BUEHRLE SHOULDN’T PUT DOG AHEAD OF FAMILY

When Major League Baseball pitcher Mark Buehrle was traded from the Miami Marlins to the Toronto Blue Jays during the offseason, his dog, Slater – an American Staffordshire terrier and bulldog mix – became a topic of conversation. Pit bulls are outlawed in Ontario, so the question became, “what ever will his master do?”

Would Buehrle make the move to Ontraio and put the dog up for adoption or have a friend watch him? Or, would the pitcher move his family to Niagara County (where the dogs are legal) from which he’d make the 90-minute commute daily?

The answer was none of the above.

Buehrle, a devout animal rights activist, considers Slater a part of his family and he couldn’t bear the thought of separating the dog from them. So, he opted to separate himself from the family and live in Ontario on his own during the season, while his wife and children stayed back in St. Louis with the canine.

I saw a lot of comments attached to online articles about this story in which the readers commended him on his actions. Animal lovers everywhere appreciated the love he showed his dog. It wasn’t unexpected as it’s not uncommon for them to put animals at equal with humans – and in many cases, above them (consider the silly instances out west when funds are set-up to protect specific mountain lions that have attacked, even killed, people).

I see his residency decision quite differently than they did. Whereas they see him as some sort of hero, I see him as a well-intentioned but ultimately bad parent. I love animals, but I love humans a lot more. To me, the real family – mother, son, and daughter – should take precedence over Slater.

Being an absentee father in order to cater to a dog isn’t touching. It’s touched. What sort of father would not want to spend his days with his 5-year old son and 3-year old daughter? Their youth is short-lived and precious. These are the days and years in which they are so cute (more so than any dog ever could be) and their brains and hearts soak up so much information and love. They need their dad to help provide that intellectual and emotional nourishment. Having him 800 miles away – in another country, no less – will do them no good. Sure, his ballplayer’s income will give them all the material goods that they’ll ever need or want, but, for 6 or 7 months out of the year they’ll be without the possession which they need the most – their father.  

Suppose Buehrle plays out the rest of his career in Toronto. He’s only 33 and is still a darn good pitcher (he sports a 3.82 lifetime ERA), so it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to play another 7 years in the Bigs, especially for a rejuvenated Blue Jays organization (to which he’s obligated to at least 3 seasons). Will he continue to maintain the great divide between himself and his kin over that period? I hope not. By then, his kids will be 12 and 10. That’s a good portion of their childhood to throw away.

Mark Buehrle is one of the good guys in the game. Over the years he has touchingly extended charity and concern to animals and kids wherever he has played. That said, I hope he sees the folly in his ways and reconsiders his odd protest against Ontario’s pit bull ban. He shouldn’t allow his reason and humanity to be influenced by modern society’s strange love affair with animals in which they’ve gone from being a part of the household to a part of the family (it’s something akin to mainstream anthropomorphism). He needs to love what matters most – his own flesh and blood, and not some dog. By doing so, he won’t end his solid MLB career with any regrets -- he’ll feel like an accomplished father and not just an accomplished ballplayer.  



 
Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American magazine at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer  

This column originally appeared in the 25 February 2013 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Anglers Beware: Environmentalists Have Set Sights on Plastic Worms

Soft plastic fishing lures, such as plastic worms and tube jigs, have a proven track record of being the best artificial baits on the market, especially for the likes of bass and panfish. On the strength of these lures, professional anglers have won numerous tournaments and secured good incomes, while the average weekend fisherman has landed many a trophy and filled countless frying pans.

Those days of outstanding angling success might be numbered. Believe it or not, environmentalists have set their sights on these lures. They say that soft plastics pollute the waters and can be consumed by aquatic wildlife like loons, ducks, and otters. They also say that plastic worms sit in the bellies of fish that were lucky enough to get away, slowly killing them over time.

Never one to ignore the concerns or demands of environmentalists — no matter how extreme or unfounded some of their views may be — government has picked up on the alleged ills of plastic baits. In Maine, state representative Paul Davis introduced a bill on January 17 that would ban the use of “rubber worms” (the catch-all term for soft plastics baits) within the state.

The bill was met with ire from fisherman not only in Maine, but from across the United States, as well. A public hearing on the bill was standing room only, while a leading angling organization, BASS (the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society), submitted testimony. Because of the public's reaction — and the fact that Representative Davis didn’t even seek cosponsors because he knew it was a controversial topic — it’s likely that the bill will come to a quick demise.

Even so, anglers everywhere shouldn’t discount the fact that this legislation has started a conversation that may haunt them in the coming years. This is the first bill of its kind to appear in any state government — but it won’t be the last. Environmentalists are extremely opportunistic; they will pick up on this — as will state governments across the land, ultimately working to the federal level and the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. State governments are Petri dishes for environmental causes: Lessons are learned there, and policies are developed that can become standards for our nation. Consider the California Air Resources Board, which has been responsible for everything from expensive fuel tanks on lawn mowers, all-terrain vehicles, and boats to the destruction of the incandescent light bulb industry.

A common thread in the green movement and modern-day federal policy is social engineering. Under this practice, environmentalists and policymakers limit the human experience and its impact on the environment — and its impact on government — by devising a set of norms that limit the pursuit of liberty and demand that people conform to standard practice utilized by the collective.

In recent years, social engineering has been used to deeply affect food freedom. The federal government has proposed regulating roadside fruit and vegetable stands, while vilifying those who enjoy raw milk and defining what our children are allowed to eat at school.

Post-Sandy Hook anti-gun laws unleashed throughout the United States fall into the same category, as they affect hunters who own guns solely to exercise their right to fill the freezer and put food on the table.  

The proposed ban on plastic worms is just the latest dose of lifestyle engineering. By having his access to the most effective of lures limited, the working man who fishes for food as much as pleasure will see his catch rates drop, and he will have to feed his family by spending his hard-earned money at the grocery store on farm-raised fish, which were raised utilizing the latest in GMO science, including federally beloved but potentially dangerous Frankenfish.

So while a plastic bait ban may only be in its infancy and destined for failure in Maine, it certainly poses a long-term threat to anglers everywhere, one that should be taken seriously. There may be a day 10 or 20 years from now when our favorite bait isn’t allowed on the water. The only way to prevent that from becoming a reality is to take an active role in policy at the state level, and beat the environmental activists at their own game. This is about more than rubber worms — it’s about freedom.




This originally appeared in the 11 February 2013 The New American at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/14485-anglers-beware-environmentalists-set-sights-on-plastic-worms

Legalize stun guns in New York

Every 2 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted somewhere in the United States. In a typical year over 275,000 women have their bodies and souls pillaged and that is only the known cases. Due to fear of the assailant and the unfortunate feelings of lessened self-worth following the assault or rape, more than 60% of all incidents go unreported. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that nearly three-quarters of a million women are victims of such attacks each and every year. It’s no wonder the numbers show that 1 out of every 6 women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

This happens because our government allows it to.

Even though the general assumption is that women always win in civil and criminal cases this is not the case. Only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail. The others are left to wander the streets to commit such indiscretions again, be it against their past victims or against new ones. Because of our laws, women are left powerless against those free-roaming offenders. They have to go through hurdles to get a handgun, they can’t own stun guns and they can possess only a limited amount of pepper spray. Lawmakers are oblivious to the fact that even with the most advanced self-defense techniques there is very little that a 120 pound woman can do against a 225 pound man, naturally more powerful than she and made even more so by his hunger for her flesh. Our officials have done everything in their power to give the predator the advantage by taking all means of protection from the prey – and matters are only getting worse.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that we turn the tables by arming the prey and allow women to keep rapists at bay. This won’t be accomplished through handguns, especially in post-Newtown New York State, where our natural rights and the Second Amendment are under attack. That leaves but one option, something of a middle ground for the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds: the legalization of stun guns.

New York is one of only 9 states in which stun guns are strictly prohibited. Considering how safe yet effective these weapons are, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t legalize them. The biggest reason for increasingly-stricter handgun and ammunition laws in NY is that critics consider guns to be lethal. Stun guns are the antidote to that -- they have become an extremely popular law-enforcement tool because they are decidedly non-lethal. They are very effective tools for stopping criminals and, by using brief 100,000-volt surges, they spare aggressors from the physical injury or death associated with guns. When looking at how often stun guns and tasers are used by police, death is extremely rare and when it does occur, the "victim" (really the wrong word to use for a criminal) had a pre-existing health condition or was strung out on drugs. I’m sure a woman fighting for her life or health wouldn’t mind that very slim chance of taking the life of her attacker, a person who would like to ruin or take hers.

The safety of stun guns extends beyond that non-lethal status. The weapon’s electrical force is engaged only when the attacker comes into contact with the gun’s prongs. So, the other perceived consequences of handguns – stray bullets and innocent bystanders – never materialize because it’s a close-quarters weapon, one called into play when the situation has escalated to the point that the thug is in his victim’s personal space.

Overall, the stun gun is the perfect weapon for women – and lawmakers - uncomfortable with the thought of handguns. It’s portable, innocuous, and safe. Best of all, it works. A stun gun is a veritable pocket-sized health and life insurance policy for any and all women. It can give them – and their loved ones - the peace of mind they need when they’re running the bike paths or walking the streets at night. We need to empower women – not their predators - and legalizing stun guns may be the best way to do it.



Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American magazine at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer  

This column originally appeared in the 18 February 2013 Greater Niagara Newspapers

The smoking ban 10 years later

I hate smoking. It’s a disgusting, dirty habit -- and a deadly one, too: I lost both of my grandfathers prematurely to it. One suffered congestive heart failure while the other was afflicted with lung cancer. They died a handful of years before Mother Nature likely would have taken their lives without any help.  

But, for as much as I despise cigarettes and wonder why people would engage in such a diversion, I understand and value the premise of personal liberty. It’s their own bodies – they can do whatever they want to for their own enjoyment as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights to life, liberty and property due to others. Smoking is no different than say, someone eating too much or too poorly or taking up potentially dangerous hobbies like motorcycling or sky-diving. To each his own.

There are usurpations of this personal liberty in play in 28 states across America, including here in New York, where smokers are unable to freely and publically enjoy their love affair with nicotine. 2013 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the institution of the New York State Clean Indoor Air Act, otherwise known as the smoking ban. For a decade now, smokers have been treated as second-class citizens and cannot engage in the act without having to venture out into the elements.

Smokers and those who want to cater to them should be treated more fairly under state law, because smoking (or the lack thereof) is – and should be - a choice freely made by the individual, be it a property owner, the smoker, or the non-smoker.

Allowing smoking within a place of business, study, or worship should be a choice afforded the property owner. If a businessman wants to open his doors to smoking, let him. If he’d rather lose the business from smokers and maintain a smoke-free facility and the customer base that come with that, let him. Smoking is part of the product he is offering to his clientele (the experience and ambience associated with a smoke-laden or smoke-free bar or restaurant), so let him choose the product he wants to offer.

Likewise, let the consumers make their own decisions regarding a smoking environment. No one ever said that you had to frequent an establishment where smoke filled the air. Prior to the statewide-ban, there were thousands of restaurants where smoking was prohibited. Choose one of them. I always did. I purposely stayed away from smoky places. Some of my friends and family purposely frequented smoky places.  

Choices like those are things unique to a free society. But, we aren’t so free under the Clean Indoor Air Act. So, what has the CIAA accomplished at the cost of freedom?

Economically, it hurt. Many bars, restaurants and bingo halls lost their clients because of that and, in turn, lost significant revenues (as did the cities, counties, and state) and many closed their doors for good. This is especially the case in places like Niagara Falls where the Indians allow indoor smoking and their casino complexes have became safe havens for smokers, stealing customers from neighborhood gathering places that actually paid taxes.

From a health standpoint, the CIAA hasn’t helped and it hasn’t hurt. Some will cite the drop in smokers across the Empire State as proof-positive that it worked  - from 2003 to 2010 the number of adult New Yorkers who smoked went from 21.6 percent to 15.5 percent. During that same period, New York high schoolers who smoked dropped from 20.2 percent to 12.5 percent. But, it’s not the ban’s doing. In recent years, numerous health organizations have placed the cause of the decline squarely on the state’s onerous taxes. New York’s $4.35 per pack is the highest in the nation (NYC also tacks on an extra $1.50) and the single greatest obstacle to smoking.

Ten years into it, we know the ban will never be dropped; it will only be expanded, but in more ways than one. The ban in all of its liberty-assailing glory has set a precedent for public health crises – both real and alleged. Banning and suppression of unhealthy endeavors started with cigarettes. Then it went to foods in our school lunchrooms and sodas in New York City cafes. Who knows what the next target will be.

That said, even if you hate smoking as much as I do, I hope you love liberty as much as I do and realize that after the government eliminates one person’s vice, yours is next.  

Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American magazine at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer  

This column originally appeared in the 11 February 2013 Greater Niagara Newspapers