Our World and Everything in It

I was listening to Good Morning America this morning and it seems cities around the country are having a hard time controlling speeding drivers. Follow along here. Scottsdale, AZ was the first city to have speed enforcement cameras on one of its highways. Other cities are following suit. A county in Maryland that has speed cameras simply sends a citation to the speeder in the mail if they are clocked at more than 11 mph over the limit. Eleven miles over is a far cry from one driver that was caught doing 131 mph past a 65 mph sign. This camera system has its detractors that claim the cameras aren’t always accurate and they are limited. But the cameras work.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety knows that Americans speed and on all types of roads.  The speed cameras have got the 75 mph crowd way down from 15 percent to less than 2. That’s quite a drop.  But why do we speed? Because we can. And most of the time we do it around 20 percent over the limit. We should be asking why during this oil crunch and with CO2 emission overload hasn’t our federal government lowered the speed limit to 55 mph like it did in the 70’s?
The idea of speeding because we can is bolstered by our car industry. Don’t get me wrong; it’s sheer joy to hear pistons slamming while jumping out in front of the guy that wasn’t going to let me on the expressway. But that’s about it. Keep traveling too fast and get caught, not to mention burning way too much gas and emitting excessive CO2 in the process. We should wonder about the contradiction of producing speedy cars in a country of speed limits. It’s stupid irony.

Lowered speed limits and the introduction of ethanol pumps, something I have yet to see anywhere, were the combination of choice in the 70’s when gas was high. I don’t think ethanol is the best idea, it will burden the space for food crops and give us another empire that is corn rich, but among alternative choices, it has its place. So where are the ethanol pumps? Are they gone the way of a lower speed limit?

Some of the excuses look extremely flimsy for all the things we do and don’t. If we had ethanol pumps back in the 70’s, than we should most surely be able to get them out there now and fast. It isn’t like we don’t have the technology. Ditto for lowering the speed limit. As for car manufacturers, Daimler-Chrysler (at the time) had the technology to produce hydrogen buses for Iceland 5 years ago but “nada” for us now. Ford and GM are slow to present true hybrids and keep lobbying on fuel economy issues. They claim they need time to produce 40-mpg cars. But back in 1984, the Big 3 automakers produced a total of 35 cars that got 40 mpg or more.  GM had 19, Ford had 6, and Chrysler had 10 of those gas savers. I say drag out those engineering plans and slap a new, sleek, light weight body on those babies and get em out there! My girlfriend who is in the market for a hybrid came back from the auto show disappointed and a little unnerved by the propaganda she heard like, “this is a REAL car,” because it goes too fast for the speed limits and burns mega petro.

Have you followed the logic and gathered a clear idea that nothing adds up here? We chase our tail—backwards! The experience and technology is there, so we have to look to the reason it’s not happening. There is only one industry that benefits from speeders, inefficient fuel economy, and no alternative fuel sources readily available—OIL.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4221537

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/19/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1984/
 

Did you know that a lake could blow up from CO2 gases settled on the bottom? Until 1986 scientists didn’t think so either. I was watching the History Channel. A Professor Riskin hypothesized about methane gas sea explosions causing prehistoric earth to scorch. The scientific community was not convinced about gas exploding out of the ocean until in 1986 Lake Nios in Cameroon, Africa exploded from 1.6 million tons of CO2 gas being released that had settled on the bottom. Over 1700 people were asphyxiated up to 16 miles away along with all their livestock, some 3000 head of cattle.
 
Scientists argued for a while that it was a volcanic eruption and a mix of sulfur that caused the explosion, but sulfur substances weren’t found. The survivors of the explosion claimed they smelled sulfur but there is evidently something called olfactory hallucinations associated with CO2 asphyxiation and one of them is the smell of sulfur.

According to an article on Bnet, it was believed carbon dioxide gas build-up had a volcanic origin and built up slowly in the lake over a long period of time. U.S. researchers didn’t know exactly what triggered the explosion, but it was never believed a volcano or earthquake was responsible. French researchers disagreed. They believed the exploding cloud that dispersed throughout the area traveling at 40 mph was a mix “of steam, carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds that had been building up in a layer of groundwater heated by volcanic rocks far below the lake. These compounds reportedly were injected into the lake when the pressure of the steam eventually cracked the rock that had been holding it down.”

The problem is “U.S.scientists said lake temperatures were not elevated, its bottom did not appear to have been disturbed, there were no volcanic sulfides in the lake and no suspended sediments that might have resulted had steam rushed through bottom sediments.”

Either way we look at it, whether the CO2 was just laying there and blew or was caused by too much pressure from too much CO2 being injected into the rock fissures, it does not bode well for a future with too much CO2 around. So much for the gasification process relative to “clean coal.”

Coal burns filthy. The reason why it’s recently being touted as “clean” is because of a gasification process where the CO2 pollution is trapped, and liquified. The pollution never gets into the air but the liquified CO2 needs some place to go. Just like the spent fuel of a nuke, the best place for the leftover liquid CO2 is to put it in the ground by injection. But do we know how much CO2 is safe to inject? Will we have to worry about CO2 geisers in the future?  If so the future is looking pretty prehistoric. Told ya we’re dinosaurs.

Read more about the Lake Nios’ explosion:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4645289

In honor of Native American Wolf Moon Month our Federal Fish and Wildlife Service “made it much easier to kill wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies region — even while they remain protected under the Endangered Species Act,” according to Defender’s of Wildlife. Nice tribute to our heritage huh?

Defenders went on to say that Secy. Kempthorne changed a rule that makes it easier to kill wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and allows the slaughter of wolves in the region of Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. All the states need to do is PROVE that wolves are a MAJOR CAUSE of the inability for elk and deer to meet state management goals. Goals include how elk herds move about or behave. So wolves can be trapped or shot by wildlife officials if elk or deer move about differently. That’s a pretty big weight to hang around a little ole wolf neck and if the officials hang around the perimeter of Yellowstone long enough surely a wolf will stick its neck out and get it shot off.

I’m interested in the part that says PROVE. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should have a really hard time proving wolves have lowered the numbers of elk in those states since Idaho’s Fish and Game reported elk populations at all time highs, 20% above management objectives for 2006. Wyoming’s elk numbers were 9000 over the state’s objective in 2006. In 2004, Montana had an elk population of over 100,000. So if herds are down, who’s the culprit?

On Ralph Maughn’s Wildlife News website, Bob Hoskins commented Sept. 4, 2006: “The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has been making a concerted effort to reduce elk numbers through late season, cow-calf hunts over the last decade to bring the herds down to objective. In most herds in western Wyoming, these targeted hunts have been successful. When you hear in the press that wolves are killing Wyoming elk by the score, recognize that the claim is absolutely false. Worse, Wyoming G&F knows that it’s false. The fact is Wyoming’s hunters have been killing elk by the score in these late season hunts, by design. Many late season hunts will continue this coming hunting season.

He went on to say there is nothing wrong with the reduction program but quit blaming disappearing elk on the wolves. It’s a lie! This story is repeated in a USA article where biologist John Vucetich of Michigan Tech University in Houghton says wolves have been wrongfully blamed for a decline elk populations around Yellowstone in Montana. They studied weather, hunting, and wolves as factors.  Yellowstone has seen 7 years of drought and 1997 winter that killed many elk. They found the weather and hunting to blame for elk decline. Another biologist, Canadian Mark Boyce of the University of Alberta, and colleagues reached the same conclusion. They have an upcoming paper reporting that: “Montana increased the ‘hunter harvest’ quota on elk that leave Yellowstone grounds, issuing a higher-than-ever 2,882 hunting permits in 2000. A decline in the elk herd was thus guaranteed, Boyce says, even if wolves were not present.

So the poor wolves play the fall guy in all of this. Government officials and hunting lobby groups are the real menace. And all of it is unnecessary. Local ranchers partnering with Defenders of Wildlife to “expand their use of non-lethal wolf control measures” experienced no wolf-related livestock losses at all this grazing season. They believe “practical, inexpensive and non-lethal methods help reduce losses and conflicts while promoting better cooperation between ranchers, state and federal land managers and wildlife conservationists.”

According to Friends of Animals, Idaho’s Fish and Game Service “based the plan for the aerial gunning of wolves on a “trend count” in the Clearwater region, relying on astonishingly unscientific data in which eight cows were reportedly killed by wolves in the area.” The Dept. of Agriculture’s very scientific study of “collared” wolves living on the perimeter of cattle fields resulted in only 8 cattle kills total over 3 years time. Hmm?

Government officials are officially caught in lies again. None of the state’s involved have proof that wolves are lowering their elk populations drastically. They’ve been caught over-hunting and blaming the wolves. Ranchers have non-lethal alternatives that are affective and have been reimbursed for their losses by charitable organizations anyway. So there is no reason whatsoever for these wolf hunts especially aerial killing. You know with a war going on I’ve got to wonder the waste of energy for aerial hunters just looking to kill something. They need redirection. Know what I mean?

Check out the latest video of a disgusting wolf aerial hunt at: http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/ads_and_psas/tv_ad_to_stop_aerial_hunting.php.

As for changing the laws making it easier to kill wolves, tell Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that the rule change for hunting wolves is unacceptable. I personally would tell him more than that, and have.

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=943&autologin=true&s_einterest=C3C4&s_Affiliate=savewolves_&JServSessionIdr004=4gy70ytnm2.app26a

About Idaho’s elk population and hunters: http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2007/july/help-stop-the-bush-a.html.

About Wyoming’s hunting laws and elk decline due to hunters: http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/04/08/wyoming-elk-numbers-are-9000-over-states-objective/.

About the USA Today article and Canadian biologist’s report that hunters are to blame for elk population decline: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-11-21-elk-yellowstone-mystery_x.htm.
 

Get a load of our democratic process with this latest veto out of Washington. The Bush EPA nixed California’s proposed emission standards for the state that targeted the trucking, shipping, cement, semiconductor and consumer product industries. Instead Bush signed into law a new energy bill that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2009 and by 40 percent by 2020. The EPA said this covers the issue of emissions, end of story. Was that apples to apples?

Sixteen other states have already approved emissions laws and were waiting for this waiver by the EPA too. The EPA is supposed to have sole authority to make pollution rules, but our Federal Clean Air Act allows states to create their own rules with an EPA-approved waiver. The waiver was nixed today. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of 12 states that sued the same EPA for dragging their feet about CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court had to tell the EPA that greenhouse gases can be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and they were in violation for not regulating them. And today the EPA blocked California and the other states from doing what should have been the EPA’s job and substituted with Bush’s flimsy energy bill. 

So the states go through a lot of effort for nothing. The emission laws were part of California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The NRDC and many public interest groups co-sponsored it. California committed to reducing overall global warming pollution by 30% by 2020. They figured on new technologies as well as pollution cutting strategies to meet these goals. They sought the help of E2, “a national network of business people who work with the NRDC to champion the economic benefits of good environmental policy” and “who built a solid case for the ways in which curbing global warming could actually benefit California’s economy” (Nature’s Voice Newsletter by the NRDC Jan/Feb 2008). Just what I thought. Green is good for the economy.

I was intrigued by E2 and read on that they argue, “that clean technologies would create jobs and attract new companies to the state…supported by the fact that clean tech now ranks third in venture capital investment in North America.” Told ya so Michigan. Clean technology isn’t likely to coexist alongside coalburners and refineries. They showed that California would save “barrels” of money by reducing dependence on fossil fuel. It also stated that it took 124 meetings at the state capital by E2 volunteer members to “present their business-based argument.” They worked hard to come up with legislation that protects the environment and creates economic opportunity. They believe global warming controls will spur economic prosperity. This was a great program, until the automobile lobby got involved. Yeah, another lobby.

According to our own Detroit News:

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California’s request, according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.
While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

California filed a lawsuite challenging the EPA’s denial of the waiver. And there is a House Committee investigating the agency’s decision to deny it also. This is getting good.

.
Read more about the veto at: http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/epa-nixes-states-plan-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/#comment-285.

Read more about E2: http://www.e2.org/jsp/main.jsp.

About the Supreme Courts decision: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/emissions_5-29.html.

The Detroit News article about the auto lobby: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/AUTO01/707050350/1148.

I got my heating bill the other day, was going to blog about it, and have lost it. Does that mean I don’t have to pay it? I know. It was higher and I figure everyone else is suffering much, much worse. My bill combined with $78.00 for electric was $303.00, I think. That’s what they’re getting this month anyway, since I’ve lost the bill. I looked at my bill enough and compared it to last month’s bill that it’s pretty much memorized. There was a funny charge on there, one from 2005, and another just like it for 2006. They were small, like $1.46 or something but the 2006 charge wasn’t on last month’s bill. Are we going to find one for 2007 on the next? I don’t like when things just appear on my bill that weren’t there before.  It looks like something was passed back in 2004 or sooner that is just now showing up. Sneaky.

The total bill was $60.00 higher than last month, granted it has been cold, but we just had January thaw 3 weeks early. It lasted long enough for my Jack in the Pulpit plants to grow large and green in my flowerbeds. We found fruit trees budding. I think we just stopped paying attention to our habits relative to our bigger bill. Slip up a little and it shows big. We have a small gas wall unit in the back of the house. The main furnace and the wall unit should never be turned up at the same time. Since this last bill, if I’m home and it’s sunny, the main furnace gets shut off for at least 2 hours in the afternoon. The reason? I have twelve ft. of windows across my living room facing south, and the tree out front is a Maple, no leaves. If I open the blinds, I can feel the heat. I say utilize that sunshine, solar panels or not. I also turn the heat down when I use the oven. Don’t waste that toasty warmth when dinner is done; open the oven door until it cools down. Make sure and block drafts under doors. Clothes drapes and blinds at night or windy days. Reverse the blades on your overhead fans to keep heat from lingering around the ceiling.

Pay attention. I didn’t, and it showed up on my bill, and quickly. Take advantage of everything you can to lower your bill. Some energy companies are offering a choice to consumers to lock in a low rate over a few years. I just received an offer from IGS Energy to lock in a rate of 0.849 per CCF. CCF is the per unit cost of your gas bill.  Look at your bill. It should be way beyond point anything right now, more like 2.80. Ouch! I would say any other source that can guarantee a year round price of anything 0.9 or lower is a really good deal. I presently have MxEnergy and have one more year at 0.851 CCF. MichCon charges me a fee of course, something like 37.00 of my $225.00 gas bill went for carrier costs, but hey my bill is still lower than most. IGS is presently offering the lowest rate. If you sign up with MxEnergy now the cost per unit will be 1.069. Realize that the locked in price is year round. It will be above the going per unit rate for gas in the summer. That is why it’s important to keep that per unit cost under 0.9. If you pay too much for gas in the summer it offsets your savings for gas in the winter, the same for carrier charges. But, I think it’s a safe bet to say that over the duration of the next 3 years that 0.849 CCF will beat anything out there for wintertime rates.

I’ll  blog next month when I find out if paying attention pays off. Considering how cold this past week has been, I’d be happy to get another $300.00 bill. If I can actually lower it by paying better attention to our habits, and without suffering, it will be worth the effort.

I finally broke down and bought a new gas range and gas dryer today. I put it off because I have a habit of keeping things as long as they work well. Keep them looking nice and hey, they’re vintage. I also have a propensity for anthropomorphism, which is endowing inanimate objects with a human or animal persona. You know, fishermen refer to their boats as she and give them names. Ditto for vehicles. We can also get too attached to our homes, like they are part of the family or something, well, with feelings anyway.  For me, it is anything that has given me years of service that is still hanging in there. My range and dryer are 22 years old!  I haven’t named them but have had them an awfully long time. Of course each piece has had a minor repair or two through the years but nothing to speak of. Things were just made better back then.

I don’t like my new refrigerator, washer, or dishwasher as well as my old. Newer things are made so shabbily. There are all types of plastic parts on them that break. Even though there aren’t any kids running around my house, and I maintain things well, parts broke on my fridge the first year I owned it. And a funny thing happened to the washer. I bought a washer with a stainless drum inside, but on the outside of that is a plastic drum. It’s pretty thick plastic, but not thick enough. One of those studs used in a nail gun worked its way through one of those tiny drain holes in the stainless drum, then proceeded to score the spinning outer “plastic” drum enough times that water eventually poured out of the bottom during a rinse cycle.

Going to buy two new appliances because a good deal was to be had wasn’t a good motivator for me either. I will miss my old range and dryer, well not so much miss as feel bad they are going to be destroyed. They still work. If they didn’t work, it would be a whole different story. I thought about donating the appliances, but they are so old the trip would probably kill them.

I was assured at the store that the appliances that are hauled away are recycled. Good to know. I looked around and found that most major home appliances consist of about 75 percent steel. Scrap steel is needed to make new steel. Steel manufacturers count on recycled material as do copper, aluminum, and zinc manufacturers. So I’m helping the steel industry. Do we have a steel industry? I also found an old article that stated: “According to the Environmental Protection Agency, using recycled steel results in an 86% reduction in water pollution and a 97% reduction in mining wastes.” Who knew?

So my fear of filling a landfill with my old appliances is no longer relevant and I can think of all this as a rejuvenation process for them. Good then.  Out with the old, and in with the new. I cook every night.  I deserve a new stove. As for the dryer, I use it as little as possible. I hang my clothes out in the summer. But my winter dryer bill should surely drop. I made sure I purchased a dryer with moisture sensors so that it doesn’t stay on any longer than necessary. Oh, and I did get a good deal.
 

Look out Michigan. Rising oil prices are causing some of our legislators to get creative. There was talk on WXYZ about scouting around for more places to drill for oil in Michigan. Isn’t that going to be a lovely sight for tourists to see, or us for that matter? Erie, Michigan thought they had a big fight over Eminent Domain with the railroad; wait until the oil industry sets their sights on a spot to drill. They got their way with millionaire ranchers out west, forcing one of them to build a new home in a corner of his own ranch to get away from the noise and scenery of the oil drilling operations. He found out the hard way that he only owns the dirt on top. The government owns the mineral rights below. He was told to move over.

And don’t think the oil price squeeze isn’t squeezing out the idea of drilling in the Great Lakes again.  After all, Canada does it. Just because we think that Congress permanently banned drilling in the Great Lakes in 2005, doesn’t mean a thing. Look at the past 7 years in this country. What was in place is nada now. Endangered species, wildlife habitats, national parks, clean air, clean water, and even private property have been challenged when we thought, well, they were protected.

I’ve run across several articles about Canada’s drilling in the Great Lakes. One of them, in the Detroit News stated:

While Canadian authorities maintain drilling has been safe, “Dirty Drilling,” a 2002 report by the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, calls spills common, producing ’significant’ pollution that endangers wildlife. The environmental group said drilling in Lake Erie led to 51 natural gas leaks between 1997 and 2001 and 83 oil spills between 1990 and 1995. “‘Drilling has been neither safe nor risk-free,” the report concluded. The report was part of the arsenal used by U.S. drilling foes to push for a ban.

And that ban to drill in the Great Lakes passed in Congress. It is law, yet there are reverberations in Michigan right now about drilling again. I found another environmental blogger that has been watching some of our Michigan Republicans relative to Great Lakes oil drilling. Check it out: http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-rep-tim-walberg-mi-7-love-big.html.

If you’re concerned about our Great Lakes, or the future scenario for Michigan, better nip this oil drilling in the bud, especially after the ruckus over BP wanting to expand their operations in Indiana relative to Lake Michigan pollution.  We need to remind our legislators, we’re serious about moving forward, away from fossil fuels altogether, not just foreign oil.

Another good article to read going back to the 90’s when the issue of drilling in the Great Lakes came to the forefront:

http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce76/oilside.asp.

About Canada’s oil drilling in the Great Lakes read the whole Detroit News article:

 http://www.detnews.com/2005/project/0508/14/Z15-275433.htm.

I don’t know if any other people interested in moving forward with all types of alternative energy have noticed the purposeful placement of the word “foreign” in many of the presidential contenders, Bush/Cheney, and legislator’s speeches. When a politician says they will make sure to fund research for new technologies to get us away from “foreign” oil dependence, they are probably talking money for a new type of oil drilling process. Technically, they won’t be lying, just misleading, if you tend to disregard that tricky little word “foreign.”

Granted, it’s been said that we do not have alternative technology available yet to take up the brunt of our oil demand, but it seems we keep looking to only one, and not a combination of alternative sources. What about a combination of alternative energy sources? I hear this idea floating around, but no gelling. The Sierra Club of Michigan has a very good presentation that shows a combination of energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., plus conservation programs like reclaiming wastewater, and recycling may meet all of our energy demands in Michigan. But we’re not advancing toward a future that will no longer be reliant on one big massive conglomerate like the oil cartel is to us right now. It seems we work toward monopolies in this country. Then we’re upset when we’re stuck with them without a choice. We should be looking to all venues to move forward for our energy future, not reinforcing the idea of fossil fuel again, like it’s all right because it belongs to us. 

I see the big push to get away from “foreign” oil as the big ruse to drill in the Arctic circle, the polar bear habitat, Utah, even Livonia, MI for Pete’s sake, and anywhere a slant oil drill can legitimately be utilized to “not’ enter our protected National Parks. They do so anyway at an angle right under protected habitat, while doing a great deal of damage with all the accompanying paraphernalia like roads, pipeline, trucks, heavy equipment, and trash. Ditto for coal mining. Using coal is getting away from “foreign” oil, all oil, but is still perpetuating the use of filthy fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Sure it might be thousands of years before it does, but at what price, gutting the countryside, ruining the earth trying?

So beware of that tricky little “foreign” word that comes before oil. It’s not a detail that should go unnoticed, because it doesn’t make any difference. It does, or they wouldn’t be slipping it in there.  It makes all the difference in our lives, our environment, and our world whether our future continues to poke around the earth and the oceans below for oil or coal that is “OURS.” Our oil and coal burn just as filthy as the “foreign” stuff.

Just 10 days ago I blogged about cloned meat and that I thought the idea of doing it for food was ludicrous, considering we throw half of all our food produce away in this country. I provided a link to an article with a picture of a stacked pile of dead pigs. We don’t need more meat, so cloning for food is a ruse to get into the research arena.

 And there is it today, in the Associated Press: “Scientists Clone Human Embryos.” Of course, we know this has been done before. As a matter of fact the article said someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute couldn’t tell that anything new was being presented. He said the ‘next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line’ from cloned embryos and that hasn’t been achieved yet.  I figured we didn’t need the food and the push to get cloned beings into research is the real reason we’re hearing cloned, cloned, cloned. Heck, people are still arguing about stem cells. It was a more viable idea to utilize stem cells that were going to be tossed, flushed, buried, or discarded. Now we’re going to end up creating life for stem cells, and eventually allow them to grow to get organs to part out–much worse than using discarded stem cells.  I think there is a whole lotta other expertise involved with creating life anyway. Many scientists concede to a Higher Being when they get so far into something and then can’t figure it out anymore. We haven’t figured out that real animals have emotions, suffer, and more than likely “think,” and we’re onto creating human life? That’s a scary thought, just as I said about meat. We don’t treat real farm animals humanely, what hope do cloned critters have? Ditto for the human clone business.  

The article stated that other doctors agreed that the report was interesting but the ‘real splash’ will about stem cells from cloned embryos. Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Institute and Children’s Hospital Boston said, ‘It’s only a matter of time before some group succeeds.’

There is a really visible push to get cloning in front of people. First, the big announcement about cloned meat being safe, then 10 days later a redundant announcement about cloning human embryos? The only purpose the last announcement serves is to keep cloning in our consciousness–safe cloned meat, cloned humans, cloned, cloned, cloned, until research is cloning away whether we agree with it or not. Real sneaky.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080117/478ee0d0_3ca6_15526200801171818674522

This is a very good documentary about wolves by researcher Shaun Ellis and also a good tribute to “Wolf Moon” month of January. Find out more about wolves and why we should stop the eradication of this species once and for all. A majority of people have spoken, but legislators, especially in Alaska, continue the sportless killing by helicopter and plane.

 Shaun Ellis doesn’t recite a documentary at you, he lives with the wolves. It’s good. Watch it. Learn.

Peace