Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 21, 2008
Robert Knight :: Townhall.com Columnist
My Big Fat Green Wedding and Other Media Nonsense
by Robert Knight
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


From carbon footprint calculators to electricity-free weddings, the media’s promotion of anti-global warming hysteria is warming up with the approach of Earth Day on April 22.

ABC’s Good Morning America was actually running a Countdown to Earth Day every morning, beginning last week, as if we were all like kids waiting for Christmas Day. Maybe that’s how it is at Al Gore’s house.

The New York Times Magazine on Sunday devoted the entire issue to a “low-carbon catalog” of ideas for the environmentally inclined. However, as Folio magazine notes, it was printed on new, wasteful paper, not recycled pulp.

Monday’s Today Show on NBC had segments on “eating green,” wind power, recycling electronics, and green investing. Over on ABC, Good Morning America also had viewers grazing on a segment about eating green.

Nothing, however, demonstrates the media’s sheer hostility to the American Way of Consumerism and the need for environmental penance than the two following items.

National Public Radio kicked off its Earth Week on Monday with “a series of conversations about food’s footprint.” That’s right. Put down that cheeseburger and listen. In the first installment on Monday, Alex Chadwick talked to Dr. Gina Solomon, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, “about how the food we eat contributes to greenhouse gases.”

The villain of the piece? Cows. According to Dr. Solomon, Americans’ animal-based foods generate “a third as much as their car produces” in greenhouse gases. Cows come in for even more blame than pigs and other critters, because cows emit copious amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, Solomon said. This means that the bacon in your bacon cheeseburger pales as an environmental menace compared to the cheese and the beef.

So this means that the other Solomon, the wisest man in the world and the author of the Book of Proverbs, was not doing the Earth any favors by sticking to a pork-free Kosher diet and eating good, rabbinically approved beef. To be fair, the environmentalists at NPR would have had him munching on a stick of celery, with a carrot chaser.

Overall, food production itself of all kinds “contributes a third of greenhouse gases” in the world, Ms. Solomon said. If you think about this for a minute, it means that Weight Watchers and anyone dieting is an environmental hero, striking a blow for a greener Earth!

NPR helpfully provides a link to a California-based Web site that allows you to calculate your “carbon footprint.” The first thing they ask is how much income you make, which should tip off all but the chronically naïve as to where they’re going with this.

The other standout media item came courtesy of USA Weekend, where the editors got an early start in the April 4-6 edition by presenting a guide for having a “green” wedding.

“Think about a daytime outdoor wedding and reception – no need for electricity or lighting,” said Millie Martini Bratten, editor in chief of Brides magazine, who, along with other experts, dispenses loads of methane, er, ideas for having “a green wedding without sacrificing style or taste.” You folks in Minnesota, North Dakota and Alaska will probably have to put off your big day until August. No word on whether mosquito repellent is advised, though.

Brides (read: mothers of the bride, too) are instructed to worry not only about all the usual monstrous details of the matrimonial event but to incorporate these tips:

- Have the wedding and reception “in the same place so you won’t have to decorate two spots or travel from one to the other.” (Hmm. Savings like this could turn thrifty Dads into tree huggers in no time.) - Choose locally grown or produced products. ”To ensure sustainability, work with each vendor,’ advises Kai Robertson of the World Wildlife Fund. “Ask for Marine Stewardship Council-certified seafood, chicken raised without antibiotics, pasture-raised or grass-fed beef and fair-trade coffee.’ It may cost more (no kidding) but you can cut back in other ways. ‘Serve [smaller] bites tapas-style,’ Bratten says.” (Better not invite any cowboys or football players. They get hooongry.) - Invitations? “About 500,000 trees every year are used to support weddings in the United States,” another expert darkly warns. “So opt for invitations that are printed on recycled paper, and buy from companies that use wind power.” Or, better yet, you can skip paper invitations altogether by “e-mailing your guests.” - Wear a used wedding dress or make yours from “eco-friendly fabrics such as hemp, silk, organic cotton or bamboo.” Nothing says “I do!” like a bamboo veil. How about a burlap train for that dress? - The honeymoon? Forget Hawaii, Niagara Falls or the Poconos. “Consider signing up for eco-tours…seek out hotels and resorts that are recycling….” - Finally, make your guests feel special by “making a donation in lieu of individual favors” to one of the environmental groups whose Web sites USA Weekend helpfully provides. That should save some time.

Any environmentally sensitive brides-to-be who are not utterly discouraged by now and have thrown themselves on a couch crying can contemplate this: Maybe it’s all a media plot to discourage marriage and therefore breeding of new humans who will grow up to consume cheeseburgers and thereby ruin the earth.

Or the bride-to-be can forget the “green” nonsense altogether, enjoy the guilty pleasure of watching a video of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and get back to arguing over the guest list.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Robert Knight is a Senior Writer/Correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and a Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Good sleep secrets
I am getting to hate the word green so much that I might spray my beautiful green lawn with nasty chemicals to kill it - after I have spread so many nasty chemicals to make it green. Then I think I will cut what is left with my old smoke bellowing lawn mower and then burn what remains in order to make more nasty smoke. Then I will sleep really well.

Not sure where you are coming from
I am the first to rant and rave about the media's love affair with liberal causes, but I have to question your rant here...

So far as I can see, these are all recommendations for us to take into consideration. In spite of all the hype over global warming (which brings new meaning to the term 'political science'), it is not a bad idea to question our energy use and search for alternatives (especially given our dependence on certain areas of the world for oil)

As for your rant about weddings, you obviously haven't been through the planning of one lately. The ridiculous lengths people go through to have their 'perfect wedding' is truly amazing. What is wrong with offering suggestions (again, there are no mandates here) for alternatives? I have been to some pretty lame weddings held at the typical banquet hall. What is wrong with offering suggestions to think outside of the box?



Um-hmmm...
Heaven forbid people try to follow the Biblical directive to be "stewards of the Earth" in a responsible manner. And heaven forbid that people, including brides and grooms, be mindful of how they consume and think about someone besides themselves! Why, the only time a bride should be at all socially conscious is when she's trying to boycott gay florists and lesbian photographers, right?

The advantage of "green" marketing
Do anything, consume anything, promote anything, but call it "green" and it will garner attention because exactly as many people will question "green" as will question "new."

The fact that the media is helping promote "green" is a big help right now.

You needn't do anything particularly different from what you have been doing: just promote any sensible, cost saving, energy saving (which is usually cost saving), practice or plan (no matter how much in the future the "plan" is), and use it to promote your "green" efforts.

Pat yourself on the back, look hip and righteous at the same time.

You should be able to get away with it Scot free through 2008. By 2009, "green" may have Jumped the Shark. Get in while you can.

Earth Day Celebration
After reading this article, I have decided exactly how I am going to celebrate earth day this year.

I am going to drive everywhere, even the quarter of a block distance to my mailbox. I am going to drive all over town in my gas guzzling minivan, with a big sign up on top that reads "Beats walking." I will have my stereo turned up as loud as I can stand it, so everyone around me can share in the celebration.

Then, I am going to eat for lunch and dinner the biggest, juiciest, all-beef burger (no pretend vegetarian filling) I can find, right in plain view (and as close as I can get without inciting violence) of the vegan eco-freaks who are out celebrating the day in their own special way. I hope they will be able to smell the wonderful aroma of the meat I will be eating. I hope it drives them nuts. If even one of them folds and runs down to the nearest burger joint to get one, I will find my efforts vindicated.

Oh Good Lord
Is it Lenin's B-Earth-Day again, already? I hadn't even noticed.

Boy, I'm really feeling like a big, foot long, philly cheesesteak with extra meat and extra cheese right now.

When I get married I'm going to make sure we get all the guests individual Hummer limos to get them the 2 blocks from the church to the reception hall.

By the way...
They're trying to do this to funerals, too. They want people to use -- get this -- CARDBOARD caskets. Yes, I said "cardboard." Of course, they aren't quite as practical as wood or metal, and God forbid it rain on your funeral.

I'd be half inclined to be embalmed in polymers, dressed in a polyester suit and have a casket made from 1/2 inch, battleship-grade steel. My headstone would be a full-scale, full color, granite replica of my Toyota Tundra.

To all environmentalists
I have a question. I've asked it before and no one's bothered to give me a good answer.

Let's pretend, for arguments' sake, that the Global Warming Trifecta is absolutely and unquestionably true: (A) It exists, (B) it is caused by humans, and (C) it is necessarily catastrophically bad.

Fine, we'll use that as the assumption for this exercise. My question is "What do we do about it?"

For your answer you must follow a few simple rules:

1. It must be a real SOLUTION, not a band-aid. the solution in question must do more than simply put the catastrophe off by 10 years (as is the case with Kyoto). It must either (A) eliminate greenhouse gas production or (B) reduce it to such an extent as the castartrophe will be pushed so far out into the future that new technology will get a chance to take hold. (Say 300-400 years beyond current predictions.)

2. Genocide is not allowed. This article states that food production causes 1/3 of greenhouse gases. The solution must account for the fact that there is a growing population starting at 6 billion which must be fed and sheltered. Worldwide transportation of goods and people is still necessary and people will still need to work in order to produce the goods necessary to live. Therefore they will need local transportation, too. Services like healthcare, law enforcement, fire and rescue, and the like are also required to remain in place.

3. It must include either technology that currently exists or that is reasonably expected to exist in the near future. "If we can find a way to ..." is not an acceptable answer.

4. The answer must include an estimate of the cost to the economy and the benefit gained. 50 Billion Dollars of cost for 10 years of gain isn't worth the effort. But it might be for 300 years.

Happy Jake
Right on. Amen to your 8:59 post.


Now to see how the libs and eco-freaks will respond to your post.

Getting rid of cattle
Is one of the BIG goals of enviros. They especially want cattle off of leased lands in the mountains. Never mind that the ranchers who lease mountain land also share their water and pastures with wildlife. The provide critical habitat in winter especially. In drought stricken areas the reservoirs built by ranchers and the developed water ways make the the difference between life and death for wildlife. So why do enviros want cattle off the land? The very same reason they want all land turned into wilderness so only those with lots of time can utilize it. They simply have no intention of sharing.....with food producers or even the family with kids and one day off that want to go fishing for a couple of hours.

Having their cake
The thing about the weddings -- it's a false premise that people can have these extravagant events and then somehow offset the effects.

If consumerism and conspicuous consumption are really that bad for the earth, doesn't it make more sense to just not do it in the first place? These offsets are really just to assuage guilt and probably do nothing whatsoever to improve the environment or "save the earth".

MOTHER EARTH AND THE GREEN CRAZIES



.....Recently to celebrate Earth Day we were all
instructed to
shut off all electricity for one hour ...somebody even
figured out how much energy the world saved in that
one hour ...my question is ...what happened to all
that energy we saved? ...does it never get used or do
we just use it tommorow? ...

.....Personally I am not into group think symbolism
...during my hour, I turned on every electric
appliance in my house and just let them run ...so in
effect, I was using the energy that others had saved
for me ...it's a freedom thing ...I have a problem
seeing how we benefit as consumers by not using
something ...I don't see how the producers benefit
either ...it seems like a regressive policy of
sacrifice and self denial to accomodate a bunch of
pious wing nuts who see sacrifice as a virtue ...

.....But that's just the non-conformist in me ...I
also think Environmentalists should be hunted down and
shot like rabid dogs .....COLOSSUS

POSTSCRIPT: To celebrate Earth Day I have saved a huge pile of leaves, from the copious trees on my property, that I plan to burn ...I am looking foward to the aroma which will remind me of my youth when everyone burned their leaves like normal human beings when we were still free ...

Celebrate Earth Day
Click on my name or cut and paste this link fountainabbey.blogtownhall.com and go to my blog for some tips on how to celebrate Earth Day in as politically incorrect a manner as possible.

Liberals and eco-freaks are welcome as well, though be warned, your delicate constitutions may not be able to handle the satire and humor contained there in.

Have a great day all!

It occurs to me...
...that I forgot one of my rules for the question of "What to do about Global Warming?"

5. The proposed solution must be applicable to all countries and all people regardless of wealth or poverty. Anything other than that is a political solution aimed at harming a segment of the population. Political solutions evidence the shallowness of the environmentalists. They don't care about Earth so much as they car about lining their own pockets at the expense of undesirables.

to baseballdoc
"I also think Environmentalists should be hunted down and shot like rabid dogs "
And who is being accused of being communists? So much for the freedom of the great ol' US of A, where one is persecuted by the likes of you for simply exercising one's right to decide how and how much of one's money to spend. Oh what evil. I decided not to buy a car, and not buy gasoline. I decide to buy only organic free range meat and produce. I recycle. Oh the horror. I definitely should be shot.

Answer for Jake
I purpose that we shoot Al Gore as the solution to global warming! Think of it. One less 10,000 sq ft mansion to maintain, one less jet setting eco babbling moron traveling the world and one less overweight American to feed. Kind of a trifecta.

I realize this might be only a band-aid start on the problem but we have got to start somewhere!

to Happy Jake
in answer to your queries:
1)This technology exists today, is fully feasible, and actually wouldn't cost that much more money, with oil prices getting so high. It comes from two sources - wind and solar. Denmark has shown that producing 20% of your power from wind is fully feasible, and they are going even higher. With the US's expanse of midwest windy farms, it is totally feasible in North America. Wind could provide a portion of the baseload, and energy at night when the sun does not shine. Thankfully, wind power is indeed taking off with, believe it or not, Texas as one of the leaders.

Solar power, on the other hand, has the potential to provide more energy than we could ever use. On a bright day, 800 W/m2 shines down on us. When solar panels become cheap (they almost are now), you could plaster everything with them - your house, your car, freeways, any surface you'd like. This would feed into the grid and whoever owned the panel would make the money (that's YOU). China is mass producing them and they get better and cheaper every year.


to Happy Jake
The solar and wind power feeding the grid would be used to power electric cars. The technology exists now, it did 10 years ago, but big corporations are keeping it from us because they don't want you to stop buying $100 oil. And these cars are not slow. The Tesla Roadster, on sale now, is faster than a Ferrari, and only costs $100K. Tesla is using Lithium-ion battery technology, of laptop computers. They have been developing it for the last 10 years and have finally solved safety (explosion) issues. But 10 years ago, NiMH battery technology was available and practical for electric cars. http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com
GM developed it, but then sold its patent to Chevron/Texaco.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2= HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G &l=50&s1=6969567.PN.&OS=PN/6969567&RS=PN/6969567
Guess what Chevron/Texaco has done with its patent to bring electric cars to the world......
Thankfully, this patent expires in 2014.

to Happy Jake
point #2)
Good issue raised by you. A tough one to challenge. With electric car technology and solar energy this will solve many of the transportation . But another way to address this is to simply design communities differently. I got rid of my car, I ride my bike everywhere. With this I save money, and stay healthy. Everyone benefits, except the oil industry.
China is growing fast and has huge energy demands. They realize fossil fuels cannot supply this so they are focusing on developing alternative energy methods, in addition to their 1-coal-fired-energy-facility they are building a week.

3) See my answers to (1) above

4)Costs? Well, let's say an electric car in a few years would cost $40,000. That's a little expensive, but then you'd never need to buy more oil. Wind farms are just as cheap as fossil fuel energy production facilities, all it takes is political will to build these instead. Solar power will soon become cheap. It is now about $5 a Watt, of course this could dramatically go down in price in the coming years. So overall, if phased in over the next decade or so, I don`t see this costing the average consumer that much money, it may even save them money.

Industry might have a tougher time, because they more specifically rely on fossil fuels.

to Happy Jake
5) ``The proposed solution must be applicable to all countries and all people regardless of wealth or poverty.`` All the more reason for the UN, the IPCC, and a global carbon tax.

To cutewhenyoucuss
Naw... Lesbian photogs are fine at my wedding. Especially if they bring friends! My bi bride-to-be would love it! ;-)

mudmucker
Do you have any citations to back up your assertions? What is the range of the Tesla roadster? How does one go on vacations or would you outlaw those as well? Can you actually believe that our Constitution allows for our Congress to establish a greater authority over us than currently exists? Remember, this is the UN that routinely works against the best interests of the USA, that coddles dictators and that is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. I for one reject any treaty or agreement that cedes our national sovereignty to a foreign organization. As an aside, you are a fool for buying into the global warming scare; the evidence suggests that we are not in a "global warming" trend. It is all a scam to concentrate even more power in the hands of the elites. Have you ever considered that CO2 is what plants breathe to enable their growth and nutrition? And it is bad because.....?

To anyone
Is there a single wind farm that is commercially viable that was not gummint-subsidized? We have them on the tops of mountains in the Poconos but they were heavily subsidized. It seems that if the technology were so viable, investors would be lining up and no public money would be needed. It is also interseting that the enviros completely discount nuclear energy; that technology actually exists and is even used in France. Only when the energy comes from a clean source would electric cars start to make sense. They are little more than a curiosity to this point, though.

to CVN
I believe the Roadster gets about 120 miles per charge or so, as do the several other electric cars available now. But the Tzero, developed by ACPropulsion, got about 400 miles per charge. It is not in production. For vacations you could go to your local U-Haul and rent a generator trailer, strap this onto the back, and have infinite range.
Or just buy a serial hybrid car (one with a little generator in it that only comes on when th ebatteires get low). GM, despite all its despicable tactics in the electric car sage, is *supposedly* releasing one of these cars in 2010 - the Volt. But there is no one forcing you to switch to an electric car.

``Remember, this is the UN that routinely works against the best interests of the USA, that coddles dictators and that is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.`` I think that might be going a little far.... I`m sure the antics of the current administration and the oil companies making huge profits from the Iraq war would qualify as near the top of the corruption list.

80 - 20 Rule completely ignored
With all the 'hysteria' and commentary on global warming and especially as regards the role of the U.S., why are we completely ignoring the role of the personal vehicle in our lives and how it has changed in the last 60 years?

After all, that is where the highest consumption of fossil fuels is used, for transportation.

Oh I know we are talking about hybrids and biofuels and all that, but we did the same thing in the '70s and boosted the CAFE rules - and then doubled the number of cars & trucks on the road -so what did that buy us ???

We continue to spend untold billions to support the expansion and extension of the highways to make room for untold numbers of countless future vehicles like there is no tomorrow and just dreamily talk about plugging our new hybrids into our home wall outlets or recharging outlets 'somewhere' on-the-road to be provided for the then 400 or 500 or 600 million vehicles or more (these are NOT unreasonable numbers).

We REALLY ought to be planning on better ways of moving PEOPLE efficiently and not just moving VEHICLES efficiently to make a difference in this warming issue.

Until we do so, we are just generating a lot of hot air!!

to CVN
``As an aside, you are a fool for buying into the global warming scare; the evidence suggests that we are not in a "global warming" trend.`` Sorry, but you are wrong. I`ve investigated all this argument about who is misleading who, and it is obviously, when you trace the statements back to their sources, that the global warming deniers are the ones misleading us, or in your case, having been misled. Global warming is very real and very serious. If you want to get in to the specifics of this I`ll oblige, as I`m home in bed with stiff legs after a long run on Sunday.

``Have you ever considered that CO2 is what plants breathe to enable their growth and nutrition? And it is bad because.....?`` Sorry, you don`t have an argument there. I suggest learnign about carbon cycles and global warmign science. The IPCC reports are good, along with Wikipedia. Of course CO2science.org and jjunkscience.com are also good GW denier sites, and the reports available there are a bit of a joke if you actually analyze their references.

to CVN
``Is there a single wind farm that is commercially viable that was not gummint-subsidized?`` The oil industry was heavily subsidized in its infancy, in fact it got much more than what current alternative energy technologies are getting.

``It seems that if the technology were so viable, investors would be lining up and no public money would be needed.`` On the North Coast of British Columbia some large wind farms are being planned, and they are not government subsidized. Somehow Denmark managed to do it. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on wind energy, it is quite exhaustive.

``Only when the energy comes from a clean source would electric cars start to make sense.`` That`s what solar and wind power is. Nuclear is not clean, and arguably there is a limited supply or uranium.

mudmucker
I am sorry but wikipedia just doesn't count. It stopped being an objective source about the time it listed the Rosenbergs as "suspected" spies. Since you have the opportunity to lie about all day, perhaps you can provide a better link. Citing the IPCC is, in itself, a joke. There were more bureaucrats than scientists on the panel and many scientists had to threaten legal action to have their names removed from the final report. This was the same cr@p from back in the 70's except that it was "the next ice age" back then. Why is the ice thickening in the Antarctic, then? Why did China have such a rough winter? How can "climatologists" predict weather patterns 10-50 years from now when the best meteorologists can't tell what the weather will be next week? And you had better review your information on how CO2 is used in photosynthesis. Even animals use CO2- we would die without it in proper levels. You wish to treat is like a poison or a pollutant while it is neither. The "fixes" for a problem that does NOT exist are very damaging for our economy. And as far as greenhouse gases go, CO2 would represent a very small percentage of the total. So, even it was true, we would be damaging our economy for unproven changes that would amount to little more than a drop in the bucket. But they would allow the ChiComs and the Indians to move ahead of us since they are being exempted by Kyoto, so that would achieve one goal of the UN.

mudmucker
Wind power may work in areas where there is a constant high level od wind. Areas like British Colombia, the North Sea and West Texas have above-average wind levels. That is not the case everywhere. Denmark is a small country and their program was likely to be govt supported either by financing or tax credits. So, two examples, maybe, in all of the world. Wow. Not impressed.

mudmucker
Sorry if I came on too hard. I have a science background and I suspect that you do not. I have been trained to read studies with a critical eye and dissect their weaknesses. I have not read the IPCC report but have read reviews in left- and right-leaning publications and I do not believe it was good science. There is ample evidence that they started with a conclusion and worked single-mindedly towards that conclusion. In effect, they had already made up their minds before examining any evidence. That is a political agenda, not scientific inquiry.

mm
You might wish to reconsider the use of the term "global warming denier". AGW is not scientific FACT it is a THEORY (an incorrect theory). Using this term makes one sound like an enviro-fascist. I have to go now. Time to vote.

MUDMUCKER

.....Apt name! ...

.....I don't mind the Eco-freaks living any lifestyle of their choosing ...they can wear grass skirts and howl at the moon for all I care ...it is when they try to force their beliefs on me that I begin to get testy ...they are Communists hiding under the Green mantle of the Environment .....I don't want to buy CFL's ...I don't want to drive a tin can no matter what the MPG ...I want to be able to burn leaves in my own backyard without some Green Commie teliing me I can't do it ...for these indignities they deserve to be shot .....COLOSSUS

HOW ABOUT A NUDE WEDDING?

.....Now that would really be Green ...back to nature all the way ...

.....The guests could dine on bean sprouts and grubs and every body could just whizz and take a dump in the woods (good fertilizer for the environment) ...

.....As nudists, over time those of us that survived the cruel winters, (can't light fires, pollution you know), would begin growing thick coats of fur as Darwin predicted ...there would not be much use for language, nothing to talk about, so we could just begin communicating in grunts and signs as we groom ourselves by picking fleas off each other ...Ahh! the ultimate Eco-wacko Utopia .....COLOSSUS

Eating Green
I was all ready to stop eating meat, when I realized my new high-fiber diet would cause me to create far more methane. (Do you suppose that is why tree huggers smell so funky?) And if I don't eat the cows, they'll still be out in the fields tooting away -- probably making Al Gore fret how to reduce that carbon footprint (maybe buy a smaller boat). So I'll continue to do my part and help remove those nasty cows from the field: one steak at a time.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.