It’s my fault the tree had to go. I planted it on the berm to my canal and figured the roots would head that way eventually. Well, wrong. The roots headed under the pool. The tree grew so tall that the leaves floated into the pool too easily. The tree had to go although I considered shutting the pool down for good. That’s how much I cared for the tree.

I’m not alone in my feelings for live things I’ve grown. My husband was bummed too. When you raise something from a twig that is a straight 25 ft. tall beauty, it becomes part of your home’s landscape. This particular tree is or rather was a hybrid poplar—no floating cotton. I love poplar leaves. They blow in the wind all dangly like drop earrings. I took offense when the tree service referred to it as simply “an ole cottonwood” and quickly interjected that it was a hybrid poplar that I raised from a twig.

Well, it’s gone now. Besides missing it on the bank, I wondered just how much that one tree filtered the air. I’ve seen statistics but couldn’t remember. I also wondered if evergreens did a good job filtering since needles are a much smaller surface area than leaves where all the pollution control basically takes place. We just put in a nice, live, green, “noisy neighbor” fence of 5 Canadian Cypress (love the texture of this evergreen) and about 15 arborvitae. Maybe they collectively took the poplar’s place for pollution control.

I found some interesting things about all trees and their ability to filter pollution rummaging around for the evergreen vs. deciduous answer to my question. Someone else wanted to know the same and also if air pollution goes up in cold winter areas when deciduous trees are bare? I found some answers:

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service describes how trees reduce air pollution as follows: Help to settle out, trap and hold particle pollutants (dust, ash, pollen and smoke) that can damage human lungs.

Trees remove gaseous pollutants like CO2 by absorbing them through the pores in the leaf surface. Particulates are trapped and filtered by leaves, stems and twigs, and washed to the ground by rainfall. At the same time trees replenish the atmosphere with oxygen.

They produce enough oxygen on each acre for 18 people every day.

And, absorb enough CO2 on each acre, over a year’s time, to equal the amount you produce when you drive your car 26,000 miles.

Although evergreen trees have needles rather than large “typical” leaves, they also fulfill the air pollution reduction that is described for other trees. In winter evergreen trees do photosynthesis, but to a lesser extent than in summer so they also contribute, to some degree, in reducing air pollution.

http://www.rtpi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12908.

I also found on americanforests.org that “Professor David Nowak of the USDA Forest Service conducted research in 50 US cities and developed a methodology to assess the air pollution removal capacity of urban forests with respect to pollutants.” This research is then used to determine how much city parks with trees do to clean the air using what is called “CITYgreen software—a desktop GIS program that calculates the value of trees to urban environments.” This program can estimate the amount of pollution deposited in a given area based on pollution data from the nearest city. Then it estimates how much is being removed based on the amount and coverage trees. The trees can then be assigned a dollar value relative to cleaning up pollution.
http://www.americanforests.org/graytogreen/air/.

I read that this dollar value is what is effectively driving areas of Africa to adopt a plan to stop the pillaging of land, forests, and especially animal life. It’s a shame to have to put a price tag on something in order to preserve it, but at this point I’m in—whatever works. Personally, I think land, forests, and creatures have inherent priceless value just because they exist for us. The beauty of these living ecosystems/creatures will be sorely missed in years to come. One third of all mammals are already on the path to extinction. Mankind is taking too much and not giving enough back. Balance is necessary, something Native Americans tried to tell us about from the get go. We either slaughtered or rounded up the Native Americans.

So we may not be getting it right yet, but there is some amazing work being done that constantly improves the data we have to determine how much we are actually polluting, how much is cleaned by forests/trees, and how pollution is affecting the general climate and for how long. Hopefully an informed public will move toward what is right for the earth more quickly than a neglectful public driven by climate change that gets horrendously worse.

Michigan has a lot of deer! Cars hit them. They enter buildings. I recently watched a video where a deer waltzed through a diner, in the front door and out the back. So why aren’t 4,000 wolves wiping out our deer population?

The answer lies on Michigan’s Isle Royale, a 45-mile long island off the UP (Copper Harbor) in the western part of Lake Superior. According to an article by Heidi Ridgley of Defenders of Wildlife, “Isle Royale is the least visited National Park in the country.” But it is the lab where the longest ongoing wolf study is being conducted by biologists from Michigan Tech. The co-director of the wolf program at Michigan Tech, Rolf Peterson continues the work pioneered by Durward Allen in 1958, as an “uninterrupted study of a predator and its prey.” There is 51 years of expertise here involving the gray wolf and the moose of Isle Royale. This study produced facts that are inconsistent with the reason for hunting the Great Rockies’ wolves. Wolves prey predominantly on old and/or debilitated animals. And when the prey declines the wolf population also declines. It’s nature’s balance.

So if the Great Rockies’ wolves are as prolific as we’re lead to believe than Idaho’s deer and elk populations should be thriving—and are. That’s what I found to be true when I looked at the state stats of deer and elk populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. It simply is not true that the wolves threaten deer and elk populations at this point at all. So that leaves the rancher’s losses and we have to wonder about that reporting because it’s the same type of wolves, same ole cattle, just different states reporting very different loss statistics.

In the meantime, the latest wolf hunts will have detrimental affects on the gray wolf farther down the line than just this hunting season. Oh, the wolves will rebound eventually but fractured wolf pack families, and packs that are disjointed from other wolf packs do not survive well. The study on Isle Royale confirms that wolves will interbreed for survival. The biologists in this study have already found spine and hip deformities in the carcasses of dead wolves from interbreeding on Isle Royale where populations of wolves are endangered as global warming has had a horribly detrimental affect on their main prey, the moose.

The biologists have tracked the summer seasons on this island national park. There have been shorter winters almost every year since 1998 and it shows in the decline of moose populations on Isle Royale. In Minnesota where there is a lot of prairie and scattered trees that does not offer enough shade, “moose numbers have dropped from several thousand to 100 in recent years.” Moose need frigid climates. Frigid climates kill fleas and ticks, another horrible parasitic problem plaguing Isle Royale’s moose that I blogged about.

All I know is that the wolf hunts are political in origin. It’s got little to do with the poor wolf. Big hunting lobbyists were anxious for the wolf hunts and the NRA is never far behind them. They won for now. However, as stated in the Los Angeles Times and quoted in an article in discovermagazine.com ‘Judge Donald Molloy also wrote that the Fish and Wildlife Service, in continuing to list Wyoming wolves under the Endangered Species Act while delisting them in the two neighboring states, “has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science.’

What I’m concerned with is man’s interference with natural balance. Suppose the wolves do interbreed more and more. Can there, will there eventually be wolves mentally impaired and unpredictable as interbred dogs? It gives a whole new meaning to the “Big Bad Wolf.”

Read the whole story about what’s happening up north in Isle Royale:
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/fall_2009/royale_challenge.php.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/10/wolf-hunt-in-the-rockies-can-continue-judge-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-62547.

We can thank our senators and state reps for this “despite strong opposition expressed by national park rangers and former Park Service directors who want American families and wildlife to remain safe in our national parks” according to the National Parks Conservation Association. The NPCA also said, “Under the law, individuals will be able to attend ranger programs while openly carrying loaded rifles or shotguns at Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Flight 93 National Memorial, and Gettysburg National Military Park.”

If you were part of the opposition to this law you might want to contact your state rep and senators. This bill was stuck in the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009. Not that we are short on things to fix in this country but sticking unrelated items in bills to appease the opposite side of the political pole is and always has been a bad way to do business. It’s how all the nefarious laws come to life in the U.S. This particular bill reeks of the NRA!

Drop Senators Levin, Stabenow, and Representative Dingell (MI) a line asking them how this happened? Let them know that taking a vote against the safety of park visitors, rangers, and wildlife has consequences.

For senators:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

For Reps:
:https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

So this is one heck of a video I found on You Tube that does just that. Its owner frotix says that it is the first part of his national parks of America video and hopes we like it. I like the Native American music. It’s appropriate. Watch the first half:

I couldn’t resist adding another video by owner mhnatt who states that it was his first attempt at making a movie. I think he deserves a big hand. He crossed 10,000 miles in 3 months and 3 countries in his trip out west. It’s poignant and a very good mix of all the different terrain we’re trying to protect by curbing global warming and the impact it will have on these places and critters. Notice there is a clip of a wolf.

Watch the trailer:

.

Almost one year to the day, the anniversary of Limpy’s shooting coincides with Secy. of Interior Salazar’s decision to take Yellowstone’s wolves off of the endangered list leaving them vulnerable to hunting once again.

Many environmental groups are taking this action to court. And yet others are petitioning President Obama to look more closely at the science behind the introduction of wolves in our parks once again, the benefit they provide, and the fact that they haven’t been allowed to reach their full potential in numbers that was decided upon when they were first introduced.

The main problem with allowing states the right to decide on hunting species relative to those that make their homes in our national parks is just that. Yellowstone is a NATIONAL park spanning several states. Why should any one state decide to hunt wolves while others do not? State parks are one thing, but national parks come under federal rule.

So to help with the plight of the wolves so many are trying to protect watch the following video of Limpy’s shooting, and pass it along to friends to spread the word and e-mail president Obama that we want to keep our wolves alive thank you.

Hopefully, watching the famous crippled wolf get gunned down will show the ugly side of what we call good sportsmanship. It looks like the only sportsmanship involved with the wolf kill is the push by the huge hunting lobby tied to the NRA. The same people that continue the movement to bring guns to our peaceful national parks.

The Senate Bill S 22 I blogged about last night has advantages for Michigan. The 200 million acres slated for protection under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009includes 9 states of which Michigan is one of them.

An article on (ENS) Environmental News Service website highlights some of the details of this package of 160 public land bills that also includes four ocean bills. The ocean bills are important to Michigan and the Great Lakes. They are:

The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and NOAA Act will authorize the National Ocean Exploration Program, National Undersea Research Program, and the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase scientific knowledge for the management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and Great Lake resources.

The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act will authorize the establishment of an integrated system of coastal and ocean observations for the nation’s coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act will authorize a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification.

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will authorize funding for a program to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, aesthetic, or watershed protection values, and that are threatened by conversion to other uses.

Read more about this bill that took quite a lot of effort and an even longer time to get passed due to opposition by one Senator:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-12-03.asp

In an unusual Sunday vote called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Bill 22 moved forward with a vote of 66-12 that would add 200 million more acres of U.S. land under the Wilderness Protection Act. The Associated Press reported that this bill is “the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. Prior to this, the bill met with opposition from Republicans. The Sunday vote was an effort to bypass their stalling that some say will “derail” the pledged cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in the near future.

In any event, the bill is making its way through to senate approval and according to the same AP article includes California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia for protection under the act.

This is pretty binding stuff once it’s decided. It would take another act of Congress to take the same land away from the Wilderness Protection Act. I wondered what the Wilderness Protection Act actually does. In my mind if a place is already a national park, why does it need further protections? According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for explaining things, the basics of the Wilderness Protection Act are:

•  
  • The lands protected as wilderness are areas of our public lands.
  • Wilderness designation is a protective overlay Congress applies to selected portions of national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
  • Within wilderness areas, we strive to restrain human influences so that ecosystems [the Wilderness Act, however, makes no specific mention of ecosystems] can change over time in their own way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. In these areas, as the Wilderness Act puts it, “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man”—untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered.
  • Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species, while logging and oil and gas drilling are prohibited.
  • Along with many other uses and values for the American people, wilderness areas are popular for diverse kinds of outdoor recreation—but without motorized or mechanical vehicles or equipment. Wilderness is the haven of quiet beyond the end of the road, the wild sanctuary we meet on its own terms by leaving the machinery of twenty-first-century life behind. The wild popularity of wilderness recreation shows how hungry Americans are for just such sanctuaries.
  • The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.

Interesting, because I did see some protesting the fact that this will be 200 million more acres no one can use, unless we decide to see the place the good old fashion way—by hiking. But the whole idea is to protect the wilderness from man so we either walk through it leaving the least amount of impact, or we don’t see it at all. 

There is also the questionable $3 million earmark to Alaska for another road to nowhere through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge there. Maybe they should add that area to the Wilderness Act. No mechanical or motorized vehicles in protected areas, no need for a road. And didn’t Alaska’s governor denounce earmarks anyway?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ja3vNS7u_ovPaeUpzrEKqDzs5TjAD95KSENO0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

Mrs. Bush talked about her geothermally heated ranch, with water collection system, and the fact that White House switched to LED holiday lights. She went on to say that oil is a limited natural resource that will run out, as all of our natural resources worldwide. She won’t admit anything about global warming however; opting to say that it doesn’t matter. We should be practicing conservation anyway.

About global warming, she said she reads the latest worldwide reports like everybody else. She evidently hasn’t read about her husband’s horrible environmental legacy that has had a devastating effect on the national parks she avows to love. There is something seriously wrong with this picture because it was also reported that the Park Service, Dept. of Energy, and Interior are trying to overhaul the parks for more sustainability, or greening them up so to speak. Doesn’t President Bush appoint these dept. heads? Bush is doing his best to further the opposite.

There are plenty of things up Bush’s sleeve before he leaves office. Environmentalists are calling it a Fire Sale for the Oil and Gas Industry. As CBS news website reported:

Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands. ‘We find it shocking and disturbing,’ said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. ‘They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That’s 40 tracts within four miles of these parks.’

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/national/main4608048.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4608048

Then there is the administration’s push to weaken Clean Air Act protections for “Class 1 areas” of national parks nationwide. According to the Washington Post, “[It] has sparked fierce resistance from senior agency officials. All but two of the regional administrators objecting to the proposed rule are political appointees.” The article also said, “In written submissions, EPA regional administrators have argued that this switch would undermine critical air-quality protections for parks such as Virginia’s Shenandoah, which is frequently plagued by smog and poor visibility.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803813.html. Poor visibility from pollution smog over a national park. Sure, man doesn’t affect the environment. Keep believing that until we choke everyone out of existence.

I blogged about other attacks on our national parks by Bush/Cheney too like the repeal of the roadless rule. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/04/were-about-to-lose-one-of-the-largest-forests-in-america-to-big-money-interests/

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/pine-trees-in-danger-from-beetles-as-bush-looks-to-trample-our-biggest-forest/.

On top of this Bush just undid a 25 year old statute banning guns in National Parks. Yep, while hiking through one of them, minding your own business, a gunshot could ring out. Real nice place to take the kids and camp hey? The only reason for guns in national parks is for hunting or nuts. I thought critters in National Parks were protected? I thought humans in National Parks were protected from gunshots out of nowhere.

Right after this interview was a segment on Joshua Tree National Park. It’s getting harder to find older trees, and all the trees seem to be in decline. In some parts they are sure to be extinct soon. It was explained Joshua trees need a high desert environment, which is cooler. They also need a couple of nights of freezing weather that no longer happens due to global warming. Fires that weren’t as much a threat before in Joshua Tree Park have ravaged thousands of acres due to drier grasses. All it takes is a lightening strike. There are many more parks in danger of losing the very symbol for which they are known. The wetlands of Everyglades Park are retreating, and the glaciers of Glacier National Park are well…you know. Will we rename the parks? Will the parks even resemble places to preserve any more?

Scientists claim our National Parks are laboratories where effects of climate change are quick to appear. This does not bode well then, and further attacks on our parks by Bush/Cheney is just inexcusably the meanest turn any president has taken against our national treasures. If the First Lady is genuinely concerned she should take her passionate call for parks that are in peril to the source of that peril�her husband, oh and let’s never forget Cheney.

I was watching a news program and that little ticker of news across the bottom said that an agreement was hatched between the largest private landowner in the country to use forest service roads for possible development in our forests. Plum Creek Timber Co. is the landowner. Plum Creek became an REIT in 1999.�

�

An REIT is a Real Estate Investment Trust that allows investors to buy equity in large tracks of land. A REIT is also a pass through entity distributing 90%, although many distribute 100%, of their total net income to its equity holders. The equity holders are then taxed on that income, not the REIT. For a pretty good explanation about REIT’s read: http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/real-estate/reit.htm.

�

Plum Creek is first and foremost a lumber company, the heir to the timberland originally granted by the federal government to the Northern Pacific Railway in the 1860s according to Wikipedia. Plum Creek’s website states that they replant some 85 million seedlings per year, work closely with conservation groups to preserve wildlife habitat and protect clean water sources. A good thing environmentally since they own, or rather their shareholders own, close to 8 million acres of wooded forest land.

�

But Senators Jon Tester D-Montana, and Jeff Bingaman D-NM want an investigation into the new ruling that allows Plum Creek to use forest service drives because the closed door negotiations didn’t allow the public to weigh in. And I’m beginning to see why. Here’s the bad thing.

�

Some of the places developed by Plum Creek already are high-end lodge and golf facilities right in the middle of our national forests. Who does that cater to in these economic times? You and I aren’t going to stay and golf there.� And what about developing subdivisions in these forests? An article in the International Herald Tribune stated, “Montana county officials say the proposal would make it easier for Plum Creek to sell timberland for houses or other�development.” This may be the result of all the public/forest land the Bush Administration has auctioned off over the past 8 years.

�

Development??? There are empty houses standing all over the country so what the heck are we doing? Huge landowners like Plum Creek are no longer just harvesting wood and replanting, they are developing the land for high-end resorts so their shareholders make more money. These are some of our most pristine wild forestlands. It’s about as bad as Governor Crist of Florida filling in and developing the everglades when people are moving out of Florida because they can’t afford the homeowner’s premiums anymore.

�

So for as much as Plum Creek attempts to do for the environment, they equally hurt it with unnecessary development. It’s becoming a little clearer why there was such an onslaught against wolves especially around our national parks. We just got a stay of relief for the wolves that were scheduled for massive annihilation in the Yellowstone area. Plum Creek has a resort called “The Yellowstone Club,” and others like Moonlight Basin. These are high-end resorts and housing right in the heart of the very lands where these animals roam. Recently, buffalo have been slaughtered as well as wild mustang horses too. Ever wonder why? The excuses that were given for this massive kill were never very clear, but it’s becoming a lot more clear now.

�

I read about Bush’s plan to allow lumbering throughout our more dense forest areas like Idaho and surmised that development would soon follow. It just so happens that Plum Creek has its hand in natural resource business opportunities also that are relative to mineral extraction, natural gas production, and communication and transportation rights of way. That says a lot more. Mineral extraction and natural gas production is a whole other form of real estate development for big energy and another big motive for the animal removal and the easy, quiet deal to allow the use of forest service roads to facilitate Plum Creek.

�

The two Senators are worried that allowing Plum Creek to use forest service roads for development will set a precedent for other developers to do likewise. It looks to me like that was the plan all along. Clear out many of the animals that are under protection, make deals on the sly, and the next thing we’re asking is, “When did we lose our forests to homes and country clubs we don’t need?”

�

We certainly know what happens when humans attempt to habitate areas that are home to wild animals. It becomes a struggle for the critters who ultimately are eliminated as pests.

�

It doesn’t appear there are many sacred untouched tracts of land in our country anymore that are protected from development and the almighty dollar.

�

�

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/11/america/Forest-Road-Deal.php

�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_Creek_Timber

�

http://www.plumcreek.com/AboutPlumCreek/tabid/54/Default.aspx

�

�

�

�

�

I was reading about the shooter who shot 3 teens and wounded another in a wooded area on the Wisconsin/Michigan border and all I could think about was the Bush administration/NRA push to allow loaded guns in national parks. Just what we need.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8774082.

�

We should be more concerned about this issue because with the help of the NRA, the 25-year ban on loaded guns in parks might dissolve before Bush leaves office.�We’re not talking big rifles or shotguns but CONCEALED HANDGUNS too.

�

So guns become a reality in parks and you’re walking along Sleeping Bear Dunes or a portion of the North Country National Scenic Trail and some nut shoots you. You end up buried in the sand dunes or God-knows-where along that trail, at least until a bear or vultures find your carcass. Back at the camp all anyone knows is that you went for a little hike in the morning or before dinner and never came back. The nut with a gun hasn’t a witness in site, and hearing a gunshot has become commonplace in parks.

�

Of course this can happen with the present ban on loaded guns in parks too. Nefarious people don’t follow rules anyway. But at least the sound of a gun would resonate to someone that something is not right, whether an animal attack or human attack.�

�

We already have a horrible homicide record as a free country. We’re getting a little too used to guns and killing, don’t you think? We accept guns too readily as our only means of protection.�Protectionism has its place, but it appears to me that since 9/11, with the aid of the federal government, we’ve become much too fearful as a people. It encourages extremist actions like carrying concealed weapons everywhere.�We’re willing to give up too many of our rights also because we’re afraid. And unfortunately, it seems that we’re unique in our fear.� When England’s subway was bombed by terrorists, I remember many Brits riding the subway again as soon as possible with the retort that, “We can’t let them have the upper hand now can we?” Ditto for other countries. Then again, they’ve weathered more wars on home turf than us. Still I feel we have been targeted for fearmongering as a way of bullying us into thinking we need a loaded gun�to get through everyday life, like an outing in a park.

�

The gun won’t help me if a nut takes aim from somewhere. I won’t know what hit me. I don’t think if I were jogging alone through a park that I could draw my weapon if suddenly ambushed from the side either. More than likely the assailant would get the gun away from me.�

�

If the attack is from a mountain lion or bear, good luck getting a deadly shot on them, especially with a handgun. They’re on you before you can act. They’ll rip your arm off before the trigger is pulled or the gun even makes it out. I’d probably shoot myself in the foot in a Barney Phife move and assure my doom.

�

Seems like owning a dog would be as good if not safer to take along on a hike in the park, and boy are there plenty of those in the shelters looking to loyally defend an owner just for a home.

�

While the�present administration�and the NRA stoke our fears to add more places to allow�more types of guns, studies show that possession of guns is only upping the homicide rate in America. We’re killing each other, not terrorists! Terrorism would have taken a bigger hit long ago by cutting off its funding from oil profits. �

�

Congress began viewing alternative energy sources at the end of the 90’s and we should have kept in that direction as a way to stop our oil addiction and the money flowing to the Middle East that helped fund terrorism. I’m reading that it is funded more and more by heroin now. Lately big oil profits in the Persian Gulf have produced a model city like Dubai, a huge metropolis and the Arab wish for a huge financial center. Pretty soon major corporations will fund terrorism over there. We missed our chance to nip the terrorist problem in the bud long ago by getting away from oil. It brought power to a region that basically had nothing else going for it.�Who is outsmarting whom? The Middle East preys on our addictions to oil and heroin. There is no gun to combat that.

�

Unfortunately, since 9/11 we’ve lost more rights due to our fears, and are basically headed back to the old west, where everyone walked around with a holster or hid a pistol in their boot.

�

More info on guns and homicides vs. protection: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/93/7e.pdf

�

�