Easter and Animal Cruelty

It’s that time of year again! Of course I’m talking about Easter, which is right around the corner now. Ah Easter, the time of year when bunnies leave candy, little kids get dressed up, people color eggs along the spectrum of the rainbow, and apparently we do the same to animals.

When browsing through the possible laws that I could’ve utilized for this week’s blog I stumbled across two that seem to be hand-in-hand and illustrate the apparently non-animal friendly nature of the Easter season. Perhaps I should explain, you see in Indiana it has been declared illegal to color a bird or rabbit and in Massachusetts they go one step further to limit the number of ducklings sold before a certain time of year and to prohibit the painting of animals associated with Easter as well.

Both of these laws were enacted in order to keep people from coloring animals for sale, particularly around Easter time. In Indiana the law clearly defines that, “A person who dyes, stains, or otherwise alters the natural coloring of a bird or rabbit commits a Class B misdemeanor.” However, Massachusetts is even more strict and specific. The law there stipulates that “It is illegal to sell fewer than twenty-four ducklings at a time before May 1^st or to sell rabbits, chicks, or ducklings that have been painted a different color.”

The reason for these laws is obviously the protection of animals from such inhumane treatment which I can only applaud, but when hearing these laws for the first time if you don’t reason it through, they sound pretty farfetched. So, just know that in both Indiana and Massachusetts you may not color animals associated with Easter and that if you do so it is a felony. If you live in either of these places then please uphold these laws and encourage others to do the same, if only for the sake of the animals. Have a very Happy Easter and don’t color any animals please!!!

Drilling and Pennsylvania

Currently there is a large push for alternative sources of fuel, aside from the oil we are presently so dependent upon. However, heated debates dealing with the issue arise when the question moves from what else we can do to what kind of fuel sources we should use next. Right now there is no general consensus on what the “best” sources would be, although many are under consideration.

Some likely candidates at the moment are natural gas, Marcellus shale, solar energy, windmill generated energy, and that new technological discovery where plants create fuel but it is difficult to mass produce and harvest as of yet. Ever since the outset of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico companies have been especially careful to prevent spills of any kind, given these recent scares. However, recently a natural gas company has suspended drilling at all of its oil wells in Pennsylvania due to an unexplainable spill in the northern part of the state.

Given the recent animosity towards drilling and the push for more sustainable and alternative energy sources, the question of whether it is right to continue to do so is one that should be addressed.

Apparently in this case, the unknown spill resulted in thousands of gallons of drilling fluid were spilled and were uncontained. They crossed over farm fields and into a stream. Based on past problems this seems to be an increasing trend for the future. This begs the question, should all of these companies desperate to gain fuel be allowed to irresponsibly wreak havoc on the environment of the average citizen?

The damages caused by attempts to drill in multiple locations all over the United States have previously been known to cause environmental problems that far outweigh the possible benefits and this newest drilling site in Pennsylvania is simply a part of this trend towards an irreplaceably damaged America.

No more homemade lunches in Chicago

Many schools are making the choice to change their school’s lunches into healthier options for children, however some go to an extreme to assure children’s healthy eating habits. Although convincing arguments have been made for the need for healthier lunches for kids in school some take this to the extreme of even banning certain foods or ingredients in the lunches themselves or in the case of the Little Village Academy School in Chicago, banning lunches from home altogether.

Nutrition in school is important since kids receive about 30% of their daily food intake during school hours and has recently become more a more prominent issue than ever before. This is in part due to the abundance of overweight and obesity in American kids and also due to Michelle Obama’s support of the Hunger-Free Kid Act which calls for higher nutrition in lunches served in schools.

It has been reported that most of the students that are overweight, obese, or at risk for either are more likely to be poorer and to qualify for free or reduced lunches but this is not always the case. At this school in Chicago, where the price of lunch for students that do not receive aid or discounts totals $2.25, banning lunches has parents in a fervor since most that must pay the full price cannot afford these charges.

Although it may seem minimal, they add up to more than parents are willing to spend and this isn’t the only place that reductions and restrictions on lunches from home occurs. In states all across the country schools are changing the rules when it comes to food in an effort to combat childhood obesity, but at what price?

I’m not trying to say that more nutritional school lunches are a bad thing, only that this issue must be looked at further to come up with better solutions than over regulating what kids can and cannot eat every day in school.

New Sources of Oil in Dispute

Imagine a time in which oil was so plentiful that it could even be found in the soil itself? Well that day has come. In Utah the soil may actually be used as an oil source due to the tar within it that can provide petroleum. The debate rages on over the ethics of the situation and whether this will lead to wilderness depression.

With everyone from the guy next door to politicians to companies all looking to reduce America’s reliance on foreign reserves of oil and the price per barrel on the rise with no decrease in sight, this option is looking more and more attraction.

If companies move forward with this plan it could be the largest production of petroleum from US soil on such a scale, ever. However, some worry that this is a shortsighted plan that will in the long run only lead to a greater problem at the expense of other natural resources.

Going forward with this project will dig up fragile topsoil, destroy thousand year old plateaus, and pollute groundwater streams in the area. If this allowed to occur, then how far behind this can the Marcellus shale projects proposed in Pennsylvania be behind it?

Unconventional oil has been eyed up as an alternative by industry for quite some time but has been largely considered non-viable economically until recently. The cheaper cost of oil from sands and soils as seen in Canada, as low as $20 per barrel as opposed to the $100 it currently stands at has persuaded some to consider this option, no matter the environmental expense.

Although suggestions such as these do have merit, they would only contribute about 2,000 barrels a day of the 19 million barrels the US consumes, making it an irrelevant plan to begin with. Once the costs and amount of water are taken into consideration it isn’t economically feasible in relation to what investments in conservation and alternative energy could renewable return each year.

At this point, this doesn’t seem like a good solution to the problem and would just make even worse problems for the United States. So the question now is, what else can we do that doesn’t destroy our environment that can actually make a difference?

Georgia and Russia: At It Again

Georgia has it out for Russia. And no, I don’t mean the state of Georgia. I actually mean the country. They had presented a case before the United Nations court that was denied last Friday against Russia, alleging allegations of ethnic cleansing in 2 provinces.

The reason the case was thrown out wasn’t due to lack of evidence or in light of other testimony or counters, but because the court decided that it had no jurisdiction. This was because of the fact that Georgia didn’t try and work things out with Russia before taking the matter to court.

This complaint was filed at the end of a five day war between the countries. Georgia’s top officials have been quoted on their disbelief and desire for a swift turnabout decision for what they deem to be a miscarriage of justice.

Though this dispute has been ongoing for some time, Georgia’s failure to try and rectify the situation leading to this lawsuit that arose in 2008 before taking legal action which Georgians feel was a mere technicality while Russian officials have praised the decision.

Now that the case will no longer be heard or even examined in the world court, it is being further investigated before any other legal proceedings begin. The International Criminal Court is carrying out a preliminary investigation on individuals from both countries suspected of committing war crimes.

In this dispute it would be easy to argue for either side since it was the middle of a war and there were significant losses to both countries. However, the ability to clearly see both sides’ points of view on this issue leads one to wonder why it was brought into court in an attempt for money or reparations anyways since it was during wartime.

Although the destruction and deaths are certainly horrible and detrimental to both countries, there is no way to legally settle a war and trying to do so will only lead to more anger and hostility since there is no way that both sides can win.