Maybe It's Time We Get Back

When I heard the other day on the radio that Pat's song Dixie Lullaby was categorized in the same genre as the old George Jones fav He Stopped Loving Her Today, it sparked several memories of my childhood and the songs my father used to play dashboard piano to when we were out together. Been thinking about it ever since. One song in particular is Luckenbach, Texas by Waylon Jennings. Some people say that country music will make you want to throw yourself screaming off a bridge, I think the opposite. If you examine the lyrics of this song, you will find that no matter what period of time we are in, the basic nature of this song is to reduce the clutter in our lives and get back to what is important. When you are paying attention, you will learn that even the most basic of things can change our lives entirely. In this case, a song. I wonder how many people can say that this particular song changed their life in such a manner that they became better parents, friends, and lovers because of a simple reduction in material status. This coming from a guy who fights the urge for material omnipotence daily. But, I am learning that with "stuff" comes the requirement to care for the "stuff." Which means more time spent focusing on the things that are not important. I know this, and until recently, didn't take it seriously. I'm having a May garage sale if anyone is interested.

One of the things I have also noticed is the changes that my honey is going through. She has done a fantastic job in her efforts to quit smoking and will succeed, especially if she can survive the day we had out with the kids yesterday and not smoke. I can't say that it has been fun, but things will even out shortly. She's also been focusing more on her health, which considering the things I do to myself, I had better get on the wagon with her or i'm going to get left behind. I'm proud of her, and whether she realizes it or not, she is practicing the very basics of the song mentioned above. I commend her.

Funny how this all ties in together, and what's even funnier is my ability to ramble on endlessly about the most obvious of things. However, if I didn't think that it was important for people to have an occassional reminder about the simplicity of solving huge problems in their lives, I wouldn't bring it up. This in fact is a reminder to myself that things in my own life could be just a bit easier with a few minor changes. A person like me can't live too long with much clutter. It's overstimulating and clouds my ability to process simple thoughts and ultimately leads to frustration.

I bought into the Mega Millions pool the other day at work. While the thought of having a few million bucks to take some worries away, the itenerary set forth upon that fateful day would be a simple one. Tina and I were talking about it in the car yesterday. She had a tight grip on her frying pan. I tried to keep the car moving so she couldn't "bong" me. Anyway, I used to think that having a mega-home of royal proportions would be cool, but now I think I would just rather have a regular house and lots of land. In a house so large that you have to use an intercom to call people for dinner, it would sort of take away the close knit-ness of my family unit. As much as I don't want to hear my kids sometimes, I want to be able to hear my kids, know what they are doing, and not have time to hide. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if the house we are in now is too big. Or at least the wrong design.

Well, let me wrap up my coffee induced wordsmithing by just saying this. I've learned a lot about myself over the last several months, and realize that many of the solutions to my problems are so simple that to ignore them would be profoundly stupid. This change won't happen overnight, but I will join the wife in our efforts to "get back to the basics of love."

Why We Hunt

As I write this, there is a group of people on the ground in Tanzania bound and determined to save threatened species of animals. This group, known as the World Wildlife Federation (WWF), works with several other groups of varying causes to teach bush tribes which animals should and should not be hunted due to their eminent extinction. I find this quite admirable. As a person who spends some of their time switching back and forth between hunting shows and Animal Planet, I sit squarely on the fence when the topic of animal conservation arises. Consider me the person who sits directly in line with the net on a tennis court watching and judging the "my way's" battle the "our way's." Ludicrous, really the handling of it all. Although, it is an important issue, this "animal rights" thingy that is seldom seen in the news unless someone screws up. On the subject of the WWF, this is one of the few mega-orgs on the left side of the list that acknowledges hunting as a viable means of sustainment and population control. Why? I guess the answer lies in your wallet. That's right, money. Often times the lack of it. You see, there are no grocery stores in the African wild, and deep bush tribes cannot rely on an embattled government to supply food. Besides, if anyone has respect for animals it is these people, at least in my eyes. These people care more about survival and living off the land than how much an armchair warrior back in civilization cares about the West African Wiggle Worm and its future in the world, or how cute it is. We could learn some things from these people who survive solely on self reliance and not a welfare check and some "gubment" cheese. In fact, as modern a culture as the western world is, there are still those who find it more beneficial to live off the land than rely on what is offered by someone else with an increasingly steep price tag. I personally commend those individuals for practicing self reliance in its purest form versus accepting what an omni-nosey government monitoring agency can offer in the way of our daily hormone injected processed bread. Who am I to say bad things though?...I go to the grocery just as much as everyone else.

Origins

As I mentioned before, there are people in this world that still rely solely on their ability to hunt and gather to prosper. If we were to go WAY back in time, pre-grocery store B.C., if you wanted live, you had to learn to grow it or kill it. Our very basic creation to some is based upon our evolution from apes. Apes aren't exactly vegetarians, and no organization whose mission is to transform the world into a head of lettuce is going to change it. Even if we took the religious theory of where we came from (**POOF**, what's this place?) you will find that God gave us animals to use and manage. So, we could say that we were denying our origins by choosing not to use animals for anything, period. I do not think I could live with that. Maybe it is because one of my other big complaints in life is people trying to screw with the natural order of things. Nasty, bloody wars have been fought over it and it is usually because of the thoughts of a few and the lack of education in others. Wouldn't it be grand if we were all equally as smart as one another? No, it wouldn't be. Mass hysteria. If we take away the people's right to decide what is the best sustenance for them and the best means to get it, then we have opened a huge can of West African Wiggle Worms when the basic survival tactics of people has been eliminated.

The Fallout of Banning Hunting

A world with too little or too many animals is a world I don't want to live in. I happen to love animals, or at least the theory of them. This is not to say that I would enjoy and accept being eaten by a bear because it was "natural," but I do believe they have a place in this world and we should manage them appropriately. Like all living things, they are beneficial to the environment in their own little way, and to eliminate them wholly on the basis of "because" is not sound thinking. Of course, neither is letting their populations grow to the point of being as common as people. This is the thinking though of some of the more extreme animal rights groups who want animals to be free, untouched, and unconsumable by man. The very thought of that happening frightens me. I can do nothing more than categorize these people as those with a "bambi complex." I wonder if Walt Disney was a psychic, and the OG of animal rights activists? Anyway, point being that no matter how much of an emotional, sympathetic argument that is laid out on the table, nobody has offered a viable solution other than death and consumption. At this point in time, the logistics involved with setting up a free animal society is none other than mind boggling. It is quite expensive to relocate an animal, even through volunteerism, and to do this on a mass scale would do some serious damage to Uncle Sam's pocketbook. The pocketbook that you and I fill, and when there isn't enough, he doesn't have to ask for more. Although he will just to be cordial. We could all expect to pay higher insurance bills to pay for damage caused by animals, and since the insurance company's way to make it back is to nickel and dime all of their customers, we would all be paying for it. Animals left unchecked would turn those nickels and dimes into fifties and hundreds, quickly. So we set up some preserves to contain the animals in, and do our best to practice "darted contraception." It's a good theory if you were only dealing with a small group of animals, but the shear magnitude of chemical birth control needed for all the animals that it would be required for is astronomical, and so is the cost, again paid for by you and I. Sure, there would be some feel good hollywood types that would throw some money in, but long term, you and I will pay for it. With Americans struggling every day to make ends meet, I do not want to be the one to tell them that they now have to pay for the guy in the pen, wrestling a deer, trying to put a Trojan on it to save a few bucks. As with any sort of change that involves taxes, you can bet that their will be other fallout from it also. If that person who is toeing the line of welfare is now pushed well over it because of some sympathetic argument fueled by a Bambi complex, you can bet that the anger from that person would surely send them skipping right on down to the welfare desk. Pride would be replaced by vendetta's aimed solely at the government. Again, on the scale that is the American population, this is ludicrous. You can also bet that when people's health begins failing because NOW you can no longer eat animals, those that choose not to chew down those expensive supplements will surely take advantage of some sort of governmental handout to bring themselves back to normalcy, and can go back to work, and be productive enough to keep the business on American soil. "Grow a garden" they say. Ever tried to grow a garden on the 5th floor of an apartment building? Not gonna happen. Now, while some of this may sound a little over the top, the truth is nobody in this country should rely on the government to come up with a viable financial solution for anything especially when it comes to basic sustenance per individual. To even ponder the idea is enough for me to vote for the other guy. So, the fallout of banning hunting and animal usage of any kind for consumption is nuclear. A tip though for those naysayers who still choose to be disbelievers: You don't tell me what I can and cannot eat, and I will do the same for you. If you don't personally like using animals for anything, then don't use animals for anything. All of this should be about personal choice. It is one of the many things this country is great for.

A Few Little Known Facts

1. Sportsmen spend $1.7 billion a year on licenses and a self imposed federal excise tax on the sale of sporting firearms and related equipment. ALL of this money goes into state budgets for conservation of animals, water, and habitat. It also covers the programs and salaries for those who are employed by these agencies.
2. If hunting and fishing were banned, you can bet this money would be coming out of the pockets of every individual in this country to pay for the management of wildlife preserves, parks, and rivers and lakes.
3. You cannot count of the HSUS or PETA to chip in this kind of money per year to fund these programs. If their goals are accomplished, they would soon go back to their salads and pat each other on the back. After all, the HSUS is solely a political action group. They run no shelters, and contribute no financial support to local shelters. Their sole goal is to ban the use of animals for food, clothing, whatever. PETA, well, they're just lunatics, and if you visit www.consumerfreedom.org you too can learn that they are in fact...nuttier than a squirrel turd.