The Blog @ Spolitics

Border Fence Puts a Species at Risk

An article in today’s WaPo tells of concerned researchers who oppose building a border fence along the southern border because of “growing fears that the wall will imperil species that…[in one researcher‘s words] ‘walk, fly or crawl across that border.’” 

Spolitics has learned that one species in jeopardy, the drugus smugglerus mexicanii, depends particularly on being able to cross the border for it’s livelihood and a border fence might imperil its ability to survive.  If these concerned researchers are able to thwart the building of the border fence, they will likey save the drugus smugglerus. 

Ironically, the drugus smugglerus is no friend of researchers. It is known to be vicious and territorial and has often chased researchers out of the region, damaged or stolen their equipment and generally prevented them from studying the habitat or the other species in it. Fearing for her life, biologist Karen Krebbs abandoned her research in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument because of the drugus smugglerus.  She told one newspaper, “I’m just not willing to risk my neck anymore.”

The researchers who are more concerned about the border fence than the drugus smugglerus say they’re willing to lay their bodies along the wall’s path to prevent it from being built. But this raises the question of whether or not they’ve looked at the issue comprehensively to see if keeping the drugus smugglerus out of the region will be a net positive for the wildlife there and the researchers who want to study it.

In the meantime, since they’re willing to stand guard against the bulldozers, perhaps we can give them guns and ask them to look out for the drugus smugglerus, as well.

A Question for Global Warming Activists

If the science behind global warming is settled and the debate over, why are we still spending billions of dollars each year stuyding it?  Would you support redirecting all of those funds into reseach and development for alternative technologies?

A Question for Barack Obama

Ron Brownstein made a great point regarding Obama’s shallow comments about the way rural, white Pennsylvanians choose their candidates (via Hot Air):

The irony of Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments is that he was lamenting the failure of white working-class people to vote their “class interests” before an audience of affluent San Francisco Democrats doing exactly the same thing.

So the logical question for Senator Obama is: Are Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey ignoring their own financial interests and supporting you because they are bitter and clinging to liberal policies of wealth redistribution and socialist government programs?

Something tells me Senator Obama wouldn’t be so crass about their reasons for picking a candidate as to subscribe them to bitterness. He’d likely give them credit for putting financial motives aside and voting for issues that were more important to them; voting for the kind of country they wanted America to be. As opposed to “bitter” he’d likely call them “enlightened.”

So why was he so thoughtless and dismissive towards the issues that matter to rural, white Pennsylvanians? Why wasn’t he willing to give them the same benefit of the doubt? Or are principled stands only allowed for those who can easily afford them?  And he wonders why people accuse him of being elitist.