Monday, January 28, 2008

Life After People???????


For some time I have been hearing that a few of the more extreme environmentalists feel that the earth would be much better off without people around to dirty it up. You know the ones. They constantly harp that it is we the people who cause all the problems. We cause green house gas which heats up the globe and promises to bring all life to an end. Our very presence threatens everything.

It is with this in mind that I tuned in The History Channel recently to watch their feature “Life After People”. I’ll admit I had prejudged what this was going to be. All of these things come with an agenda as did this one. It is just that the agenda was not what I thought it would be. If you didn’t see it, it basically dealt with the proposition that all human life ceased to exist at once. Then the story began with what would happen to the earth without people. It showed their opinion of what things would look like after twenty four hours all the way up to ten thousand years later. Their basic premise was that all things created by man from buildings to bridges to roads to monuments carry within them a built in seed of their own destruction. In other words everything man-made will rust, corrode, or other wise collapse under its own weight.

They opined that the only reason this isn’t happening now is human maintenance. We lubricate, re-pave, and paint to keep our creations sound. The Golden Gate Bridge, for example, is constantly being painted. The crew never gets finished. They just go from one end to the other and continue to paint.

They speculated as to what would last the longest. It turns out that would be Mt. Rushmore because it is carved in pure granite.

Their next conclusion was that animals and insects, fishes and birds would fare very well. Some, if not most, would fare better without humans. Dogs would revert to their wild state and kill for their food. Pet cats would live on rodents and birds. The oceans would cleanse themselves without dirty humans around to mess it up and fish life would explode. Zoo animals would roam the deteriorating streets in search of food. In this new world you would either be predator or prey. The wild animals would come in from the mountains and join the feast. Freeways would become animal trails.

As man’s creations deteriorated vegetation would take over and swallow up any trace of our ever having existed. All the world would be beautiful then. In ten thousand years no trace of our presence would be left. This would seem to be the ideal extremists seek……. But I have a question.

If there are no people left, who would care? Who would report on these facts? Who would the winner be then? What would he win? Where would these extremist whackos be? Do they suppose that they will somehow be granted some kind of pardon from human disappearance? Don’t they see this to be as silly as I do? Also why would anyone believe that animals would survive if all humans disappeared? Humans have been the most adaptable of all the animals and humans have come closer than any other critter to taming their environment.

At the close of this feature, they referred to our replacements. Without saying anything they showed chimpanzees cracking nuts with rocks implying they are just waiting in the wings to take over.

If the utopian ideal of environmentalists is a world without people where would they fit in that scenario? Just a question.

Ron Scarbro January 2008

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Mexican Lawmakers


Are you ready for this? To bring you up to date, Arizona has passed a law that basically warns employers not to hire illegals and if they do, they face various punishments including loss of business licenses. Seems pretty simple. Arizona isn’t alone in their effort to try to fix the problem of illegal immigration. Many local governments are at work now coming up with laws to stem this uncontrolled flood of illegal people.

A group of legislators from Sonora, Mexico in an act of supreme audacity, are complaining to Arizona legislators that if this law is enforced, the illegals will rush back to Sonora and overwhelm that small state. In other words, Mexico cannot handle their own citizens. They prefer that we take care of them. They are asking Arizona to not enforce this law.

Let us consider just what is really going on here. One possibility is that Mexico doesn’t want this large group of essentially unskilled, uneducated, and expensive to support laborers. Secondly, perhaps the Mexican economy is so dependent on the dollars earned illegally and sent back there that they possibly would be in serious trouble if that money dried up. I, for one, do not believe that Mexican officials care a bit for the millions of illegals in America on a personal level.

This is not the first time official Mexico has tried to involve themselves in the politics of this country. They are working feverishly to prevent any type of border fence or any improvement in border control.

I have a recommendation. Attention Mexican legislators. Take care of your own country. Fix your own economy. Support your own welfare cases. Medicate your own sick and injured. Arrest and jail your own corrupt officials. In other words, butt out of our business. When you have repaired your broken country, installed a workable method of taxation, rid yourself of government thieves, then, and if we ask, you can offer suggestions as to how we should run our country. Of all the people on earth, you seem to be among the least qualified to teach us or preach to us.

Mexico is a beautiful country with massive natural resources. They have at hand a huge labor force. Agriculture and tourism alone, if properly governed and managed, could go a long way to supporting the entire Mexican state. It would require, among other things, removing corrupt government officials from office however. That then appears to be the stumbling block.

The people of America are going to fix the problem of illegals one way or another with or without assistance of the government. Mexico and the legislators from Sonora had best just accept this fact and set about to get their country ready for a huge influx of people. They should also prepare to do without the steady flow of U.S. dollars.

Ron Scarbro January 2008

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The Value of the Word "No"


Unless you live in a cave, you have no doubt heard of the latest travails of Brittany Spears. The media will not let you miss it. Now, it would appear, she has lost visitation rights to her own children. She is a sad example of what this essay is about.

It is not about Brittany alone however.

She is but one of many celebrities who do not seem to understand that the rules also apply to them. She and others, such as many pro athletes, music makers, stars and starlets, some politicians, and any of that ilk who have been seriously misled by their own upbringing. Many of these people have been cheated by their parents. They are often led to believe that they are special because of some perceived talent, good looks, or possibly just their parental heritage or family name. Many are raised by sycophant nannies who never utter the word “no”. They wouldn’t dare.

Consider the young person who excels in certain sports at a very early age. People, often with ulterior motives, promote this youngster. They tell him he is without peer. They tell him he is going to be rich beyond his wildest dreams. They tell him he can do no wrong. Often his parents are in on it because they see their own futures rolling in money. They are all cheating this youngster out of the value of the word “no”.

Then there are the children who, through no fault or effort of their own, are born with striking good looks. You have known some. They are always given the spotlight. They are the center of attention. Teachers favor them in school. Bosses promote them. They often become successful in certain aspects of life but a closer examination reveals what is often called an empty suit. Eventually the truth of their total lack of substance comes out and they are left with nothing but a life in politics. Did I say that? I guess I did.

Parents, you have a big role here. You are not doing your children any favors by refusing to let them take responsibility for their actions. I have talked to teachers who say that to reprimand a student for bad behavior often brings rebuke from that student’s parents. After a while they say it is just not worth it. Judicial system, you are not doing law breakers any favors by granting soft sentences or alternate punishment for violations. The offenders quickly get the message that crime often does pay or at least doesn’t cost. They are cheated out of the opportunity to learn the right lesson.

I believe the only way we are going to get a handle on the situation facing us today is to start at the beginning. Children must be made aware of the fact that for certain offenses certain and sure punishment ensues. Reward is also important. Young people should be encouraged for the good they do.

The word “NO” is one of the most important words in our language. Sometimes it is harsh. Rarely is it welcome. It is, however, vital to the upbringing of children.

There are always going to be people who excel in some areas of life. Some in sports, some in intelligence, and yes some in good looks. That’s life. What becomes increasingly important is that when these children are being trained for the life to come they must hear and understand the word “no”. Whether they hear it from their parents or not, they will surely, at some point, hear it from society. Brittany Spears just heard the word “no” from society.

Ron Scarbro January 2008