In Which I Help Angry Central California Farmers With Punctuation

By Allen Kolmes

First of all, thank you for allowing me to join Epic, the most actively ignored Blog on the web. Rest assured, I will do everything I can to prevent the level of debate from rising above insults and name-calling.

Last weekend, I was driving down Interstate 5, and saw several signs along the road saying "Congress Created Dust Bowl."

My first reaction was from my inner Grammar Nazi. That statement makes no sense! It needs a hyphen (Congress-Created Dust Bowl), or an article (Congress Created a Dust Bowl). I then started wondering who exactly was putting up these signs. Hmmm...of course! Republicans! The party of Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and W has no need for proper syntax! They're focused on the Big Picture.

But I wondered what this was all about. Surely something to do with all of the dried up orchards along the freeway. So, when I got home, I googled the above phrase.

Turns out, there is an endangered fish in the Sacramento River delta known as the Delta Smelt, the continued survival of which is further threatened by some of the pumps used to pump water farther south to the San Joaquin valley. As per the Endangered Species Act, a federal judge in 2007 imposed limits on the pumping of that water. The result--dried up farms.

This has invoked predictable outrage in the conservative blogosphere (1), the basic theme being that essential human interests are being subjugated for the sake of an insignificant fish.

"We're talking about our food supply, and a federal judge has decided that a two-inch minnow is more important," says Sean Hannity.

OK, it is extremely unfortunate that acres and acres of vital farmland wither and die, and the economic strain that the affected farmers are enduring as a result must be horrific. I get that.

But, what I find very disturbing in all this is what Sheppard and Hannity are implying. It is not acceptable that the farmers be denied water for the sake of preservation of a species. Therefore, the extinction of that species is while perhaps unfortunate, a nonetheless acceptable price to pay .

This begs several questions.

Is it ever not acceptable to those of this mindset to doom a species to extinction, even if
preserving said species would require humans to give up something? Or are all species potentially SOL, so long as there are mouths to feed and off-road vehicles to be driven?

Why are we of the modern age so unwilling to give up anything to preserve a species, when, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, a long time ago a guy named Noah went to incredible lengths to save every last one of earth's creatures while a Just and Merciful God drowned 99.99+% of his fellow humans?

The phrase "two-inch minnow" keeps popping up, implying that the fish's size and provenance somehow makes it less worthy of preservation than a larger, more glamorous species. Apparently, for the party of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig, size does matter. Are some species, by virtue of their appeal/usefulness/etc. more worthy of protection
than others?

And, finally, can't they please please put a hyphen on those signs?

1. http://http//newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/21/hannity-again-discusses-californias-congress-created-dust-bowl

I Hire a Token Liberal

by RFB
I've decided that Epic needs an alternative voice. I want Epic to be fair and balanced. That's because we conservatives, unlike liberals, want to hear what the other side has to say. We aren't going to learn anything from them--liberals invariably have nothing of value to contribute to public discourse--but we are going to listen. Liberals won't listen to us--which is okay. Their belief system being the result of a bad genetic mutation (see my previous post), listening to anything that makes sense is totally lost upon them. You can't fight nature with logic.

So I looked on Craigslist. And I found the following ad:

"Underemployed liberal journalist seeks Alpha Conservative with whom to share media space. The more FOS the better."

Epic would like to welcome Allen Kolmes to the blog.

Are Liberals Born That Way? It Would Explain a Lot

by RFB

Last Tuesday, I had a rare opportunity to listen to Rush live, as I had the morning off. And on that blessed morning, he said something that blew my mind.

"I think it's time to ask the question, just as many people have puzzled over the origins of homosexuality, people have been puzzling over this. The question is still asked, "Do these people choose that or are they born this way?" I think we need to ask the same question of liberals. Are they born that way, or do they choose it? Because there's no rational explanation for it other than it's easy."

He didn't answer the question, but you know where he is going with this. And if he is right (come on, it's Rush--of course he's right), the implications of this are tremendous.

Back in my old Liberal Elitist days, I found what I perceived as the conservative propensity toward preaching to the choir very annoying (we liberals would never do such a thing!). Now I realize--it is actually visionary! Why waste time, energy, terrabytes proselytizing to liberals, when their deranged philosophy is actually hardwired into their DNA? On the other hand, Sarah Palin fans receive Her political wisdom of their own free will. Their (our) political beliefs are based on Logic, not malformed chromosomes. So drum the Truth into their heads we must.

As for Liberal Elitists (or is it Secular Progressives--Limbaugh, O'Reilly, you're going to have to duke that one out) why even bother preaching to the choir? It's a waste of time! Socialism is genetic! Might as well spend Saturday tending to the organic arugula patch. Your PETA neighbor who's still distraught about the fly The Bama offed? She ain't going anywhere.