Apr 18th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
I am a hunter. I am not a vegan. But at the same time, I believe that farmers and consumers alike should care about and seek to improve the conditions of livestock. Recent bills being proposed in Florida and Iowa would make it illegal for someone to take pictures or video of farm activities or livestock without the expressed written consent of the farm owner. I have two different takes on this type of legislation. First, I can sympathize with the farm owners, because I wouldn’t want someone secretly videotaping me as I conduct activities on my own property. However, I do feel that the video and camera footage acquired from these so called animal rights activists has helped to bring to attention the level of cruelty that does occur on U.S. farms. Therefore, disallowing this type of footage would allow those farmers that do take part in varying levels of animal cruelty to continue such atrocious acts. 
We have to remember that the food we eat is derived from these farm animals, and allowing cruelty to continue not only breeches the ethical barrier (for most), but also poses health risks by allowing sick, mistreated, and disease ridden farm animals to be led to slaughter for our consumption. I realize farmers have to make money, but I do not think that money should mean a cruel life for animals with already short lifespans. I do believe that we cannot place all of the blame on the farmers, though. We as Americans consume far too much, and we should strive to buy locally grown plants and animals. Giving in to fast food and other restaurant chains simply feeds the cruelty fire by raising the demand for these large corporation farms, thus forcing them to take shortcuts in the care and raising of the animals. If the proposed bills in Iowa and Florida do pass, those living in those states will have to just get out and see for themselves the conditions the farm animals live so that the bills do not serve as a free ticket for the farmers to commit further cruel acts. Finally, some will say that animal rights activists are simply trying to further their socialist agendas, but in closing I will say that I can appreciate their efforts in part simply for the awakening movies like Food Inc. have given me in regards to the conditions of farm animals in our nation.
Feb 18th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
In my previous blog post, I mentioned that Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma was one of the politicians opposed to further regulatory measures in regards to pollution. From what I have gathered, he recognizes the fact that air quality in the U.S. has substantially increased over the past 20 years or so, and therefore does not support further EPA regulations on emissions (for example). I watched a video today posted by http://www.openmarket.com (http://goo.gl/WRWfx) and in that video Inhofe is approached by a few global warming supporters and thoroughly questioned on the matter. 
I thought Inhofe displayed exceptional courtesy, honesty and tact in answering their many questions. I do agree with Inhofe’s assertion that science is mixed in regards to global warming, and introducing potentially unneeded and altogether ill-considered legislation is not the answer. I am on the fence in regards to global warming, and lean to the argument that the Earth goes through gradual warming and cooling periods. I do not necessarily think that humans are causing global warming through emissions, etc. I do think that the subject should garner attention, mostly from scientists, but I do not think that we should try to push through ill-conceived legislation to appease the percentage of scientists and activists that do believe in global warming. As mentioned in my previous blog post, I do think that we should try to find new and innovative ways to address pollution in general to help protect the Earth, but legislation (or at least bad legislation) is not the answer.
I do not always agree with Senator Inhofe on various issues, but I do agree with his stance on global warming for the most part. I do not think global warming is necessarily a “hoax” because many respected scientists support the concept, but with many other scientists on the other side of the fence I cannot simply go “all in” on the global warming bandwagon and order up mass legislation on its behalf. I do commend Senator Inhofe, however, for the patience and respect he displayed in speaking with Mark Hertsgaard and his colleagues. On that note, I would also like to commend Mr. Hertsgaard for the respect and tact he used with Senator Inhofe in discussing the matter.
Feb 4th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
My core values and beliefs have evolved over time, and I feel like they have finally matured to a relatively concrete state. I am a registered Republican, but my values and beliefs do not quite fit under the “True Conservative” umbrella. Likewise, while many of my ideals are inline with the Libertarian party, certain stances they take (such as their take on defense) are unacceptable to me. Therefore, I am probably closer to a mix between Conservative Republican and Libertarian, so to label myself as one or the other just isn’t plausible. Below I will present my stances on the three major political areas (the three I find to be the major ones anyways). Before analyzing each one individually, I have provided a Venn diagram of the three areas (social issues, economic issues, and defense issues).
Fiscally Conservative
I believe in the free market, with as little government interference by way of regulations as possible. Economists I admire and whose ideals I adhere to are the likes of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman.
Defense Hawk
I believe that the United States should at all times have a strong military willing and able to defend the homeland and assist those abroad that are too weak to defend themselves. I am not okay with looking for reasons to go to war, but I will not hesitate to pull the trigger when necessary. As President Theodore Roosevelt once said: “A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.”
Socially Moderate
Social issues are one area in which most of my beliefs are more inline with the Libertarian party. I basically take the stance of Americans should be allowed the freedom to do as they please as long as their actions do not affect others negatively (directly). Obviously this can be very subjective, but essentially I believe that the government should in no way bestow its idea of morals upon the citizens (such as the all-out blitz on American’s smoking habits). As for my choice of the term “Socially Moderate”, I feel that I definitely not socially liberal because I am an avid hunter on one hand, but am very sympathetic to animals in respects such as the mistreatment thereof (especially in the food industry). Another example that proves my moderation and lack of extremes would be that I am totally against most gun control legislation, but I can sympathize with the need to protect the fish and other aquatic life by regulations such as steel shot only requirement for hunters (duck hunters for example). I could go on and on about ways that I am socially conservative on one hand, and socially liberal on the other, but in the end you will find I am socially moderate once averaged out.
In a future post I will provide a detailed analysis of my views on all of the major topics and issues we are faced with today, but for now, this high-level overview should suffice.
