First it was California city slickers escaping to the Mountain West, finding to their shock and horror that livestock lived there, and then demanding the offensive creatures be banned. Now comes the EPA of President George Bush, Republican of Texas, with their plan to tax cow and hog farts.
Sounds funny, but it could run some ranchers out of business. It also reminded me of that famous anonymous Tax Poem.
The Tax Poem
Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat!
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has Then let him know
That you won’t be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more,
Tax him till he’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he’s laid.
Put these words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom.”
When he’s gone, Do not relax,
Its time to apply the Inheritance Tax.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
31 comments:
The two things to look forward in life are-DEATH AND TAXES!!!!
I'm sorry, you guys don't believe in that whole global warming hoax?
Those scientists have nothing better to do then make up bogus doomsday theories to tax good ol' God fearin' Americans.
I admit it's quite funny, but cow farts are one of the biggest co2 ommitters out there. They beat, transportation (cars, plains, jets, etc...) and everything else.
I think you have a squewed picture of what people are farmers today. They're not ma' and pa' anymore. Factory farming is big business.
I think you have a squewed picture of what people are farmers today. They're not ma' and pa' anymore. Factory farming is big business.
I'm afraid I must agree with you. But taxing livestock flatulence is still quite ridiculous.
And there are still some ma and pa farmers hanging on. My Grandpa and great grandpa were tenement farmers, so I have a sentimental attachment to the soil.
Fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. I know some quite decent people who are farmers as well; but of course, that's no the point.
It's a silly tax, or at least, certainly sounds silly; but I think the other side will admit that quite easily. The point is that if we are going to do something about global warming... this seems to be one of the many, painful, but quite necessary measures.
It's going to hurt the economy, rich and poor, no doubt. I just don't see an alternative way to try and keep our species around for another little while.
Also, I have a different sentiment to share with you as well. I care about animals. I'm an awful hypocrit for eating meat, but I'm trying to stop. Hunting seems like one of the humane ways of killing animals (you'll problably appreciate me saying), but what they do in factory farms is nothing like that. I'm not against meat being available, and animals being killed. I just think they should get a shot in the back of the head while they're eating from a buckey of hay.
It'll start costing a lot more, but I don't see any other reasonable alternative.
I think God put animals here for us to eat them, but I agree with you on treating them humanely.
The science is not "settled" on global warming. Reverend Al Gore, Church of Gaia, owns a very lucrative carbon credit offset business. Where's his motivation at? Follow the money...
I don't give a shit about Al Gore and where his money is at. Remember, I'm Canadian. I haven't even seen his movie.
The point is that the science is in, it's just not clear just how doomed we are now and whether there is anything we can do to stop climate change. But if we wait any longer, we are doomed, definately. If you think God is planning on coming back and taking us prior to that... I don't know what to say, there's really no common ground between us on that to debate it.
As far as animals are concerned, you can eat them, they'll just cost more for you because farmers'll have to kill them humanely.
N.B.
Also, read St. Francis of Assissi for an alternative view point on God and the environment.
I love the environment and believe we should not be polluting it, I just don't believe we should fetishize it.
The science is not "in," nor is it "settled." Google Bjorn Lomborg.
The earth has warmed in the 20th century, but scientists have not proven why. In fact, recent data shows warming may have peaked in 1998.
The earth's temperature naturally goes up and down. Records show it did this before we started driving cars.
I think Vaclav Klaus has nailed it: This is being used by radical leftists to control others and suppress freedoms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
I never said it was caused by man (although it's still likely man-caused, though a few sicnetists may disagree). Nevertheless it is a problem. The earth's temperature fluctuates, naturally, but we can't allow it to fluctuate us into non-existence, can we? The ice age wasn't caused by cars either, but nevertheless???... I don't want nature to kill us (and all this talk about natural vs. artificial is really getting my nerve man. It doesn't make a difference (pragmatically).
I don't 'fetishize' the environment. My stance on the environment is to take care of it just enough so that our grandchildren don't have to wear gas masks.
I understand you're not for gov't intervention, and I can basically agree with you on most of it (so long as you're consistent e.g. abortion, gay-marriage, etc...), EXCEPT this. You're supposed to be a conservative. You're not being very 'conserve'-ative with regards to the environment. How can you insist we continue to drag our feet on this one?
You have an ideological tie to not paying taxes; I understand. But this issue (the environment) shows just how willfully ignorant and stubborn ideologues can be. Nietzsche thought vegetarians were basically afeminate, and didn't want anything to do with them. He also wrote that there is nothing that could actually take our species out of existence. Well, Nietzsche, you were WRONG!
That you can't say this to your heros/icons and their respective ideas will keep your mind captive. What do convictions do to a person's mind, if not convict it? There is no greater enemy to truth than convictions.
relentless-"I never said it was caused by man (although it's still likely man-caused, though a few sicnetists may disagree). Nevertheless it is a problem."
what exactly is the problem? name it. tell me what bad things will happen IF the earth warms 1 full degree in the next 5 years. that's a gigantic IF, by the way. but i'm conceding the point. let's say it will. what are the consequences?
and what do you propose doing about it? is slowing the warming trend (assuming we could actually do anything about it) worth $100 billion? $1 trillion?
if the same circumstances that caused the ice age occurred today, could we do anything to stop it?
one of the best speakers/writers on the subject of climate change was michael crichton. this one is worth a read:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
Why do you think he is one of the best, cause he agrees with you? This is ridiculous.
Comparing the seeming absurdity of vanishing animals before their species had even been discovered to getting divorced before you get married is a false dichotomy (a comparison of wholly different things as if they were completely analogous). There could be evidence of different species in the form of frozen carcasses, decaying material, etc... and they could be shown to be extinct before they are even discovered, but there could never (logically) be a divorce before a marriage.
Also, they thought that the worlds temperatures were going to cool, and instead they rose, means that those past scientists were wrong, not that we are wrong now.
The whole graph thing is just tricky. 73% of statistics are meaningless.
That article is basically all just trickery. I'm not going to go over all of it because I don't really have time, I could later if you'd really like me to, but let me make some important points clear.
Although the world economy will hurt if people try and solve climate change (too cold or too hot, a sudden fluctuation in either direction would mean doom), that does not necessarily mean that more people will starve to death.
dude...you completely forgot to answer my questions:
what exactly is the problem? you said "it's a problem." well, what is the problem?
what are the consequences of the problem?
what is the solution?
how much $$$ are you willing to pay for your solution?
crichton was good b/c he approached the problem scientifically. he understood that science is not about consensus.
we don't have consensus over facts. nobody talks about consensus over the weight of 1 liter of water, or the number of distance from earth to the moon. those things are facts.
we get consensus when we're talking about things that aren't fact. we get consensus when we're discussing predictions...or as i like to call them, guesses.
It doesn't take a scientist to realize that consencus doesn't necessarily mean anything, afterall, there was consensus over the world being flat and the sun revolving around the earth.
My point is that the scientific process -thanks to popper/kuhn and others- has become immeasurably better than it was during Galileo's time. And I agree that we are not certain about the future of the planet, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a great chance that it is heading towards catastrophy.
The problem is global climate change and the solution is trying to emit less co2 into the atmosphere. This won't be good for the economy, but I think the economy will have to meld around green technologies, and move into another epoch. Like any change of this magnitude, it will hurt at first, but hopefully get better in the long run.
And, consencus among climate scientists is different from consencus among the general population. This is one distinction the jurassic park guy fails to make, among many others.
The amount of money we will have to sacrifice to save our species from extinction will be a lot. I make no qualms about that; but this does not mean that poverty, famine, etc... will necessarily get worse. the poorest parts of Africa aren't the biggest polluters. They'll only suffer from the richer parts of the world not having enough to give them. The thing is that we have enough to give them now, and they're starving. When the economy takes a hit, and we're all hurting a little, we could realize how much worse it must be in the poorest parts of the world, and suddenly start donating to them in mass amounts. I really don't know about that. All I'm pretty sure about is that we could see the extinction of our species in a few generations if our attitude towards the environment doesn't change ('our' includes myself). I'm far more bark than bite; regrettably.
"All I'm pretty sure about is that we could see the extinction of our species in a few generations if our attitude towards the environment doesn't change"
that's ludicrous. you're talking about maybe a hundred - 150 years (depending on what you think a generation is). you don't have a single shred of evidence that humans are headed towards extinction. you have NOTHING.
that's hardly even worth my reply. it's completely ridiculous.
let me try asking again: what is the problem? WHY is "climate change" bad now, even though the earth's climate has been changing since...forever?
what are you expecting to happen as a result of climate change. you'll need to be a little more specific than "extinction."
i'll tell you what...name your freaking disaster scenario. pick anything. pick any timeframe you want. and then, let's make a public wager.
i say that whatever disaster scenario you pick will not happen. wanna bet?
That climate change has been happening... "forever?" doesn't mean anything. It's still a problem.
Evidence:
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
How can I get more specific than "our species will go extinct"?
I don't know the natural disaster or series of disaster that will lead to our demise. I just know, some sort of catastrophy or series of catastrophies are very likely to happen.
And here's some more evidence, just for fun:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL
I'm not a scientist, so I won't be making any predictions.
I don't know how to prove this to you, but my grade ten social studies teacher said that the ice caps are going to start melting. This was back in... 2002/2003
I could take out my environmental ethics textbook to show you some predictions a scientist/ethicist made in 1998 if that's what it'll take. I remember reading them, but I don't remember exactly what they were. This is documented though. You could problably find this article dated on he internet. Give me a minute.
now you're just being funny:
"my grade ten social studies teacher said that the ice caps are going to start melting. This was back in... 2002/2003"
everyone knows that the smartest people in the world are 10th grade social studies teachers, so i guess you're right.
i retract everything i've said about climate change. it must be wrong, b/c relentless's 10th grade social studies teacher said so.
dude, did that teacher tell you anything else i should know about? oh, she probably taught you everything you know about economics and saving the poor too. why didn't you say so before. i would have rolled on those issues too.
the 2 funniest things i've read on the internet this year were both written by relentless...in this very thread:
"my grade ten social studies teacher said..."
"All I'm pretty sure about is that we could see the extinction of our species in a few generations..."
Did you know that data now shows that we may have started a cooling trend in 1998? What if that continues and it looks like we're headed for an ice age?
Should we all stand on ladders and aim cans of hairspray at the sky, hoping to open up heat giving ozone layer holes? Leave our cars running 24/7?
Assuming we could adjust the earth's thermostat, how hot is too hot? How cold is too cold? What is the right temperature for Mother Earth?
Also, the change won't be instantaneous, so how do we know when to stop doing what we are doing to lower the temperature?
What if we overshoot and bring on a cooling trend that causes the poor in normally warm climes to freeze to death?
i found this today, just after reading the relentless funnies:
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3337585&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
The point is that he* was right. They are melting. How did you miss this one?
The climate changing one way or another is the problem. Hot or cold. The earth just can't handle it. If we did the exact opposite as you were suggesting, and got China and India to follow along too, we'd be okay; hopefully.
Fox News??? This discussion is over.
Nevada and California are unseasonably cold, that's climate change. As long as all over the world, the climates are unseasonable, that's the problem. The Arctic is warm, and California is cold. And that's not a problem?
It's not that I'm having it both ways. Snow in Vegas! Not a problem???
1998 was the warmest year in measured histroy, with 2005 coming in second place; so I don't know about global cooling.
Arctic sea ice has declined 10% in the last 30 years, according to NASA.
Rising sea levels, and more frequent hurricanes are what we can expect if we don't do anything about it.
Russell, the most socialist countries in the world are still treating their poor better than the States, so stop bringing that up as if you won the debate.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Watch up at least to the end of the grid. I can't draw it on the computer here.
it's hilarious that the problem used to be called global warming. then a funny thing happened...the temperatures reversed and started getting cooler. the scaremongers had to do something quickly, otherwise their argument would be seem as the joke that it is. so that's when "climate change" was discovered. warming cooling...they're both problems...even though we've had them for...forever (they're called seasons).
it's been said that if you're not a liberal before you're 30, you have no heart. and if you're a liberal after the age of 30, you have no brain.
Watch the video:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
This isn't about fear-mongering.
The ice-caps are melting. It's not cooling over there. It doesn't usually snow in Vegas this time of year. It's not just seasonal. I feel like I'm writing to a wall. It's like you've got a list of responses and catch-phrases you're just throwing out at me.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. I watched the fox news thing, watch my one video and refute that.
Again:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
If liberals have no brains, then how do you explain all the college/university profs?
Temperatures aren't getting cooler on average. There are however spurts of decline every few years.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume none of you have taken a logic/ciritcal thinking/scientific reasoning/... course?
If you had you would know that even though the future is uncertain, just the 50/50 chance (although I think it's higher in my favour) of catastrophy (if inaction on crisis) warrants that we take action.
Action:
scenario (1): If all the scientists are wrong, and we wasted a whole bunch of money for nothing, that's bad.
s (2): If they right, and we saved ourselves (despite some economic hardships) it's completely worth it.
In-action:
s(3) we didn't take any action, and nothing happened. We save ourselves from economic hardship.
s(4) we didn't take any action, and we end up in catatrophy the likes of which we have never seen.
The best bet is always to take some action, even if we're light o the pedal, so as to stave off disaster.
If you've taken a scientific reasoning course, or some sort of utilitarian business course, you'll know that taking action is the right course of action (pardon the pun).
I could give a shit about the environment. I just know that we are going to have to start caring a little bit. I don't like it as much as anybody else.
You guys might not like it more because it contradicts your ideological convictions, but... that's too bad.
I would really have a lot more intellectual respect for you guys if you'd admit that you might be wrong. That your ideologies are just that; ideologies, not truths buried under liberal lies and propaganda.
Also, why do you assume I'm liberal. I'm for the death penalty, I'm for conserving oil, I'm against too much foreign occupation, I'm for allowing gays the freedom to marry, I'm for allowing women the freedom to abort, for stem-cell research, for protecting against crazy islamist terrorists, etc...
I'm not sure if I'm all that liberal. I don't know if either side would take me to be honest, but I'm fairly conservative on social issues (so long as you define conservative as what it used to mean). If you guys are against gay-marriage, abortion, research, etc... you're the ones who are liberal. That's a list of a lot of gov't intervntion right there.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.