Article

2004-09-07 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-09-07 8:58:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Cows With Guns (thanks to Mucky)

Posted by trailing wife 2004-09-07 9:35:45 AM|| 2004-09-07 9:35:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I saw the headline and I thought, "My God, just how good is the Chicago's defense this year?" ;oD

Posted by badanov 2004-09-07 9:41:21 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-07 9:41:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Damned werebears.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-07 9:44:24 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-07 9:44:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Bears: why do they love the way we taste?

Posted by BH 2004-09-07 10:29:57 AM|| 2004-09-07 10:29:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Because we're crunchy and especially tasty with ketchup.

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2004-09-07 10:59:45 AM|| [http://www.sgtstryker.com] 2004-09-07 10:59:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Islamic Bears?

Posted by BigEd 2004-09-07 11:15:13 AM|| 2004-09-07 11:15:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Bears, in general, are an "umbrella species" and are a kind of barometer for the health of an entire ecosystem.

Pardon my rolled eyes. Every damned critter from bears to fairy shrimp are supposed to be "barometers for the health of an entire ecosystem".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-07 11:18:07 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-07 11:18:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Nobody but idiots and fools shit in their own ponds."

Fish and their aquatic pals crap in the water all the time.

Bears are attracted to any food source. A nice berry crop, the annual salmon run, the local dump, it's all the same to them. They come from miles around. Doesn't necessarily mean their habitat is getting sqeezed. More likely, they are just getting used to being around people.

Posted by SteveS 2004-09-07 11:49:31 AM|| 2004-09-07 11:49:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 gee, how nice and condescending of you ex-lib!

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-07 12:54:36 PM|| 2004-09-07 12:54:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Pardon me for making a comment on how every damned creature that someone wants to shelter becomes a "barometer species". Especially when that creature is either annoying/dangerous or utterly inconsequential (fairy shrimp, for example). It's a political term, as far as I can tell, or has become one.

BTW, aquatic/sea environments have different ecosystems than do land-based ecosystems that support large mammals/predators.

And this addresses, what, exactly? I mean, would you care to point out where I said otherwise? Or is this just something you spewed to try to make yourself look more educated?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-07 1:20:54 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-07 1:20:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Had a damn Poodle that was an umbrella species. Good dawg, just hated the mist.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-07 2:01:19 PM|| 2004-09-07 2:01:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Poodles in the Mist"

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-07 2:05:04 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-07 2:05:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Poodle with a Mowhawk!

"They'll never call him Fifi again!"

Posted by mojo 2004-09-07 2:29:54 PM|| 2004-09-07 2:29:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Poodles - a fetishist's dream...

Posted by .com 2004-09-07 2:37:05 PM|| 2004-09-07 2:37:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Da Bears!

Posted by Chris W. 2004-09-07 3:41:32 PM|| 2004-09-07 3:41:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 After reading SteveS, Frank G., and Robert Crawfords posts, I was going to apologize for possibly coming across as a grumpy bear earlier, but I've changed my mind.

My roots regarding environmental issues go back to childhood--first and foremost growing up in Colorado instilled in me an appreciation for the beauty and necessity of wild lands and natural places--and to my teen years when I did a fair amount of climbing and backpacking with the Colorado Mountain Club. Also, my stepfather--a renowned wildlife biologist--was instrumental in saving the American Bald Eagle from extinction--by convincing the government to ban the use of a very harmful pesticide, DDT. I appreciate what he did and I hope everyone else here does too. (I mean, think about it--wouldn't it be weird if our national symbol was extinct except, perhaps, for some few and far between specimens in zoos? What a disgrace and proof of lack of good stewardship of the environment that would've been--and we would have been a laughing stock to the rest of the world: "Americans can't even take care of their own national symbol!")

Next, the issue of the ENVIRONMENT should never be allowed to be in the domain of the LLL's. They'll just mess it up like they do everything else. (Example: calling every species under the sun "umbrella species" or "barometer species" is bogus and misleading, despite the interconnectedness of species within ecosystems. Such misinformation causes others to turn away from a legitimate and pertinent scientific issues regarding wildlife management and conservation.)

Thirdly, the political fact is that, for more than 30 years, environmental concerns have been shown to be the ONE strongest area of common concern across party lines in the United States. It's a sleeper issue, but because so many people (rightly) care about clean water and air, and the preservation of natural spaces/species, it's an issue that shouldn't be ignored. The candidate who seems to threaten the environment will lose credibility with all voters.

The winning ticket for the Republican party should be:

adherence to the Constitution
strong national defense
lower taxes
education / legitimate education reform
environmental protection
family-strengthening legislation

By allowing the looney Dems to take environmental issues into their turf, the Republicans weaken their own platform. Rather, they should continue in the tradition of that great Republican conservationist, Teddy Rosevelt (link) :

" . . . Theodore Roosevelt, not quite 43, became the youngest President in the Nation's history. He brought new excitement and power to the Presidency, as he vigorously led Congress and the American public toward progressive reforms and a strong foreign policy. . . . He took the view that the President as a "steward of the people" should take whatever action necessary for the public good unless expressly forbidden by law or the Constitution." . . . Some of Theodore Roosevelt's most effective achievements were in conservation. He added enormously to the national forests in the West, reserved lands for public use, and fostered great irrigation projects. "

So, that's that.

On to the personals:

Frank G #12: I was only returning the "nice and condescending" phony and flip "rebuff" I got from SteveS in #10, for absolutely no cause whatsoever, and was giving him something to think about. Reread my #6, then his. I found his comparison to my common metaphor ridiculous and misleading, and his attitude unpleasant and uncalled for--aside from showing his ignorance regarding European Brown Bears in particular, and the problems which surround the destruction of the very environment one depends on.

From Robert Crawford #13 post: "BTW, aquatic/sea environments have different ecosystems than do land-based ecosystems that support large mammals/predators. And this addresses, what, exactly? I mean, would you care to point out where I said otherwise? Or is this just something you spewed to try to make yourself look more educated?"

Something I spewed? My point about bears being "barometers" of the ecosystem is ACCURATE, for a number of reasons, which you are free to educate yourself about--but the fact that you apparently don't know anything about wildlife biology as it pertains to either bears or fairy shrimp, and are actually making uneducated comments toward me and then insulting me by insinuating that I'm "spewing" to "make myself look more educated" was incredibly insulting. My (obvious) point in saying that"BTW, aquatic/sea environments have different ecosystems than do land-based ecosystems that support large mammals/predators.was in response to your comparison of bears to fairy shrimp--as a strategy to discount the fact that bears actually are "barometer species," which was the point I was making. I found that comparison of yours to be useless "spew." That's why I was trying to point out to you that aquatic ecosystems are different, and that you can't cross-compare or equate bears with fairy shrimp in that specific ecological context as you were doing in your post, with your "rolled eyes."

Regarding fairy shrimp: this link and this link are good starters for those who do want to become educated. Fairy shrimp have an ability to survive extreme environmental changes, which is one reason they are important to study.

About the bears in Transylvania: it's likely they will kill the bears and line up the carcasses--teaching another generation the "splendors" of "appropriate wildlife mangement" and the importance of "protecting" vanishing species.For all those who still want to disagree with me for what I can only suppose are emotional reasons, here you go:

"Yee-haw! They've killed the bears."

There. Even if they don't kill the bears, those who don't care about this "environmental stuff" can now feel "better." Yes, you're welcome.

America leads the world in environmental protection. Unfortunately, Republican representatives, in general, have the worst track record on the environment, and typically respond to business interests far too often--to the detriment of all Americans. Let's change that.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-09-07 6:43:40 PM|| 2004-09-07 6:43:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Boy, I'll bet your finger is really tired.

Posted by .com 2004-09-07 8:04:12 PM|| 2004-09-07 8:04:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ex-lib: Unfortunately, Republican representatives, in general, have the worst track record on the environment, and typically respond to business interests far too often--to the detriment of all Americans. Let's change that.

Ironic, considering the new federal funding and protection measures Bush has enacted. More Ironic is the fact that Teddy Roosevelt, a "Neo-conservative", was a voacl enviromentalist and Republican. You can read a timeline about him here

Posted by Charles 2004-09-07 8:47:02 PM|| 2004-09-07 8:47:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Right, Charles, as I said, Teddy Roosevelt was a great conservationist and a Republican--an example to all Republican statesmen. Next: George Bush's commitment to the environment is really blowing people's minds on the left--and only the more decent ones give him any credit at all (twerps). However most Republican reps vote against environmental legislation. I think they oughta get on board and follow the President's lead.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-09-07 11:20:02 PM|| 2004-09-07 11:20:02 PM|| Front Page Top

10:29 UFO
09:29 UFO
08:02 UFO
00:01 Angash Elminelet3775
10:13 lex
01:59 Super Hose
00:20 .com
00:18 mojo
23:54 whitecollar redneck
23:52 Mark Espinola
23:52 V is for Victory
23:42 Valentine
23:39 smn
23:30 Bomb-a-rama
23:28 ex-lib
23:27 Mark Espinola
23:24 smn
23:20 ex-lib
23:09 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:06 badanov
23:05 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:02 badanov
22:57 Zpaz
22:55 Super Hose