Archive for August, 2007

Global warming? Bah… Disappearing bee colonies is the real threat

Friday, August 3rd, 2007

I was sitting outside for a bit today and I noticed we seem to have a pretty good size colony of honey bees living in a little evergreen tree right next to our house.

Now, I’m not usually too worried about bees, especially honey bees which tend to be relatively docile if you don’t bother them, but having scores of bees flying in and out of a nest right next to our patio furniture does pose some problems. In addition, left undisturbed, this colony will continue to grow and could become a major problem.

Remembering that we have a potential crises in this country because of a declining bee population, instead of grabbing a can of wasp & bee spray, I began surfing the web for referrals to someone who could relocate this colony; what I found, for the most part, was exterminators. A few years ago, I’d have just killed the colony myself; I would have felt bad about it, but I would have done what I felt I needed to do. But now, that just doesn’t seem right.

So… I have a call in to the state beekeeper’s association and am awaiting some guidance. In the meantime, I thought I’d share some information to help raise awareness on an issue that could potentially lead to a big problem for us if we don’t find the root of the problem and find a way to solve it.

Some articles:

Where have all the bees gone?: In the spring of 1993, entomologist Maryann Frazier encountered a mystery. “Beekeepers began calling to report that they had no bees in their colonies,” she recalls. “When bees don’t have enough food over the winter, beekeepers often will find a big cluster of dead bees in the colony. But these keepers were saying that not one bee was left in their colonies. This was very weird. They had seen bees making flights in February, but by April, there were no bees. What happened to them?” Frazier’s investigation into the reasons the bees disappeared continues today. If she and her colleagues can’t unravel the mystery of why bee colonies are dying, beekeepers, fruit and vegetable growers, and consumers all are likely to feel the consequences.

The empty bee colonies raised an alarm about the state of these valuable pollinators. If you’re imagining a summer without bee stings, you also should imagine a diet without apples, berries, cherries, melons, pears, plums, pumpkins, and other fresh fruits and vegetables–not to mention honey.

Millions of honey bees have died in the United States over the past five years, eliminating some beekeeping operations and creating a critical shortage of honey bees for pollination in some areas.

HONEY BEE DIE-OFF ALARMS BEEKEEPERS, CROP GROWERS AND RESEARCHERS: An alarming die-off of honey bees has beekeepers fighting for commercial survival and crop growers wondering whether bees will be available to pollinate their crops this spring and summer. Researchers are scrambling to find answers to what’s causing an affliction recently named Colony Collapse Disorder, which has decimated commercial beekeeping operations in Pennsylvania and across the country.

“During the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States,” says Maryann Frazier, apiculture extension associate in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences. “Since the beginning of the year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses.

“This has become a highly significant yet poorly understood problem that threatens the pollination industry and the production of commercial honey in the United States,” she says. “Because the number of managed honey bee colonies is less than half of what it was 25 years ago, states such as Pennsylvania can ill afford these heavy losses.”

Oh yeah.. and about global warming and other causes that are being leveraged for money and power, here’s a bit of wisdom from Penn & Teller that M&D pointed me to:

 

Check it out… it’s our movie night clip this week…

Obama would invade Pakistan?

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

Seriously?

Going into Iraq to find terrorists… bad?

Going into Pakistan, an ally in the terror war whose president has risked his life to support the United States… good?

Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) on getting tough with terrorists:

From AP: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

Hmmm.. maybe Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. What exactly warrants sending troops across the border of an allied country without permission?

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Canada better pay attention here… there are known terrorist cells in Canada and Obama might just have to get tough on our neighbors to the north and send in the troops.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

If only we could get those terrorist holed up in those mountains, we could end this whole thing.  After all, the rest of the terrorists in the world would cease to exist if we get rid of the hole-in-the-wall gang of terrorists.  I guess it’s kind of like vampires.  If you can kill the head vampire, the others lose all their powers and just evaporate, or whatever it is vampires do when they stop being undead.

I guess Pakistan president Musharraf won’t be on the invite list to the White House along with Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad when he has his little get together with the world’s terrorism sponsors.

For the record now…

BHO was against invading Iraq, a major sponsor of terrorism with a leader who was threatening the use of chemical and biological weapons and who was trying to obtain the necessary ingredients to develop a nuclear device, and OBO proudly wears this position (not a vote, action or even a tough decision for him since he was not even in Congress to vote on the topic) on his sleeve.

However, he is now on record as saying he would have no problem with INVADING AN ALLIED NATION!

Yep.. finally found something HRC and I agree on…

More thoughts in the blogosphere on the topic:  DeMediacratic Nation, Michelle Malkin, Wake up America, Texas Rainmaker

How to “negotiate” with terrorists

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

Just a thought…. 

If terrorists hold innocent people hostage and demand the release of other terrorists, threaten to kill these hostages if their demands are not met, and then actually kill some of these people, as is the case with the Korean Christian volunteers held by the Taliban, I would make it clear to these thugs that for every hostage killed, one or two or ten or even 100 of their buddies held in prison would be executed. 

Unfair? I suppose it is. Barbaric? Yeah, that too. But as long as there is a perceived value in taking hostages and killing innocent people, terrorists will continue to take hostages and kill innocent people. They are relying on us placing a greater value on the immediate threat to innocent lives than the long term impact of giving in to their demands.

Taking it a step further, to ensure everyone has a vested interest in ensuring terrorist activity does not visit our shores again, I would let it be known that we hold countries like Iran directly responsible for the behavior of those they support in these activities, and the next attack on American soil will result in the elimination of one enemy city.  (or at least some major strategic target) Perhaps that might even convince them it is not worth the consequences to continue supporting terrorism.)  I suppose the counter argument is that attacking them back will just get them angry and be used as a recruiting tool to make more terrorists. So I guess the answer is to not fight back and hope they’ll just get the message that we mean them no harm and go away. What a great idea!

OK.. I know this is a bit much, but we are not treating this war like a war. Nations that refuse to fight wars with the intent of inflicting enough damage on the enemy to make them surrender lose wars.

Name the last major war the US really won… that would be World War II.  The goal was to win and the Allies, led by the US, used almost every option available, including nuclear weapons, to win. 

If we insist on fighting with self-imposed handicaps, we just might lose this war.

Don’t agree and have a better (or perhaps more sane) idea… feel free to comment.