One of the things that bugs the hell out of me is hearing global warming advocates shooting their mouths off and proposing ways to restrict my freedom when they have no skin in the game. That is the point of this blog.
Every time I hear a global warming advocate tell me not to cut my own trees or shoot deer on my own property, I think that they should be looking in the mirror and asking why they never planted any trees on the property that they pay taxes on. It is like those people down at Starbucks drinking over priced coffee with money that their parents gave them. What do they really know and don't seem to want to pay for with the tax money that they paid on the money they worked for. Here are just a few idea that I have to allow them to get some skin in the game.
(1) For each child that they have, they should be required to plant at least 10 trees. I would rather make that 100 trees, but that would eliminate 90% as possible parents. I was watching the war in Syria and noticed that there had to be at least 1,000 people for every tree. No wonder they have problems!
(2) Now for wind power. Most of these "save the world" global warming people want to spend more and more of my tax money on wind mills to generate "clean" power should have some skin in the game. I recommend that all wind power has to be consumed within 50 miles of where it was originally generated. Global warming advocates want to put their wind mills that are paid for with my tax money in my back yard, not their own back yards. It is the same for solar power. Both solar and wind power cost at least 10 times that from coal or natural gas, but when it is mixed at a small percentage with cheaper power most consumers don't see the real cost. If people in these urban areas who want all this green power had to pay the full cost, I don't think that they would be as enthusiastic.
(3) Here is another one. How about garbage? These big urban areas generate most of the garbage, but they want to dump their garbage in my back yard, far from their big cities. I recommend that we pass a law that all garbage had to be disposed of within 50 miles of where it was generated. What do you think places like New York City would be like if they were required dispose of their garbage within 50 miles rather than hauling it by truck and train many miles away into other states?
(4) How about water? In the case of California, the people in the LA area voted to steal the water from Northern California and ship it by canal over 500 miles to LA so that the people there could water their lawns a golf courses. Farmers in Northern California who had land next to the Sacramento river could not take water out of that river to water their cattle because they were out voted by people in LA who wanted the water for their swimming pools. It is the same with the water from the Colorado river. I recommend that water should not be shipped across state lines or beyond 50 miles of the river from where it came. In this case, I do not see a simple way for greenies or global warming advocates to get some skin in the game. Do you know anything about Owens Valley? It was another one.
(5) I have one final one. How about immigrants? If they feel that where they are living is so bad that they have to get out, "no matter what", then here is how they can get some skin in the game. I recommend that they agree to be neutered. It is one thing for us to allow them in, but what about some equal value for them to have to give up? I think that neutering them is a good way for them to put some skin in the game. If we don't do something like this, it will not be too many years before we are over run with Muslims people from other places that they over populated.
PS---When the humane society saves the life of a dog or cat, they neuter the animal so that the animal ends up with some skin in the game. The main reason that they have the animals in the first place was due to "over" breeding. If they just sent the animal back out into the society without neutering, it would make the problem worse. I think that neutering is better than letting the animals die as Darwin would have done!!
Every time I hear a global warming advocate tell me not to cut my own trees or shoot deer on my own property, I think that they should be looking in the mirror and asking why they never planted any trees on the property that they pay taxes on. It is like those people down at Starbucks drinking over priced coffee with money that their parents gave them. What do they really know and don't seem to want to pay for with the tax money that they paid on the money they worked for. Here are just a few idea that I have to allow them to get some skin in the game.
(1) For each child that they have, they should be required to plant at least 10 trees. I would rather make that 100 trees, but that would eliminate 90% as possible parents. I was watching the war in Syria and noticed that there had to be at least 1,000 people for every tree. No wonder they have problems!
(2) Now for wind power. Most of these "save the world" global warming people want to spend more and more of my tax money on wind mills to generate "clean" power should have some skin in the game. I recommend that all wind power has to be consumed within 50 miles of where it was originally generated. Global warming advocates want to put their wind mills that are paid for with my tax money in my back yard, not their own back yards. It is the same for solar power. Both solar and wind power cost at least 10 times that from coal or natural gas, but when it is mixed at a small percentage with cheaper power most consumers don't see the real cost. If people in these urban areas who want all this green power had to pay the full cost, I don't think that they would be as enthusiastic.
(3) Here is another one. How about garbage? These big urban areas generate most of the garbage, but they want to dump their garbage in my back yard, far from their big cities. I recommend that we pass a law that all garbage had to be disposed of within 50 miles of where it was generated. What do you think places like New York City would be like if they were required dispose of their garbage within 50 miles rather than hauling it by truck and train many miles away into other states?
(4) How about water? In the case of California, the people in the LA area voted to steal the water from Northern California and ship it by canal over 500 miles to LA so that the people there could water their lawns a golf courses. Farmers in Northern California who had land next to the Sacramento river could not take water out of that river to water their cattle because they were out voted by people in LA who wanted the water for their swimming pools. It is the same with the water from the Colorado river. I recommend that water should not be shipped across state lines or beyond 50 miles of the river from where it came. In this case, I do not see a simple way for greenies or global warming advocates to get some skin in the game. Do you know anything about Owens Valley? It was another one.
(5) I have one final one. How about immigrants? If they feel that where they are living is so bad that they have to get out, "no matter what", then here is how they can get some skin in the game. I recommend that they agree to be neutered. It is one thing for us to allow them in, but what about some equal value for them to have to give up? I think that neutering them is a good way for them to put some skin in the game. If we don't do something like this, it will not be too many years before we are over run with Muslims people from other places that they over populated.
PS---When the humane society saves the life of a dog or cat, they neuter the animal so that the animal ends up with some skin in the game. The main reason that they have the animals in the first place was due to "over" breeding. If they just sent the animal back out into the society without neutering, it would make the problem worse. I think that neutering is better than letting the animals die as Darwin would have done!!
