are sensitive, social creatures that have achieved a high degree of harmony and productivity in their colonies (each of which can house up to 60,000 individual bees). Their social structure is both productive and ordered. They are intelligent - and become more so with age. They learn and remember; they can use visual orientation to accurately estimate the distance from a nectar source while in flight. They construct colonies that are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. They also suffer from occupational diseases, just like we do.

The single coherent thread that connects all the various theories of CCD is a massive failure of these creatures' immune systems. It is entirely possible that CCD is the inevitable result of a overwhelming, ongoing assault on these creatures' delicate immune systems.

Humans have had a symbolic relationship with bees since they were first domesticated 7,000 years ago, but it is clearly not a relationship of equals.

We have long exploited bees for our own ends, even when we didn't really need to. Their use in oilseed rape is a good example. Oilseed rape plants are normally pollinated by the wind. However, by bringing bees into the field, yields can be increased by up to 20 per cent.

Because of our close proximity to bees and our deep reliance on them, any problems in our society, in the way we think and act, in our broader relationship with nature, will also affect theirs. The collapse of the bee population isn't just a scientific riddle to be solved with more and better science and technology. It could be a frightening vision of our own future.

Bees in the 'hood

Of the 256 native bee species in the UK, 25 per cent are now listed as endangered. Because of the loss of floral diversity and nest sites, due to intensive modern agriculture, domestic gardens are now the principal habitat for many species of wild bee. Why not get together with your neighbours and make your neighborhood bee-friendly?

Information from the following organizations can help you make your gardens irresistible to bees:

Royal Horticultural Society www.rhs.org.uk

The Bumblebee Pages www.bumblebee.org

Bumblebee Conservation Trust www.bumblebeeconservationtrust.co.uk

What needs to happen next?

Defra spends just over a million pounds a year on bee health and welfare, through the National Bee Unit (NBU) at York. Of this, only around £180,000 is spent on research and this figure has been steadily declining over the past six years.

The NBU is charged with monitoring bee losses. Yet, even though some British beekeepers have reported dramatic colony losses of up to 90 per cent this year, Defra insists that no definite conclusions can be reached.

The US Department of Agriculture has responded more decisively, with a special study group to understand more about CCD. Its mandate is to focus on stress caused by transport, disease levels, husbandry, pesticide use and natural toxins found in plants, as well as the ability of beekeepers to spot disease in their hives.

How great does the loss have to be, and how long does it have to go on, before we also take action? Defra must take the plight of our bees seriously and direct substantial funds towards research that helps us understand why our bees are dying and what we can do about it.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Budda

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

What you NEED to know about Non-Stick Pans

They claim it is safe but I have listed the facts below. In January of 2006 Du Pont, the maker of Teflon agreed that they would virtually eliminate the harmful chemical used to make Teflon by 2015.

2015?...........is there something wrong with this date????? So they have from 2006-2015 to make as much money as they can from these non-stick pans and claim, until the cows come home, that they are safe. And then what.............2015 comes along....and then

they say "oh by the way, you really shouldn't be using that product as it is harmful to the environment....."

"oh and did we mention it could cause cancer?"

"By the way you, are shit out of luck now because the chemical stays indefinitely in your body and just builds up as you are expose to more."

What in the world is going on here!!!! Let me also mention the fact that there is NOTHING on any of the packaging that includes this information nor are they required to put it on the package!!

OK, seriously this is a WHAT THE FUCK? moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read on for more surprising information... Tomorrow is payday.............we are buying new pots and pans.



From this Site: Click Here

Non-stick cookware has raised concerns among the public about its possible association with increased risk of cancer. One concern is that cooking with non-stick products may increase cancer risk. Another concern is that potential cancer-causing chemicals used to make non-stick products are released into the environment during manufacturing.

Teflon and other brands

Non-stick cookware refers to cookware with a non-stick coating. All non-stick cookware is made up of a chemical called PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene). The same chemical is used to make GORE-TEX fabrics and some industrial products, such as specialized electronic wire insulation, hoses and gaskets.



Teflon is the brand name for DuPont’s non-stick cookware, but many other companies (for example T-Fal and Silverstone) also make non-stick cookware.


Cooking with non-stick cookware

The fumes given off from non-stick cookware used at higher temperatures are harmful to your health. Health Canada states that: “Non-stick coatings are a risk if they are heated to temperatures greater than 350°C or 650°F”.



Some studies show that heating non-stick coatings to 300°C (572°F) can create fumes that contain a suspected cancer-causing chemical (tetrafluoroethene-TFE) and several chemicals that are toxic to humans.



Currently, there is no evidence that eating small quantities of non-stick coating that has flaked off into your food is bad for you.



The use of non-stick cookware to reduce the amount of butter or oil used in cooking may be good for your health, but you should not use cookware with non-stick coatings at high temperature or leave it empty or unattended on a hot stove or in a hot oven. Empty pans can reach higher temperatures more quickly than pans containing food.



You should not use non-stick cookware for broiling or other high temperature baking and cooking. Temperature settings vary between appliances but as an example, olive oil typically begins to smoke at 210°C (410°F), below Health Canada’s recommended maximum temperature for using non-stick coatings (350°C/650°F).



Health Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration do not advise against using non-stick coatings or other products containing PTFE, if used properly.




Chemicals used to make non-stick products

A number of chemicals are used to make non-stick cookware including TFE, a known carcinogen, which may also be present in the fumes given off by non-stick cookware used at high heat.




Another chemical used during the making of non-stick coating, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), may be present at very low levels in the cookware, according to at least one study. Some studies have shown that exposure to PFOA over long periods of time may be linked to cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer, though this research is not conclusive and is continuing. Several studies show that PFOA causes cancer in laboratory animals. Based on these and other studies, the majority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board believes that PFOA likely causes cancer.



PFOA has also been found in higher-than-expected amounts in humans and in our environment. Research into the source of these chemicals in humans and the environment is ongoing.


What Canada is doing

Health Canada advises against using cookware with non-stick coatings at high temperatures (above 350°C/ 650°F).



Health Canada and Environment Canada are currently assessing the potential health risks of exposure to PFOA. Their draft report is due in fall 2006 or early 2007. This assessment is part of a larger action plan to assess a group of related chemicals called PFCAs (perfluorinated carboxylic acids). Some PFCAs are believed to be of greater concern for human health than others, and the recent move to prevent the introduction of four such chemicals in Canada until further studies can be completed is part of the action plan.



Health Canada provides information on other cookware including anodized aluminum. Anodized aluminum surfaces are sometimes referred to as non-stick surface as well, but are scratch resistant, can be used at higher temperatures and are made without the use of PTFE or PFOA.
What the Canadian Cancer Society is doing

We are providing this information to the public about non-stick cookware because we know Canadians are concerned. We will continue to monitor this issue and will update our information if warranted. We will advocate where appropriate about this issue.




What other countries are doing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to study PFOA and in January 2006 invited manufacturers of PFOA to reduce and eventually phase out emissions and product content levels of PFOA and related chemicals.



The European Union is funding PERFORCE, an industry-paired consortium studying environmental exposure of certain PFCA-related substances.

From this Site: Click Here
"Some pans and containers also contain chemicals that may also adversely affect our health. Teflon non-stick pans are made with a product (PFOA or perflorooctanoic acid) that is a known human carcinogen. Carcinogens cause cancer. These chemicals remain in our environment forever and stand to harm human health and God’s creation.the Environmental Working Group has also linked the fumes from Teflon pans with pet bird deaths. The Center for Disease Control suggests switching your non-stick pan for a cast iron, stainless steel, or anodized aluminum pan. The top eight producers of PFOA signed an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency in 2006 saying they would phase out all PFOA pollution by 2015"

From this Site: Click Here
Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are what makes your Teflon pan slick and your stain-repellent couch bead up the red wine you spilled on it. Good for dinner parties, but not good for threatened loggerhead turtles, confirms a new study announced at AAAS today. (What is good for sea turtles these days?) During wear and tear and disposal of the pan and couch, the PFCs break down into perflurooctane sulphonate (PFOS). PFOS winds its way through the wastewater stream and ends up in crabs and mollusks which end up in loggerheads. Scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology analyzed loggerheads off the southeast U.S. coast and found that there’s no longer any margin of safety between the exposure and the effects of PFOS on these poor critters—even the lowest levels of PFOS can depress their immune systems and damage their livers.

And bottlenosed dolphins? Because they’re higher on the ocean food chain, they can stockpile more PFCs than a human being working in a PFC factory. Although 3M, the world’s largest manufacturer of PFCs, phased out its use of the chemicals in 2001, PFCs are still widely employed in other products and persist in the environment.

No surprise, what’s bad for turtles is also bad for humans—your body might have detectable levels of PFOS. Besides the chemical's potential presence in the seafood we eat and the water we drink, heating nonstick pans causes PFOS-laden fumes to float through your kitchen. The EPA says PFOS is carcinogenic, too. Not a nice meal for your dinner guests.


Here’s how de-PFOS your environmental impact:
• Switch to nonstick pans
• Avoid coating your clothes and shoes with waterproofing products
• Decline the stain-resistant option for new furniture
• Don’t buy hair care products and cosmetics with “fluoro” and “perfluoro” ingredients
• Cut down on greasy fast food—the packaging contains PFOS

From this Site: Click for Even More Information

The chemistry of Teflon is so complicated that most scientists don't fully understand it. What is known is that Teflon is composed of several toxic chemicals that can be released from heated pans into the air and into food. The more often you use your pans at high temperatures, the quicker the coating will break down and emit tiny particles and gases into the air. As this happens (usually within about two years of continual use), washing Teflon-coated pans by hand or in a dishwasher with harsh detergents may accelerate the process further."

Unlike environmental villains such as DDT and PCBs, perfluorinated chemicals are not generally volatile. In other words, they do not become easily airborne and so tend not to travel long distances. In addition, to produce a useful substance like Teflon, PFCs are normally 'locked'into polymers (plastic-like materials). So it has long been assumed that they could never leak into the environment, that even if they could they would not break down, and that even if they broke down they would be biologically inert.

All of these assumptions are being proved wrong. Today, PFCs are considere dangerous because they fulfil every single criterion for persistent bio-accumulative toxins: that is, they do not biodegrade; they accumulate in people, animals and the environment; and they have been shown in laboratory tests to be toxic to mammals.

Although there are nearly 100 known PFCs, only two have been studied in any depth: perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a breakdown product of the stain repellent Scotchguard; and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a breakdown product of Teflon. Both have been found in the blood of nearly every human tested, as well as in the blood of animals in the Arctic and in the Atlantic Ocean.

The quickest way to degrade Teflon is to heat it. DuPont claims publicly that its non-stick coatings are stable up to 600¡ Fahrenheit, a temperature which the company says is well above that reached in everyday cooking.

Independent studies dispute this. The lowest recorded temperature at which Teflon by-products have been detected in the air is 446o Fahrenheit. The lowest temperature at which heated non-stick coatings have been reported to kill birds, however, is 396o Fahrenheit. This suggests that toxins may be released at much lower temperatures."

How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps


A blueprint for losing the most winnable presidential election in American history

MICHAEL MOORE

Posted Aug 21, 2008 9:09 AM

For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women's rights and pro-choice. They don't like war. They want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal health-care system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: They support the death penalty.

So you would think the Democrats would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits — and the candidate himself — spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night, as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats' past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era.


1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
If you want to help elect McCain, keep blessing him as if he were the white knight who accidentally hopped on the wrong horse. Keep reminding a country at war that he, and he alone, is a war hero. That he's been "good on global warming" and campaign finance. Say that enough, and you know what happens? People start to believe it! You've sold them on the idea that McCain isn't a bad egg, and they do not hear the rest of what you have to say: "But John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush."

Don't remind people that McCain wants to help the oil companies even more than Bush did. Don't bring up that he wants to outlaw abortion. Back away from painting him as the guy who thinks it's a good idea to stay in Iraq until pigs fly. That way, if you keep praising him, you can send a mixed message to the less informed, who are simply not going to figure it out. When they walk into a voting booth, they will see two names on the ballot:

☐ BARACK OBAMA
☐ WAR HERO

Trust me, this ain't Sweden you're living in. War Hero wins every time.

2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
Yes, it will seem like smart politics at first. Shore up Obama's lack of military experience with a hawk. Be true to Obama's message that he'll be a president for everybody by having him run with a Republican. Make a pitch to the purple states of Virginia and Indiana by putting one of their own on the ticket. Or make the red state of Ohio happy by handing the vice presidential slot to its governor. Just so long as Obama's running mate screams "same old, same old," making it harder for him to attract the new voters he needs to win.

There is nothing wrong with picking someone who can help him win a swing state or someone who has more experience than he does in certain areas. But when I hear pundits say things like, "He has to pick a Catholic," well, John Kerry was a total Catholic, and the Catholic vote went to Mr. W. I mean, here's one of the largest groups in the country — 66 million Catholics — and they/we have only allowed one Catholic to be president in 219 years. You would think they would have been flocking to Kerry in 2004. THAT IS NOT THE WAY PEOPLE THINK. IT IS THE WAY PUNDITS THINK. Keep listening to them and you can help elect John McCain the next President of the United States


3. Keep writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk.
Here's what Obama said in front of the American-Israeli lobbying group the day after the final primaries:

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

And: "Let there be no doubt — I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation."

Sounds like a speech McCain would give. Sounds like he's ready to invade Iran. Obama staked out an even worse position for the Palestinians vis-à-vis Jerusalem than the one held by George W. Bush. Keep that up, and more and more supporters will be less and less enthused. He also says he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. The implied message of all of this is that the Republican plan is a good plan. So why would voters want to elect the candidate imitating the Republican when they can get the real thing?

4. Forget that this was a historic year for women.
Obama should be making a speech about gender like the brilliant one he gave on race back in March. Millions of people, especially women, had high hopes for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Attention must be paid. And you don't pay attention to it by having your advisers run your wife through the makeover machine, trying to soften her up and pipe her down. Michelle Obama has been one of the most refreshing things about this election year. But within weeks of the end of the primary season, the handlers stepped in to deal with the "Michelle problem."

What problem? She speaks her mind? She wears what she wants? Her biggest sin, according to the punditocracy, was to say that, as a black woman, this may be the first time in her adult life she's been really proud of her country. Shock! Surprise! Outrage! But not from any of the black women I know.

You have to be white and stupid to not know what she was really saying. If you don't understand, let me ask you this: Have you been proud of what this country has been doing in the past few years? Are you proud your neighbors had their house taken from them? Are you proud to be sending a good chunk of your paycheck to the oil companies so they can post record profits? Are you proud to know your vice president outed one of our spies and put her life and the lives of others at risk?

That's all she was saying — what we are all feeling.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both lost the white-male vote but won the White House. They did so by winning the black, Hispanic and female vote. That HAS to be Obama's strategy to win. Otherwise, Cindy McCain will be our new First Lady.

5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter.

Convince yourself that the Republicans are just going to roll over and play dead because there is simply no life left in their party. Convince yourself this one is in the bag! Convince yourself that if you play by the rules, the Republicans will too.

And when McCain and his people roll out their nuclear arsenal on you, just go all sweet and sensitive and logical. Believe that the truth shall prevail, that good people will see what the Republicans are up to. As they smear you, your family, your religious beliefs — cower, back down, go on the defensive.

If they say you should quit your church, quit your church! If they explode over your speaking the truth about the anger and despair of the white working class, take it all back! If they ask you to stand on your head and do the hokeypokey, snap to it and do it with a smile on your face — and don't forget to apologize for not doing the hokeypokey earlier; you meant no disrespect, and please don't take it as any indication that you do not love your country, your flag and your Christian God.

Do all of that and then listen for that sound — the sound of your supporters shuffling away in silence. They'll stop showing up at campaign headquarters. They'll say they're too busy to go on another door-to-door literature drop. On Election Day, they'll do their duty and vote, but they will not be up at 6 a.m. driving around the city's neighborhoods, picking up strangers who need a ride to the polls.

And on the way to the polls, some of them might just come to a stoplight, turn around and go home. Maybe they'll pick up a six-pack on the way. Maybe there's a new episode of Deal or No Deal on tonight. That would be nice. The girls are pretty, especially the blonde in the third row. Wait, they're all blond. No, not that one — THAT one! Oh yes, I see her. She is pretty. But the Man in the Booth has picked up the phone! He's calling down to you. Deal? Or no deal? No deal! No deal! Don't do it! Hey, I'm outta beer! Why didn't I pick up a case? Now I gotta spend eight bucks on gas to go buy more beer! Aaaaarrrggggghhhhhh!!!! HOWIE MANDEL ISN'T WEARING A FLAG PIN!! U-S-A! U-S-A!


6. Denounce me!
Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: "Michael Moore has endorsed you. But he recently said (fill in the blank with some outrageously offensive line taken out of context). Will you still accept his endorsement, or do you denounce him?"

And he better denounce me, or they will tear him to shreds. He had better back away not only from me but from anyone and everyone who veers a bit too far to the left of where his advisers have told him is the sweet spot for all those red-state voters. I won't take it personally. After all, I'm not the guy who married him or baptized his kids. I'm just the idiot who went to the same terrorist, Muslim school of flag-pin desecrators he went to.

I remember poor John Kerry not even being able to admit, when asked by Larry King, if he had seen Fahrenheit 9/11. "No," he said, "I haven't. . . . I don't plan to, right now." But he had indeed seen it. I sat there watching him say this, and I just felt sorry for him and for the election he was about to lose.

We can't take four more years of this madness, Barack. We need you to be a candidate who will fight back every time they attack you. Actually, don't even wait till you have to fight back. Fight first! Show some vision and courage and smoke them out. Keep asking why these lobbyists are McCain's best friends. Let's finally have a Democrat who's got the balls to fire first.

So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point.

Elections have been lost by just 537 votes. I don't want that to happen to you.

From the forthcoming book "Mike's Election Guide," by Michael Moore. Copyright © 2008 by Michael Moore. Reprinted by permission of Grand Central Publishing, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Hemp Uses



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I found this on another website here
And the article makes a lot of sense. So I brought it over here. The problems with importing products that can be grown in our own country are; we waste money, fuel, and time to do it. Not to mention it is much more ECO friendly to produce our own crops that does not have to travel across seas . Also by growing the crop locally it produces more jobs for our country instead of making jobs in another. Please read the following article in it's entirety.

Side Note: I personally do not endorse weed/pot and this is not what the article is about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hemp: The Solution for America’s Greening Economy

by Adam Eidinger

Let’s do an experiment. Access in your mind everything you are wearing and what it’s made out of. Now think about the last time you bathed. What kind of soap did you use? Look at the paper you’re reading these words on. What is it made out of? Finally, what did you eat today? Was it organic and healthy? Did you answer “hemp” for any of these questions? If you did, kudos to you for saving the planet by just being yourself—you’re a remarkable environmentalist. We at Vote Hemp, a non-profit hemp advocacy group, salute your conscious consumer choices. You deserve a tax cut for all the savings to the planet’s ecosystems you are generating.
Oh, you’re not eating, wearing and bathing in hemp? Well that’s cool, because if you’re reading this, you can make a change to green your life today.

If you are having a hard time answering any of the questions above, you’re not alone. The vast majority of Americans are consuming unhealthy, synthetic products every day. While more people want a greener lifestyle, chances are that you’re wearing at least some petrochemical-based clothing (or cotton sprayed with chemical pesticides), you bathed in petroleum-based detergent soaps, the paper in your hand came from trees, and the food you ate wasn’t as nutritious as it could have been.



Because those products are not organic, biodegradable, or sustainable, they negatively impact the environment long after we are through with them and make it harder for people to have a healthy diet.
The big question in the media this year has been how to be a consumer and not destroy ourselves and the planet at the same time. How do we feed, clothe, and house a rapidly multiplying global population organically and sustainably? How do we print paper and not sacrifice forests? How do we get easily digestible protein and nutritious omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFAs) into our diets without eating meat or fish?

Cannabis, perhaps the most versatile plant known to humans, has been grown for thousands of years to make everything from durable fabric, nutritious food, and a plethora of environmentally friendly products. Because nearly everything can be made out of hemp and none of the plant goes to waste, it’s the crop America needs to grow if we are to maximize our farmland while reducing pressure to cultivate and chop down all our remaining wild places.
Yet in America, farmers will be sent to jail if they grow hemp, which today is legally imported into the U.S. at a value of $330 million a year.



It’s not a surprise that the media and major corporations have recently figured out that the answer to creating many needed environmental improvements in our lives can be found in hemp. Hemp is not grown in the U.S. because the federal government continues to ban it, along with its cousin, marijuana. Essentially, our greener future is on hold because of a 51-year-old irrational fear held by politicians in Washington, DC which says that if we legalized hemp, children will be corrupted and smoke even more pot than they already do. Should we settle for the next president irrationalizing that a healthy hemp breakfast cereal eaten by an eco-conscious child wearing hemp clothing that is durable and biodegradable is justification for a war on farmers and our economy?

So are you ready to do something about this? Then it’s time to make conscious decisions about how and where you spend your money.
With more hemp products in the marketplace than ever before, it is possible to be a consumer without contributing to ground water pollution from pesticides or discarded formaldehyde-treated plywood. A discarded hemp fiber board is 100 percent biodegradable and renewable every year. Paper, auto parts and building materials are just a few of the innovative uses of hemp stalks that now must be imported from other countries such as Canada, China, and Germany.

Hemp is a crop that in one season can simultaneously feed, clothe, fuel and save our forests and doesn’t require pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. Hemp leaves the farmer’s field in good shape for the next crop, too.




So why is hemp banned? Marijuana remains illegal because of the fear that it is a dangerous drug. The same can’t be said of non-drug cannabis which has no drug potential, because it contains only trace amounts of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance found in marijuana. It’s not clear exactly why it is banned. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), there is no difference between hemp and marijuana. Drug enforcement officials have also argued that if hemp were legalized, marijuana plants could be hidden among their harmless cousins. The problem with that argument is that no marijuana grower would dare do so. Grown together, marijuana plants would soon be pollinated by the hemp plants, turning the buds into seed pods. While the DEA serves the public in many ways, like reducing the unlawful sale of legal prescription drugs, this federal agency, which is responsible for regulating controlled substances, they couldn’t be more wrong about hemp.

More than 30 industrialized nations grow hemp for popular products, including cosmetics, auto body parts and dietary supplements. Walk into health food stores and you’ll find many hemp products like bread, cereal, non-dairy milk, energy bars, salad dressing, protein powder, and shelled hemp nut, which can be used in thousands of recipes.

Some people are calling hemp the new soy because it’s rich in protein and is actually far healthier as a great source of omega-3 essential fatty acids, which help to promote normal cell function.
Once you get past the confusion over the fact that hemp is not a drug, there remains no rational argument against industrial hemp. It is the answer that can lead us to a sustainable future.

Learn more about hemp at www.votehemp.com. Adam Eidinger lives in Washington, D.C., where he is the Communication Director of Vote Hemp. He can be reached at adam@votehemp.com