July 19th, 2007

Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

So... If you "Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" the U.S. government (without trial, warrant, or any of that other good stuff) can seize your property.


While this seems to be directed at people who aid and abet terrorists, there are a couple areas that is disturbingly vague. One of the classes of people who can have there property and money seized are people, "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." The other is any person, "to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order."

Bush has often stated that people that vote or speak against the Iraq war are helping the enemy, and that they are hurting the reconstruction effort. Be it a protester or a congress person. So the first sectionned I mentionned before could possibly be used to stifle free speech.

And the second one sounds like it could be used to prevent people affected by this from getting legal representation.

Wile I suspect this is a stretch, I have such a deep mistrust of this administration, I can't help but believe they really would try to pull such an underhanded attack on American liberties.
Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

I'm a meat eater, and I say we should remove the EPA protections for meat production.

According to this report, producing 2.2lbs of edible beef produces as much greenhouse gas at driving three house straight:


Most of this comes from the methane release from the cows, and this is spread out over the lifetime of the cow.

This report comes on the heals of a court decision saying that the EPA does not have to enforce environment rules on farms it has agreements with, and those farms can not be sued for violations of EPA rules:


Why are we not enforcing EPA rules on farms? I suspect it is because it would cause the price of the Big Mac to skyrocket and business interests are lobbying hard to keep the American institution of cattle "ranching" (sorry, I have trouble considering feed lots real ranching) free of having to meet EPA standards.

I love beef, be it hamburgers, steak, or even liver, but I see how fat I am and most of America is and I can't help but think that if we can enforce the EPA rules and help the environment AND as a side affect cause people to eat less red meat, it would be a boon for our nation.

I believe that if we get rid of feed lots and return to free range cattle without hormones it would raise the price of beef, reduce the amount of cattle producing methane, and help our diets.

The downside is that without legislation regulating beef imports, demanding foriegn raised beef have the same standards for emissions and the way the cattle was raised, it would just mean cheap foriegn beef would destroy the U.S. beef industry.

I also believe that our nation being dependent on any other nation for a needed resource, be it food or fuel, is a threat to national security. I don't think we should keep local food production industries safe with tariffs and subsidies, but rather by making it so that all imported food must me raised/made by the standards we have here.