I want to preface this article by stating very clearly that much of the following does not apply to all of the left. Or even all of the left's lunatic fringe. But I was very specifically called out with some very specific allegations by one particular representative of the left's lunatic fringe (who, I would hope, would be regarded by most libs as an embarassment to their ideology). Because of the response of the individual, I am not going to let sleeping dogs lie, nor let bygones be bygones.

This particular person stated that "perhaps stopping the procreation might make it a little easier for you to find housing in 'tough housing markets' and feeding your kids a little more rounded meal than beans and rice". This was part of a chain that followed a long list of whines on their part. Now, let me dissect this in the comfort of my own blog, where I can be a little more liberal with my thoughts.

First off, I wasn't the one complaining about not being able to find a house. They were. I was relaying some experiences relevant to the conversation, but never once was it a whine. So the entire point of this person's venomous retort goes out the window right there.

But let's go further, shall we? This particular person claims to be a Christian, yet it seems to me she was suggesting we should have had an abortion along the lines. She doesn't feel that one or some of my six kids should be in the world. Keep in mind, this person is a teacher. I'd hate to have my children attending class knowing that this bitch thinks the child shouldn't be there if the parent were responsible. "Every child a wanted child" is supposed to be the mantra of NARAL, but this individual thinks we should be placing a quota on the number of offspring a parent can have.

Keep in mind that our ridiculously stupid pyramid scheme known as Social Security is reliant on children coming up in the system to support the previous generation. My children, in other words, will be helping to support the retirement of many who chose not to have children. Good thing we had a few, huh?

Now, to understand the next part, you need to understand that this is a person to whom liberalism is basically a religion. Virtually no political thought comes out of her mouth unless it is regurgitated from DNC talking points. SO environmentalism, global warming, and all that claptrap should be on this individual's mind as well.

This individual thinks that two people living in a four bedroom doublewide mobile home is a bare minimum standard of living. And forget the idea of buying something used. It has to be brand spanking new or it just ain't worth it. So automatically they're using a disproportionate share of resources. We, too, live in a four bedroom home...but with a family of eight. And while I haven't compared utility bills, I'd put money down saying we probably spend less per month than they do for TWO people. Which means our per person usage is much lower than theirs. And their two person household uses two vehicles; we use one. Odds are we're using less gasoline for our family than they do for theirs. ANd our vehicle is a 1999 Chevy Suburban.

But, the REAL meat of the matter, if you'll pardon the pun, is the dig on beans and rice. According to the following site (http://www.vegsource.com/articles/pimentel_water.htm), it takes 60 gallons of water to produce a pound of potatoes, 108 for a pound of wheat, 168 for a pound of corn, 229 for a pound of rice, 240 for a pound of soybeans, and 12,009 for a pound of beef (the calculations estimate based on the amount of feed and water for the animal over an approximate 2 year lifespan). So based on those figures, it would seem that someone utilizing an entirely meat based diet would be far more inefficient and wasteful than someone using a plant based diet.

The implication of the author's words also seemed to indicate that the beans and rice were from a lack of choice, because we are too poor to afford anything else, when nothing could be further from the truth. I could feed my children ribeye every night if I was willing to camp out at the park every night in town and only go home in cases of dire emergency before my days off. And I could feed them ground beef every night with the take home income we currently have. But this "beans and rice" diet that the person eschews as inadequate, is in fact, composed of components that are far healthier than the meat based diets that make up so many American diets. Ever figure having a diet composed of 30-50% meat might have something to do with out high rates of obesity and shortened life spans?

A rice and bean based diet may not fit the palates of many Americans. But a rice and bean based diet can be healthier, more environmentally aware, and even, in my opinion, tastier than one that is reliant on the dead flesh of animals. And all the information to support it can be found simply with a google search. And even an extremely liberal teacher should be capable of that.