IF YOU DON'T SAVE THE PLANET, WE'LL SHOOT THIS DOG

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:12:23 -0500

From Telegraph.co.uk:

Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s, book claims

Owners should consider doing without, downsizing or even eating their pets to help save the planet, according to a new book.

By Paul Stokes Published: 7:35PM BST 23 Oct 2009

Bo Obama Photo: REUTERS

It claims that the carbon footprint left by domesticated animals is out of proportion to the size of their paws.

A medium-sized dog has the same impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, while a cat is equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf.

But rabbits and chickens are eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners while a canary or a goldfish has little effect on the environment.

At the same time a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, suggests the book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.

New Zealand-based authors Robert and Brenda Vale base their findings on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets ranging from budgerigars to cats and dogs.

They say an average Collie eats 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a year, giving it a high impact on the planet.

But a pair of rabbits can produce 36 young annually, which would provide 72kg of meat and help decrease the owner's carbon footprint.

Mr Vale, an architect who specialises in sustainable living, said: "There are no recipes in the book. We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog.

"We're just saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted."

He explained that sustainability issues require us to make choices which are "as difficult as eating your dog".

Mr Vale added: "Once you see where cats and dogs fit in your overall balance of things, you might decide to have the cat but not also to have the two cars and the three bathrooms and be a meat-eater yourself."

All Socialists are Criminals

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:12:05 -0500

This from NationalPost.com...

And God said: Nevermind that one about 'thou shalt not steal'

Posted: December 21, 2009, 4:37 PM by NP Editor

In international theft news, a British minister is under fire for advising parishioners that stealing was OK if the victim was wealthier than them:

Rev. Tim Jones, 41, told his followers stealing from large chain stores is sometimes the best option for the poor. He said it is better for people to steal than resort to prostitution, mugging or burglary.

He also said it is better to steal from large, national businesses rather than small businesses.

The Daily Mail reported that Jones claims his sermon at St. Lawrence Church in York did not violate the Bible commandment: "Thou shalt not steal," because God's love for the poor is more important than the property rights of the rich.

The Rev. Jones was presumably referring to essentials like food or clothing, but in the U.S. the New York Times reports an upsurge in shoplifting at book stores, with certain titles dominating:

At BookPeople in Austin, Tex., the rate of theft has increased to approximately one book per hour. I asked Steve Bercu, BookPeople’s owner, what the most frequently stolen title was.

“The Bible,” he said, without pausing.

Maybe they were all fans of the Rev. Jones. Next to the Good Book, popular titles for thieves tend to be concentrated among books of interest to youthful males.

Fiction is the most commonly poached genre at St. Mark’s Bookshop in the East Village of Manhattan; the titles that continually disappear are moved to the X-Case, safely ensconced behind the counter. This library of temptation includes books by Martin Amis, Charles Bukowski, William S. Burroughs, Raymond Carver, Don DeLillo and Jack Kerouac, among others. Sometimes the staff isn’t sure whether an author is still popular to swipe until they return their books to the main floor. “Amis went out and came right back,” Michael Russo, the manager, told me.

Women's titles presumably don't rate. In Canada, even feminist shops are having trouble moving inventory. The Toronto Women's Bookstore declared recently its finances are "in crisis" and it will be lucky to survive after almost four decades in business. If it loses the struggle, says Canadian Press, it will join feminist outlets in Calgary, Saskatoon, Hamilton, London, and Sudbury in being forced to close its doors.

Supporters insist the decline in business in no way reflects a waning of interest in feminism, and that big bookstores offering big discounts are to blame.

But then there's this to ponder:

Feminist organizations of all stripes, not just bookstores, have been hit hard by a "lack of support" over the past few years, particularly since the Conservative government came to power in Ottawa, said Margaret Phillips, the owner of the Northern Woman's Bookstore in Thunder Bay, Ont.

The government's drastic changes to Status of Women Canada in 2006 -- which cut off funding for women's groups that do lobbying, advocacy -- and general research, raised the ire of feminists across the country.

"When a women's centre closes down or a feminist regional organization closes down, that affects everybody," said Phillips.

"And it affects women's bookstores too, because those people are not there to promote and support women's books."

Obviously, "lack of support" means government subsidies. If women are really ardent about the cause, should they really need subsidies to keep the lights on? If women won't support an organization that lobbies on their behalf, should it be the taxpayers responsibility to prop it up?

Just wondering. We're talking half the population here. With no shortage of buying power.Maybe they just don't like the product.

Kelly McParland
National Post

Doeroadx's Open Salon Blog

IF YOU DON'T SAVE THE PLANET, WE'LL SHOOT THIS DOG

Owners should consider doing without, downsizing or even eating their pets to help save the planet, according to a new book.

All Socialists are Criminals