Discussion:
organic meats
(too old to reply)
Tree
2004-04-01 02:06:24 UTC
Permalink
First of all, I live in a condo, so I really can't raise rabits here.
Also, my city's bylaws prohibit raising farm, or wild animals in the
city. So really, those suggestions are really out.
Second of all, I'll dispute your stance that "organic isn't
necessarily better." Seriously though, I go to two butchers on a
regular basis, and each has a locally operated farm (just outside the
metropolitan area, near my parents house) that is certified organic.
The other thing that you have to keep in mine is the fairly rigorous
standards of organically raised animals. For example, organic animals
are never given anti-biotics (while naturally raised animals are only
not given preventative antibiotics). Anti-biotics are necessary in
conventional farms because overcrowding necessitates it. (think about
daycare, stick 20 toddlers in one room and see if the majority doesn't
need antibiotics.)
<snip>
-i
You mistake overzealous insurance fraud for an actual need. Most children
don't need antibiotics despite their doctors prescriptions. Sanitary
conditions, yes, antibiotics, no.

Nani
William A. Noyes
2004-04-01 02:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Potatoes are almost useless, full of gluten
Interesting.... (I wonder what text she uses)
It was no doubt published by the Rupert Murdoch
empire.
Mayra
2004-04-01 11:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Nobody here is trying to change an amendment of the constitution to stop
a minority of people of being married without asking themselves if they
are tending to be homophobic in the name of religion .... Nobody here
is justifying a war and the killing of innocents in the name of god and
evil (I am referring to Bush nation speeches)and calling the "enemies"
axe of evil!!! The problem is a little bit more complicated than
that!!!! If not, why did they not save hundreds of thousands of lives in
Rwanda? Because these lives cost no money. This is the true reality.

A majority of western people have not voted for the Canadian alliance
party, which was our "kind of republican american party"... Since the
last election, the CAP has been unified with the conservative party to
bring more rationalism and more votes to this crazy party. 70% of the
canadian population didn't want to invade any country without the
permission of the United Nations. Even English population did not
support Blair at 80% and it is sure that he will not be reelected!!!!
Spanish and Italian population did the same... Each occidental country
has his "stupid party" but population don't vote at 25% or more for it.

Can you be more specific about our xenophobia because I am laughing
about your quote... Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have the
biggest percentage of immigrants in Canada. Here, the majority of them
are not living under pathetic incomes...

-"Someone can vote for Bush" because our Constitution allows free
elections every four years, and because he'll be on the ballot.-

The entire world knows about the last election and it was not about free
elections.... They also know about the media manipulation from your
government. How can you believe in all this theatrical comedy?
I am canadian and we don't understand why someone can vote for Bush....
"Someone can vote for Bush" because our Constitution allows free
elections every four years, and because he'll be on the ballot. Perhaps
you should try visiting the western part of your great nation, where
people tend to be less xenophobic and Euro-centric than you folks in
Quebec and Ottawa are.
Are you an extremist religious, a crazy terrorist?
One can be a moderate, rational human being and support President Bush.
<...>
usual suspect
2004-04-01 14:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayra
Nobody here is trying to change an amendment of the constitution to stop
a minority of people of being married without asking themselves if they
are tending to be homophobic in the name of religion ....
GWB can't change the Constitution. He can support an amendment, but it's an
entirely legislative (Congress and the states) issue. In fairness, GWB hasn't
addressed the issue "in the name of religion." Perhaps you should stop emoting
and address the relevant arguments and facts.
Post by Mayra
Nobody here
is justifying a war and the killing of innocents in the name of god
You mean like al-Qaeda are doing?
Post by Mayra
and
evil (I am referring to Bush nation speeches)and calling the "enemies"
axe of evil!!!
Do you not think it evil when states support those who engage in suicide
bombings, hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, kidnapping, etc.?
Post by Mayra
The problem is a little bit more complicated than
that!!!!
How is it complicated?
Post by Mayra
If not, why did they not save hundreds of thousands of lives in
Rwanda?
GWB wasn't president during that time. Bill Clinton was. There's new evidence
that Clinton brushed off the crisis in Rwanda despite having clear intelligence
about the crimes against humanity.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556703.html

I agree with you that our policy there should've been consistent with our other
efforts (Bosnia, Haiti, etc.) under that administration, but inconsistency was
one of the hallmarks of that particular president and administration.
Post by Mayra
Because these lives cost no money. This is the true reality.
It's an irrelevant comparison to what's happening in US policy today.
Post by Mayra
A majority of western people have not voted for the Canadian alliance
party, which was our "kind of republican american party"... Since the
last election, the CAP has been unified with the conservative party to
bring more rationalism and more votes to this crazy party. 70% of the
canadian population didn't want to invade any country without the
permission of the United Nations.
I hope you understand that our population continues to support our policy in
Iraq. The polls have slipped a bit, but a majority still believe we're doing the
right thing. More on this below.
Post by Mayra
Even English population did not
support Blair at 80% and it is sure that he will not be reelected!!!!
That's unfortunate. Real leaders act on conviction rather than compromise or
polls. Our nations aren't pure democracies, we're representative republics. I
don't think we should elect leaders on the basis of their poll-minding
flexibility, but on the basis that they'll do the right things at the right
times for the right reasons. I have a lot more respect for Tony Blair than I did
before 9/11. I also have a lot more respect for how President Bush rose to the
challenges we've faced since 9/11. I respectfully disagree with your shrill
statements against either Bush or Blair (or even CAP).
Post by Mayra
Spanish and Italian population did the same...
The Spanish lost their will on 3/11. That's unfortunate. I'm glad that Spain has
agreed to increase troops in Afghanistan, even if they continue with plans to
withdraw troops from Iraq this summer. The new PM has left himself some wiggle
room, though, and my hope is he'll see the folly of his earlier statements and
continue to support the war on terror in Iraq.
Post by Mayra
Each occidental country
has his "stupid party" but population don't vote at 25% or more for it.
Can you be more specific about our xenophobia because I am laughing
about your quote... Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have the
biggest percentage of immigrants in Canada. Here, the majority of them
are not living under pathetic incomes...
Xenophobia with respect to your irrational fear of foreigners, in this case
Americans.
Post by Mayra
-"Someone can vote for Bush" because our Constitution allows free
elections every four years, and because he'll be on the ballot.-
The entire world knows about the last election and it was not about free
elections....
Apparently you don't know much about the 2000 elections. Every recount showed
GWB won the state of Florida fair and square.
Post by Mayra
They also know about the media manipulation from your
government.
Oh please. Our media have more freedom and access in reporting than in any other
country. That includes yours. Why do you have laws that restrict reporting on
criminal inquiries and trials?
Post by Mayra
How can you believe in all this theatrical comedy?
By "theatrical comedy" do you mean your shrill and unfounded statements against
President Bush?

<...>
Mayra
2004-04-01 11:57:31 UTC
Permalink
It isn't done...
Bush got the job done!
I am canadian and we don't understand why someone can vote for Bush....
Are you an extremist religious, a crazy terrorist?
That's because Canada is more of a socialist country.
Bush is not a theocrat. His War on Terror has removed threats in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and has shown others that we mean business.
-Rubystars
Pizza Girl
2004-04-02 00:57:46 UTC
Permalink
I like as much Bush as I can get.

A hand in the bush is worth two in your dreams.
Post by Mayra
It isn't done...
Bush got the job done!
I am canadian and we don't understand why someone can vote for Bush....
Are you an extremist religious, a crazy terrorist?
That's because Canada is more of a socialist country.
Bush is not a theocrat. His War on Terror has removed threats in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and has shown others that we mean business.
-Rubystars
pearl
2004-04-01 12:26:06 UTC
Permalink
"usual suspect" <***@our.troops> wrote in message news:GvEac.2462$***@fe2.texas.rr.com...

<snip>

'.. the key emotional and interpersonal traits defining the
psychopathic personality syndrome are: a smooth, glib
capability to lie, manipulate and dissemble; a completely
callous lack of empathy or concern for others; shallow
emotional affect and lack of remorse; and egocentric
grandiosity. ..'
http://www.911-strike.com/psychopaths.htm
I don't think he's naive about the situation there, but I disagree that Iraq is
"un-governable." The presence of terrorists -- most of whom are foreigners, not
Iraqis -- lends to some amount of instability, but it doesn't make democracy
implausible.
'Why, I asked him, did he refer sometimes to "terrorists" and
at other times to "insurgents"? Surely if you could leap from
being a terrorist to being an insurgent, then with the next little
hop, skip and jump, you become a "freedom-fighter". ...
There were, the general explained, the Fallujah version who
were insurgents, and then the al-Qa'ida version who attack
mosques, hotels, religious festivals and who were terrorists.

So, it seems, there are now in Iraq good terrorists and bad
terrorists, there are common-or-garden insurgents and
supremely awful terrorists, the kind against which President
George Bush took us to war in Iraq when there weren't any
terrorists actually here, though there are now. And therein
lies the problem. From inside the Green Zone on the banks
of the Tigris, you can believe anything. How far can the
occupying powers take war-spin before the world stops
believing anything they say?
...'
Things Are Getting Much Worse In Iraq
It's Not Just A 'Spike' Or An 'Uptick' In Violence
Robert Fisk
4-1-4
http://rense.com/general50/worsee.htm
BinLaden-family-business-partner like GW Bush.
<..>
The family broke all ties with Osama in 1994, and Abdullah [patriarch of
the family; UBL's uncle] condemned the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0902394.html
Perhaps you should get the full story before believing extremists and demagogues.
'Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to
terrorism?
....
.. while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis,
under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections,
the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens
and Saudi royals, ......'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
usual suspect
2004-04-01 14:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tree
<snip>
'.. the key emotional and interpersonal traits defining the
psychopathic personality syndrome are: a smooth, glib
capability to lie, manipulate and dissemble; a completely
callous lack of empathy or concern for others; shallow
emotional affect and lack of remorse; and egocentric
grandiosity. ..'
http://www.911-strike.com/psychopaths.htm
Hmmm, sounds like you might need to visit a psychiatrist to have your
personality studied.
Post by Tree
I don't think he's naive about the situation there, but I disagree that Iraq is
"un-governable." The presence of terrorists -- most of whom are foreigners, not
Iraqis -- lends to some amount of instability, but it doesn't make democracy
implausible.
'Why, I asked him, did he refer sometimes to "terrorists" and
at other times to "insurgents"? Surely if you could leap from
being a terrorist to being an insurgent, then with the next little
hop, skip and jump, you become a "freedom-fighter". ...
There were, the general explained, the Fallujah version who
were insurgents, and then the al-Qa'ida version who attack
mosques, hotels, religious festivals and who were terrorists.
Terrorists, insurgents -- distinctions without much difference. Both form the
same resistance, and both are increasingly abhorred by Iraqi citizens. I heard a
report from one of the cameramen (an Iraqi working for various press agencies)
covering the attack yesterday in Fallujah. He noted that Fallujah is an anomaly
in terms of the anti-coalition opposition among citizens, but he noticed how
many people there yesterday were hiding their children and turning their backs
on the mob scene. Such repulsion is common elsewhere in Iraq, where polls show
much more support for the coalition.
Post by Tree
So, it seems, there are now in Iraq good terrorists and bad
terrorists,
Non sequitur.
Post by Tree
there are common-or-garden insurgents and
supremely awful terrorists, the kind against which President
George Bush took us to war in Iraq when there weren't any
terrorists actually here, though there are now. And therein
lies the problem. From inside the Green Zone on the banks
of the Tigris, you can believe anything. How far can the
occupying powers take war-spin before the world stops
believing anything they say?
...'
Things Are Getting Much Worse In Iraq
Most of the insurgence and terrorism is limited to the "Sunni Trinagle" and
occasionally in Basra. The increase in terrorism is expected as the timetable
for turning over power proceeds.
Post by Tree
It's Not Just A 'Spike' Or An 'Uptick' In Violence
Robert Fisk
4-1-4
http://rense.com/general50/worsee.htm
Wearing your foil beanie again today, Chelsea?
Post by Tree
BinLaden-family-business-partner like GW Bush.
<..>
The family broke all ties with Osama in 1994, and Abdullah [patriarch of
the family; UBL's uncle] condemned the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0902394.html
Perhaps you should get the full story before believing extremists and demagogues.
'Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to
terrorism?
No. The bin Laden family disowned Usama ten years ago.
Post by Tree
....
.. while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis,
under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections,
the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens
and Saudi royals, ......'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
From that old article:
UNNAMED MAN: There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our
government.

Why didn't his parents give him a name? I don't trust secret sources, especially
given the BBC's record with them. The BBC have David Kelly's blood on their
hands for sexing up his information and leaving him out to hang.
Moosh:)
2004-04-01 13:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Beans don't cause gas in most people. Beans and protein together cause gas
in most people.
But let's see, you can't explain why, right?
Have you heard of undigestible carbs that gut bacteria ferment to
carbon dioxide?
Wake up troller.
More evidence.....
Their suffering is doing me a lot of good because I can enjoy
eating
their corpses... Much better than chewing some tasteless
potatoes.
If we weren't supposed to eat them, why did nature make them taste
like
meat?
Coff
Humans are made of meat too.
-Rubystars
Rubberstars,
No shit?!?!?! Tell you what Rubberstars, I'll go fire up the Weber &
dump a bunch of noxious gasses into the atmosphere,
Just hang around a bunch of vegans that've been eating too many beans and
broccoli. You'll get the same effect.
then I'll hop in
the Escalade and consume huge amounts of fossil fuels to go to the
store and buy some BBQ sauce wrapped in lots of excessive packaging,
and then I'll come home (Did I press about every button you have?).
Nope.
You come on over, sit your pimple-ridden vegan ass on my Weber,
My ass is vegan? I didn't know my ass ate anything. It must be sneaking
off
when I'm not looking.
and if
you stay there for 10 minutes on each cheek, we'll see if you can
prove above-captioned statement you just made
lol
People are made of all kinds of things, Rubberstars, but I haven't
figured out what people like you are made of who can't seem to keep in
your own
dreamy-why-is-there-war-can't-we-all-get-along-animals-should-wear-seat-belt
s-when-in-cars-flowers-scream-when-you-pick-them-I-sure-hope->Ralph-Nader-wi
ns-fantasy
land...
I voted for Bush, if you really must know.
I also can't figure out why you and your buddies felt the need to come
over to this NG to bitch. Instead of yelling louder, perhaps you
should reinforce your argument. Remember, Rubberstars, our
Constitution gives you the right to free speech. It DOES NOT mean
you have the right to be heard.
I should have snipped the extra newsgroups off. Sorry but I don't know
which
one you're in. I'm in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and since you're in
another newsgroup you probably have no idea of my position on the topic.
Oh, and by the way, I hit a rabbit with the Escalade on the way to the
marina this morning. Hardly made a "thump".
The turkey vultures thank you.
Now, if I could just get
the hang of missing those goofy manatees in front of the boat.
Maybe you should wear glasses.
Glad
I'm at the top of the food chain.
Except for worms, mosquitoes, athletes foot, influenza, and many other
human
parasites and predators.
Damn, life is good!
Great!
-Rubystars
Moosh:)
2004-04-01 13:19:30 UTC
Permalink
# Organic farmers can produce crop yields for a variety of
crops in a wide range of locations that are competitive and
even superior to crop yields produced by industrial methods.
So what about just good farming methods?
Nothing can better this.
# Organic farmers can generate net cash returns from both
crop and animal production that are often superior to
industrial farmers.
Not anywhere near just good conventional farmers.
Industrial farming can be just very large, good, conventional farming.
The lion is an obligate carnivore- it must kill to survive. We don't.
And that means we shouldn't?
That you regard our ways as brutal, as most would, again confirms
that it is not truly in, or of our nature to kill.
Yer dreaming, sorry. Look at bloodthirsty Bush, fer Goddsake!
pearl
2004-04-01 15:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can produce crop yields for a variety of
crops in a wide range of locations that are competitive and
even superior to crop yields produced by industrial methods.
So what about just good farming methods?
Nothing can better this.
GOOD farming methods are those which promote healthy
soil, first and foremost. The use of conventional ag'-chems
precludes that. (see part you snipped).
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can generate net cash returns from both
crop and animal production that are often superior to
industrial farmers.
Not anywhere near just good conventional farmers.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Moosh:)
Industrial farming can be just very large, good, conventional farming.
As above.
Post by Moosh:)
The lion is an obligate carnivore- it must kill to survive. We don't.
And that means we shouldn't?
I think that we should not kill without very, very good reason to.
The animal has interests that superceed any desire we may have
to eat meat (other foods are also tasty, if you like the taste of it).
Post by Moosh:)
That you regard our ways as brutal, as most would, again confirms
that it is not truly in, or of our nature to kill.
Yer dreaming, sorry. Look at bloodthirsty Bush, fer Goddsake!
Yeah. Exception to the rule (one of 'em).
Moosh:)
2004-04-03 02:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can produce crop yields for a variety of
crops in a wide range of locations that are competitive and
even superior to crop yields produced by industrial methods.
So what about just good farming methods?
Nothing can better this.
GOOD farming methods are those which promote healthy
soil, first and foremost.
Not necessarily, although soil care is always important.

On some farms, water supply is most important, and on others, pest
protection rears supreme. Horses for courses. But yes, the soil is
pretty important. That's why replenishing used-up minerals (nutrients)
is so important.
Post by pearl
The use of conventional ag'-chems
precludes that. (see part you snipped).
Garbage. If you don't replenish mined nutrients in the crop, you go
downhill to bankruptcy.
Which part I snipped? You gave zero valid evidence for anything you
claimed. Ipse dixit indeed..
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can generate net cash returns from both
crop and animal production that are often superior to
industrial farmers.
Not anywhere near just good conventional farmers.
Ipse dixit.
Same to you. Masses of organic propaganda makes your assertions no
better that plain assertions, although on reflection, it makes them
even less.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Industrial farming can be just very large, good, conventional farming.
As above.
Any valid evidence why it cannot? Thought not.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
The lion is an obligate carnivore- it must kill to survive. We don't.
And that means we shouldn't?
I think that we should not kill without very, very good reason to.
Howsabout good nutrition? BTW, the lion could always eat carrion.
Post by pearl
The animal has interests
Could you explain these interests? I hope you don't believe animals
forward-plan ?
Post by pearl
that superceed any desire we may have
to eat meat (other foods are also tasty, if you like the taste of it).
But meat is such a good source of nutrition, and if we farm extra
animals who have no concept of their fate, and we minimise cruelty,
why not?
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
That you regard our ways as brutal, as most would, again confirms
that it is not truly in, or of our nature to kill.
Yer dreaming, sorry. Look at bloodthirsty Bush, fer Goddsake!
Yeah. Exception to the rule (one of 'em).
It's there in all of us, I'm afraid.
pearl
2004-04-04 12:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can produce crop yields for a variety of
crops in a wide range of locations that are competitive and
even superior to crop yields produced by industrial methods.
So what about just good farming methods?
Nothing can better this.
GOOD farming methods are those which promote healthy
soil, first and foremost.
Not necessarily, although soil care is always important.
NECESSARILY, unless you're growing hydroponically.
Post by Moosh:)
On some farms, water supply is most important,
As in irrigation? You were talking about good farming methods.
Post by Moosh:)
and on others, pest protection rears supreme.
Plants have their own 'immune system'..

'Plant immune systems

In the broadest sense, an immune system is any method an organism
has protect itself from succeeding to another organism's efforts to
undermine its health and integrity. In this sense, yes, plants have
immune systems. Plants do NOT have "active" immune systems, like
humans, including macrophages, lymls, antibodies, complements,
interferon, etc., which help us ward off infection. Rather, plants have
"passive" mechanisms of protection. For instance, the waxy secretion
of some plants (cuticle) functions to help hold in moisture and keep
out microorganisms. Plants can also secrete irritating juices that
prevent insects and animals from eating it. The thick bark of woody
plants is another example of a defensive adaptation, that protects the
more delicate tissues inside. The chemical secretions of some plants
are downright poisonous to many organisms, which greatly enhance
the chances of survival for the plant. Fruits of plants contain large
amounts of vitamin C and bioflavonoids, compounds which have
been shown in the lab to be anti-bacterial and antiviral.* So in
these ways, plants can improve their chances of survival.
Hundreds of viruses and bacteria attack plants each year, and
the cost to agriculture is enormous. I would venture to guess that
once an organism establishes an infection in a plant, the plant will
not be able to "fight" it. However, exposure to the sun's UV light
may help control an infection, possibly even defeat it, but the plant
does not have any inherent "active" way to fight the infection.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio035.htm

[*'... chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits
- even though they were only about half the size. '
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm ]

.. As with animals, healthy plants are less vulnerable to attack.

'Alternative' analysis methods are also capable of revealing
differences in quality (organic-conventional). Picture-creating
methods have provided astonishingly subtle differentiation of
results, correlating well with the results of standard analysis
and sensoric testing. The potential of picture-creating methods
is certainly great but still requires a great deal of research input.
In our series of tests, Kirlian photography (Gas Discharge
Visualization,GDV) likewise showed a surprisingly high
differentiation among leaves and apples which were otherwise
indistinguishable by optical or analytical means. '
http://www.fibl.net/english/fibl/pdf/annual-report-2002-soil-plants-quality.pdf

'Shown in this Kirlian photograph is the depleted vital energy
of a typical commercially grown, chemically sprayed and
over-processed plant. Notice the black holes inside the leaf's
energy field as well as the conspicuous lack of luster and vitality
around the leaf. Contrast this Kirlian image with the others on
this page and notice their vibrant and full energy fields, which
form from healthy and organically grown plants. '
http://www.synergy-co.com/pages/kirlianphotos.html
Post by Moosh:)
Horses for courses.
The Gold Cup, or the Donkey Derby, nay?
Post by Moosh:)
But yes, the soil is pretty important.
Not 'pretty important'- VITALLY important.
As any gardener you like.
Post by Moosh:)
That's why replenishing used-up minerals (nutrients)
is so important.
Not just macro minerals but trace minerals as well.
This is what conventional farming has neglected, and
organic (sustainable) farming is now redressing.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
The use of conventional ag'-chems
precludes that. (see part you snipped).
Garbage.
Not at all.
Post by Moosh:)
If you don't replenish mined nutrients in the crop, you go
downhill to bankruptcy.
Plants will grow, but they are of low quality.
Post by Moosh:)
Which part I snipped?
'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
Post by Moosh:)
You gave zero valid evidence for anything you
claimed. Ipse dixit indeed..
You said it.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can generate net cash returns from both
crop and animal production that are often superior to
industrial farmers.
Not anywhere near just good conventional farmers.
Ipse dixit.
Same to you. Masses of organic propaganda makes your assertions no
better that plain assertions, although on reflection, it makes them
even less.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021009092038/http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosys/chapter3.htm
isn't 'organic propaganda'. A quick click would have led you to-

Adding Values to Our Food System:
An Economic Analysis of
Sustainable Community Food Systems

Prepared for
United States Department of Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
USA
http://web.archive.org/web/20020802223444/www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosys/main.htm

Do you term anything that shows you're in error 'propaganda'?
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Industrial farming can be just very large, good, conventional farming.
As above.
Any valid evidence why it cannot? Thought not.
Thought wrong- conventional farming is not good. See above.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
The lion is an obligate carnivore- it must kill to survive. We don't.
And that means we shouldn't?
I think that we should not kill without very, very good reason to.
Howsabout good nutrition?
Another very good reason to *eschew* meat.
Post by Moosh:)
BTW, the lion could always eat carrion.
Your point being?
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
The animal has interests
Could you explain these interests? I hope you don't believe animals
forward-plan ?
An interest in living, doing whatever it is they do.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
that superceed any desire we may have
to eat meat (other foods are also tasty, if you like the taste of it).
But meat is such a good source of nutrition,
As a staple, to carnivores like lions, not to frugivorous human beings,
-- as borne out by the research.
Post by Moosh:)
and if we farm extra
animals who have no concept of their fate, and we minimise cruelty,
why not?
Would you like to be killed?
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
That you regard our ways as brutal, as most would, again confirms
that it is not truly in, or of our nature to kill.
Yer dreaming, sorry. Look at bloodthirsty Bush, fer Goddsake!
Yeah. Exception to the rule (one of 'em).
It's there in all of us, I'm afraid.
Call it evil if you will, but it's certainly a lack of love.
Moosh:)
2004-04-09 07:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can produce crop yields for a variety of
crops in a wide range of locations that are competitive and
even superior to crop yields produced by industrial methods.
So what about just good farming methods?
Nothing can better this.
GOOD farming methods are those which promote healthy
soil, first and foremost.
Not necessarily, although soil care is always important.
NECESSARILY, unless you're growing hydroponically.
You've just negated your point.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
On some farms, water supply is most important,
As in irrigation? You were talking about good farming methods.
Irrigation is bad?
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
and on others, pest protection rears supreme.
Plants have their own 'immune system'..
Nope. That's crap. Plants get predated. They evolve to make chemicals
(pesticides) to upset the predators. The predators evolve to be able
to cope with the plants's pesticides, and so it goes on.
Post by pearl
'Plant immune systems
Garbage!
Post by pearl
In the broadest sense, an immune system is any method an organism
has protect itself from succeeding to another organism's efforts to
undermine its health and integrity.
WRONG!!!
Post by pearl
In this sense, yes, plants have
immune systems.
And in other senses, they have a central nervous system?
Yes, you can argue anything if you change the meanings of your words.
Post by pearl
Plants do NOT have "active" immune systems, like
humans,
And so they don't have immune systems.
Post by pearl
including macrophages, lymls, antibodies, complements,
interferon, etc., which help us ward off infection. Rather, plants have
"passive" mechanisms of protection. For instance, the waxy secretion
of some plants (cuticle) functions to help hold in moisture and keep
out microorganisms. Plants can also secrete irritating juices that
prevent insects and animals from eating it. The thick bark of woody
plants is another example of a defensive adaptation, that protects the
more delicate tissues inside. The chemical secretions of some plants
are downright poisonous to many organisms, which greatly enhance
the chances of survival for the plant. Fruits of plants contain large
amounts of vitamin C and bioflavonoids, compounds which have
been shown in the lab to be anti-bacterial and antiviral.* So in
these ways, plants can improve their chances of survival.
Hundreds of viruses and bacteria attack plants each year, and
the cost to agriculture is enormous. I would venture to guess that
once an organism establishes an infection in a plant, the plant will
not be able to "fight" it. However, exposure to the sun's UV light
may help control an infection, possibly even defeat it, but the plant
does not have any inherent "active" way to fight the infection.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio035.htm
What a load of crap. Have you anything original to say? Or do you just
parrot flakey sites?
Post by pearl
[*'... chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits
- even though they were only about half the size. '
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm ]
Garbage. NMR for ascorbic acid assay? Where do these kooks come from?
Post by pearl
.. As with animals, healthy plants are less vulnerable to attack.
Goes without saying. That perhaps explains much diseased organic
produce. Deficient in soil nutrients.
Post by pearl
'Alternative' analysis methods are also capable of revealing
differences in quality (organic-conventional). Picture-creating
methods have provided astonishingly subtle differentiation of
results, correlating well with the results of standard analysis
and sensoric testing. The potential of picture-creating methods
is certainly great but still requires a great deal of research input.
In our series of tests, Kirlian photography (Gas Discharge
Visualization,GDV) likewise showed a surprisingly high
differentiation among leaves and apples which were otherwise
indistinguishable by optical or analytical means. '
http://www.fibl.net/english/fibl/pdf/annual-report-2002-soil-plants-quality.pdf
"Dee Dee Dee Dee '' Off with the fairies? Kirlian photography indeed!
Post by pearl
'Shown in this Kirlian photograph is the depleted vital energy
of a typical commercially grown, chemically sprayed and
over-processed plant. Notice the black holes inside the leaf's
energy field as well as the conspicuous lack of luster and vitality
around the leaf. Contrast this Kirlian image with the others on
this page and notice their vibrant and full energy fields, which
form from healthy and organically grown plants. '
http://www.synergy-co.com/pages/kirlianphotos.html
Are you serious? I hope not.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Horses for courses.
The Gold Cup, or the Donkey Derby, nay?
Post by Moosh:)
But yes, the soil is pretty important.
Not 'pretty important'- VITALLY important.
As any gardener you like.
I'd prefer a soil scientist.
How com soil is not necessary for plant growth?
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
That's why replenishing used-up minerals (nutrients)
is so important.
Not just macro minerals but trace minerals as well.
Exactly my point. Organic growers think these come form all sorts of
weird places.
Post by pearl
This is what conventional farming has neglected, and
organic (sustainable) farming is now redressing.
Bullshit! Conventional farmers are ALWAYS monitoring nutrient status.
Organic farmers don't bother coz there is nothing they can do about
it. (Except cheat!)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
The use of conventional ag'-chems
precludes that. (see part you snipped).
Garbage.
Not at all.
Still garbage. Unless you can give us a documented example.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
If you don't replenish mined nutrients in the crop, you go
downhill to bankruptcy.
Plants will grow, but they are of low quality.
Exactly, so why not chuck the Organic crap and grow things properly
with all the essential nutrients available.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Which part I snipped?
'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
You repeated this. It is garbage. Try a proper scientific study.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
You gave zero valid evidence for anything you
claimed. Ipse dixit indeed..
You said it.
A heap of patently nonsensical organic propaganda make none of your
case.

Look, a plot of land that has the potassoum and phosphorus exported
out in the crop must go downhill production and quality wise. Unless
you can explain where the nutrients get replaced from.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
# Organic farmers can generate net cash returns from both
crop and animal production that are often superior to
industrial farmers.
Not anywhere near just good conventional farmers.
Ipse dixit.
Same to you. Masses of organic propaganda makes your assertions no
better that plain assertions, although on reflection, it makes them
even less.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021009092038/http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosys/chapter3.htm
isn't 'organic propaganda'. A quick click would have led you to-
An Economic Analysis of
Sustainable Community Food Systems
Prepared for
United States Department of Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
USA
http://web.archive.org/web/20020802223444/www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosys/main.htm
Do you term anything that shows you're in error 'propaganda'?
Nope, but I don't post errors. I leave that to others.
This is patent nonsense. I really couldn't be bothered reading it, but
I ask you one simple question, where do they get the potassium from
for successive crops down the years?
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Industrial farming can be just very large, good, conventional farming.
As above.
Any valid evidence why it cannot? Thought not.
Thought wrong- conventional farming is not good. See above.
Good conventional farming is good, bad conventional farming is bad.
Good organic farming is good, bad organic farming is bad.

Organic loses each time because it is not allowed to replenish the
nutrients that are exported (lost from the soil) in each successsive
crop.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
The lion is an obligate carnivore- it must kill to survive. We don't.
And that means we shouldn't?
I think that we should not kill without very, very good reason to.
Howsabout good nutrition?
Another very good reason to *eschew* meat.
Ipse dixit!
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
BTW, the lion could always eat carrion.
Your point being?
Your point, I think. Avoidance of killing.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
The animal has interests
Could you explain these interests? I hope you don't believe animals
forward-plan ?
An interest in living, doing whatever it is they do.
And you know this how?
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
that superceed any desire we may have
to eat meat (other foods are also tasty, if you like the taste of it).
But meat is such a good source of nutrition,
As a staple, to carnivores like lions, not to frugivorous human beings,
-- as borne out by the research.
Which research? Man is NOT a frugivbore Man is an Omnivore like so
many of the great apes with whom we have a close relationship.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
and if we farm extra
animals who have no concept of their fate, and we minimise cruelty,
why not?
Would you like to be killed?
What a stupid question. Farm animals are not aware of the concept of
mortality.
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
Post by pearl
Post by Moosh:)
That you regard our ways as brutal, as most would, again confirms
that it is not truly in, or of our nature to kill.
Yer dreaming, sorry. Look at bloodthirsty Bush, fer Goddsake!
Yeah. Exception to the rule (one of 'em).
It's there in all of us, I'm afraid.
Call it evil if you will, but it's certainly a lack of love.
No, it's just one way of rationalising the world. Man is a logical
creature, and even a raving lunatic thinks he's being rational.
Moosh:)
2004-04-01 13:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Third, God gave us humans the animals for a reason.
Huh?
jpatti
2004-04-01 14:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Buying not only animal products but also produce from a CSA or similar
situation is postivie in every way possible... you get better food,
Nope
Ummm... yup. My eggs are much better-tasting than mass-produced
stuff.

So are my tomatoes.

Growing stuff yourself or buying stuff grown locally means varities
can be chosen based on *taste* rather than on how well they keep while
being transported across country. It also means they can be harvested
when ripe rather than prematurely... so much yummier.

Factory farms that tranport tomatoes for several days to grocery
stores cannot grow Brandywine tomatoes, because they do not ripen well
if picked immaturely and go bad rapidly. And they also taste better
than *any* of the hybrids popular with mass producers. You *can't*
buy that at a store.

Vegetables grown in composted manure and humus-enriched soils have
better nutrient profiles than those grown with petroleum-based
fertilizers too - and it *adds* topsoil rather than depleting it.
organic produce at much lower than grocery-store organic prices,
By doing things yourself inefficiently instead of letting someone else
be employed to do it.
Errr... by paying someone else to do it, pretty straight-forward. A
CSA is just about *how* you pay someone else. You pay a farmer rather
than a grocery store.
your
money goes to support a family rather than a corporation,
Involving many families.
Possibly. And many non-families too. Really depends on your
viewpoint.

The local hardware store supports several families at middle-class
levels. The newly opened Lowe's supports more families at
minimum-wage. I prefer the hardware store.

CSAs are similar. Most are not "certified organic" which is a
designation that has become rather meaningless anyways, having more to
do with filling out the appropriate forms than using sustainable
practices.

The point is to buy from someone locally.
your
behavior supports protecting the topsoil and land for future
generations
The upside you describe in "protecting the topsoil" is just good
farming practice. Nothing to do with "organic" per se. Arguably some
of the organic practices are bad for the topsoil.
I didn't say it had to do with "organic" - "organic" is bullshit.
Most labelling is bullshit.

"Free-range" chickens may have barely more space to move than caged
chickens in many cases.

It *does* have to do with sustainable practices, which are more often
used on family-farms runnins CSAs than on factory farms. Certainly not
on *all* of them, but... if you buy your food fom the farm, you can
know... which you can't when you buy it at a grocery store.
and buying locally reduces the reliance on petroleum in
food production. There's really no downside.
And what about all that gasoline used in the 3 ton SUVs driving to
these farms and markets? Surely it's better to allow efficient trains
of semi-trailers to transport the produce to a central locatioj served
by public transport?
We don't *have* central locations served by public transport in the
states. What we have is semi-trucks that transport produce to
distribution points, then from distribution points across the country
to a town to numerous grocery stores that people drive to.

The town nearest me has *no* public transport at all within the town.
You *can* get a bus there... to another town. There's two cabs.
Everyone drives - or walks. There's no other choice.

Buying food produced locally saves energy here for sure. At least one
of the local CSAs delivers to several central locations weekly, so you
can pick up at your closest one if driving is an issue. I live
out-of-town myself, but it's not more driving to get to the CSA pickup
point than to a grocery store. And the stuff didn't come from
California, so yeah, fossil fuels are being saved.

On the SUV thing... well, frankly, the sort of people who'd *care*
about animals being raised humanely and *care* about topsoil not being
depleted wouldn't be likely to be driving SUVs in the first place. So
they probably aren't the audience for my post.
All food animals are mistreated to some extent.
My chickens are not mistreated - unless you count the rooster's
behavior. ;)

They have a coop with plenty of roosting space, a decent-sized yard, a
wide variety of decent food, clean water, and they free-range
regularly - where "free-range" means they have access to several acres
not to a tiny dirt yard. They are treated well. Well, up until when
we kill them. :)

You do not *have* to mistreat animals to raise meat.
Wedll nature is often crueller than farmers. Sorry to disillusion you.
Not disillusioned at all... I *live* in nature. My cats kill rabbits
regularly... and rabbits scream when killed. It's unpleasant.

The chickens beat the snot out of the smallest rooster for a long
time, we had him isolated for a while, but decided to go ahead and
slaughter him even though he was small since the only options seemed
to be allowing the rest to beat the heck out of him or keeping him in
solitary confinement. Animals themselves are not concerned with
cruelty issues and there isn't much one can do about that.

My point is not that hunting means animals have *happy* lives... my
point is they are not subjected to human cruelty. Whether I hunt or
not, the deer had whatever life it had... therefore my eating meat
does not contribute to cruelty unnecessarily as opposed to buying
feedlot-fed animals.

Cause whether nature cares about cruelty or not, *I* do.
The diet worries me. Farmed animals have a better diet than those in
the wild. Wild animals are borderline starving for most of their
lives. Then there is parasites in the meat. Other diseases too.
Depends on the situation. Many farm animals are raised with really
crappy diets. Mass-produced animals are not fed diets healthy for
either the animal nor for the human who will eat them.

As an example, cattle are not intended to eat the amounts of grain fed
into them in feedlots... cattle thrive best on a diet of consisting
primarily of grasses. But grass-fed cattle has less "marbling"
(marbling is fat that has unnatrually grown *into* the muscle) and
grow less efficiently, so factory farms prefer raising cattle in
feedlots and feeding them grain rather than raising them on pasture.
Pasture-raised cattle are healthier than feedlot animals - and produce
better, leaner meat, but 99% of what is available in the grocery is
feedlot-fed.

Farm animals *can* be raised in a healthy manner, but they are not
usually. They are usually raised in the most *efficient* manner...
which is a short-term efficiency at best since most modern farming
practices deplete topsoil.

Hunting season here is in fall... when animals have had all summer to
eat - and generally a wider variety of foods than factory-raised farm
animals. Populations are managed by hunting licensing, so they rarely
grow to starvation-levels in the first place. I can't speak for where
you are, but deer are not borderline starving in Pennsylvania during
hunting season.

In spring, wild animals are much hungrier, but then it's illegal to
hunt then anyways so kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW, NO farming is sustainable.
Ummm... yes, some farming is sustainable. Not because of "organic" or
"free-range" labels, but because of using the best practices for
sustainability.

I started to address this, but... it's too entirely long for me to do
so really. It'd take a few books. So I'll just disagree rather than
back-up my disagreement.
And there are only degrees of humaneness.
That is no reason not to *minimize* cruelty. By your argument, I
might as well verbally abuse my daughter because there's natsy people
out in the world who are likely to sooner or later. Ummm... no thanks.

My post was addressed to the issue of animal cruelty in meat-eating.
It does not *have* to be that way. One does not have to choose
between having animals mistreated for your benefit versus being
vegetarian. One *can* eat meat without contributing to unnecessary
cruelty in the world.

My daughter was vegetarian for many years, not because of the health
issus, but because she had concern for cruelty towards animals. She
has recently ceased being vegetarian in that she makes an exception
for my chickens - because she knows they had the best life a chicken
could really hope for, better than 99% of the chickens out there.
Whether it's a "good" life is debatable, I sure wouldn't want a
chicken's life. But no cruelty was *added* to their lives in the
course of raising them as meat.
Moosh:)
2004-04-03 02:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jpatti
Buying not only animal products but also produce from a CSA or similar
situation is postivie in every way possible... you get better food,
Nope
Ummm... yup. My eggs are much better-tasting than mass-produced
stuff.
And mine are better tasting than yours....
Post by jpatti
So are my tomatoes.
Vine ripened? What variety?
Post by jpatti
Growing stuff yourself or buying stuff grown locally means varities
can be chosen based on *taste* rather than on how well they keep while
being transported across country.
Agreed, but if you like the taste, there is no difference in
nutrition.
Post by jpatti
It also means they can be harvested
when ripe rather than prematurely... so much yummier.
Can be. My wife doen't like vine ripened, too strong tasting.
Go figure
Post by jpatti
Factory farms that tranport tomatoes for several days to grocery
stores cannot grow Brandywine tomatoes, because they do not ripen well
if picked immaturely and go bad rapidly. And they also taste better
than *any* of the hybrids popular with mass producers. You *can't*
buy that at a store.
You can at mine. Sometimes even cheaper, depending on season and
weather. But then taste is very subjective and variable. I just saw a
TV experiment on this very subject. They had two growers. One a
specialist "organic" vine ripened, and a commercial "factory"...
They cut up a few specimens from each and labelled them A and B.
The specialist chose the wrong one. Some of his pickers got it right
and some got it wrong. Proves nothing, but interesting.
Some restaurants put cheap cask wine in expensive bottles, and the
toffee-nosed, wine-expert customers can't tell the difference.
Post by jpatti
Vegetables grown in composted manure and humus-enriched soils have
better nutrient profiles than those grown with petroleum-based
fertilizers too - and it *adds* topsoil rather than depleting it.
Total misunderstanding.
Organic soil cannot be amended with non-organic manure and compost.
Conventional soil can be ammended with any compost or manure. The
convential soils are replenished for the "used-up" nutrients which
have been exported off the soil with the crop.
All good farmers ammend soils with organic matter. This is NOT the
sole province of "organic" farmers.They didn't invent this like they
try to claim.
Post by jpatti
organic produce at much lower than grocery-store organic prices,
By doing things yourself inefficiently instead of letting someone else
be employed to do it.
Errr... by paying someone else to do it, pretty straight-forward. A
CSA is just about *how* you pay someone else. You pay a farmer rather
than a grocery store.
Ummm, who pays for transport to the city? The wholesaler pays the
farmer. Commercial distribution systems are much more efficient wrt
ton.miles per litre of diesel fuel.
Post by jpatti
your
money goes to support a family rather than a corporation,
Involving many families.
Possibly. And many non-families too. Really depends on your
viewpoint.
What are "non-families"?
Do you mean shareholders? Are they not members of families?
Post by jpatti
The local hardware store supports several families at middle-class
levels. The newly opened Lowe's supports more families at
minimum-wage. I prefer the hardware store.
So the "more families" can starve? Do you not prefer cheap hardware?
Or would you rather pay the store for inefficient practices?
Post by jpatti
CSAs are similar. Most are not "certified organic" which is a
designation that has become rather meaningless anyways, having more to
do with filling out the appropriate forms than using sustainable
practices.
No farming is sustainable, just "as-efficient (in all respects) as it
possibly can be".
Post by jpatti
The point is to buy from someone locally.
Why? How do you do this in down town NYC? London?
Tokyo? Rio?
Post by jpatti
your
behavior supports protecting the topsoil and land for future
generations
The upside you describe in "protecting the topsoil" is just good
farming practice. Nothing to do with "organic" per se. Arguably some
of the organic practices are bad for the topsoil.
I didn't say it had to do with "organic" - "organic" is bullshit.
Most labelling is bullshit.
Well labelling is pretty accurate in Australia, but I agree with the
"organic" myth.
Post by jpatti
"Free-range" chickens may have barely more space to move than caged
chickens in many cases.
Yep, it is worrisome, but if we knew everything that happend to our
produce, we'd likely starve.
Post by jpatti
It *does* have to do with sustainable practices, which are more often
used on family-farms runnins CSAs than on factory farms.
And who told you this? Most family farms are run by well-meaning
amateurs. "Factory" farms are run by professionals.
Post by jpatti
Certainly not
on *all* of them, but... if you buy your food fom the farm, you can
know... which you can't when you buy it at a grocery store.
Know what, exactly?
Post by jpatti
and buying locally reduces the reliance on petroleum in
food production. There's really no downside.
And what about all that gasoline used in the 3 ton SUVs driving to
these farms and markets? Surely it's better to allow efficient trains
of semi-trailers to transport the produce to a central locatioj served
by public transport?
We don't *have* central locations served by public transport in the
states. What we have is semi-trucks that transport produce to
distribution points, then from distribution points across the country
to a town to numerous grocery stores that people drive to.
OK. I walk to several supermarkets served by daily semi-trailers. I
see them drive past my house from a central distribution wharehouse
out in the outer suburbs near the railway marshalling yards where much
produce and goods are imported from other states.
Post by jpatti
The town nearest me has *no* public transport at all within the town.
Yes, I've heard of that. What a terribly flagrant waste of energy
resources. I live close to two railway stations with airconditioned
electric trains every 15 minutes to where I want to go . And almost at
my door are busstops for other destinations. Way to go. Cheap.
Post by jpatti
You *can* get a bus there... to another town. There's two cabs.
Everyone drives - or walks. There's no other choice.
Sad. Are you sure it is the same all over the States?
Post by jpatti
Buying food produced locally saves energy here for sure. At least one
of the local CSAs delivers to several central locations weekly, so you
can pick up at your closest one if driving is an issue. I live
out-of-town myself, but it's not more driving to get to the CSA pickup
point than to a grocery store. And the stuff didn't come from
California, so yeah, fossil fuels are being saved.
And your selection must be terribly limited.
We get a huge variety of fruit, dairy and meat from hundreds or
thousands of miles away.
Post by jpatti
On the SUV thing... well, frankly, the sort of people who'd *care*
about animals being raised humanely and *care* about topsoil not being
depleted wouldn't be likely to be driving SUVs in the first place. So
they probably aren't the audience for my post.
But other than public transport is surely very energy wasteful.
Nevertheless, our discussion is not to do with your or my individual
circumstances, but the overall principle.
Post by jpatti
All food animals are mistreated to some extent.
My chickens are not mistreated - unless you count the rooster's
behavior. ;)
And your chickens supply...?
My budgerigar is not mistreated. Supplies nothing except squealing on
the cockatoos who steal my almonds :)
Post by jpatti
They have a coop with plenty of roosting space, a decent-sized yard, a
wide variety of decent food, clean water, and they free-range
regularly - where "free-range" means they have access to several acres
not to a tiny dirt yard. They are treated well. Well, up until when
we kill them. :)
You do not *have* to mistreat animals to raise meat.
You do to feed millions at reasonable cost. Sorry, them's the facts.
Everyone can't live like you, I'm afraid.
Post by jpatti
Wedll nature is often crueller than farmers. Sorry to disillusion you.
Not disillusioned at all... I *live* in nature. My cats kill rabbits
regularly... and rabbits scream when killed. It's unpleasant.
The chickens beat the snot out of the smallest rooster for a long
time, we had him isolated for a while, but decided to go ahead and
slaughter him even though he was small since the only options seemed
to be allowing the rest to beat the heck out of him or keeping him in
solitary confinement. Animals themselves are not concerned with
cruelty issues and there isn't much one can do about that.
My point is not that hunting means animals have *happy* lives... my
point is they are not subjected to human cruelty. Whether I hunt or
not, the deer had whatever life it had... therefore my eating meat
does not contribute to cruelty unnecessarily as opposed to buying
feedlot-fed animals.
So what population in USA could survive on hunting?
Post by jpatti
Cause whether nature cares about cruelty or not, *I* do.
Well I see you only concerned with cruelty that you perceive as due to
your own needs or actions.
Post by jpatti
The diet worries me. Farmed animals have a better diet than those in
the wild. Wild animals are borderline starving for most of their
lives. Then there is parasites in the meat. Other diseases too.
Depends on the situation. Many farm animals are raised with really
crappy diets.
Only in rare examples by farmers heading into bankrupcy.
Post by jpatti
Mass-produced animals are not fed diets healthy for
either the animal nor for the human who will eat them.
Nonsense. It is only a problem for overfed humans. Otherwise it is a
perfect diet for the animal.
Post by jpatti
As an example, cattle are not intended to eat the amounts of grain fed
into them in feedlots...
Who said? What possible problems does it cause? The animals enjoy it
as far as we know.
Post by jpatti
cattle thrive best on a diet of consisting
primarily of grasses.
Who says? If that's all they can get.
Post by jpatti
But grass-fed cattle has less "marbling"
(marbling is fat that has unnatrually grown *into* the muscle) and
grow less efficiently, so factory farms prefer raising cattle in
feedlots and feeding them grain rather than raising them on pasture.
They grow the meat that the market demand. The Japanese market demands
marbled beef. They pay top prices for it.
Post by jpatti
Pasture-raised cattle are healthier than feedlot animals - and produce
better, leaner meat, but 99% of what is available in the grocery is
feedlot-fed.
Not here it isn't. I believe we have no or very few feedlots, but have
you got any evidence that feedlot nutrition is unhealthy for the
beast? They wouldn't do it if it was.
Post by jpatti
Farm animals *can* be raised in a healthy manner, but they are not
usually.
Utter nonsense. Farmers with sick animals would go out of business
quicksmart.
Post by jpatti
They are usually raised in the most *efficient* manner...
which is a short-term efficiency at best since most modern farming
practices deplete topsoil.
No, they ammend deficiencies in the topsoil. It's organic farmers who
are not allowed to do this, remember?
Organically farmed soils slowly go downhill.
Post by jpatti
Hunting season here is in fall... when animals have had all summer to
eat - and generally a wider variety of foods than factory-raised farm
animals.
And often not. But you are talking about an artificially managed herd.
Farming, really.
Post by jpatti
Populations are managed by hunting licensing, so they rarely
grow to starvation-levels in the first place.
So the population is not as healthy as a natural population?
Post by jpatti
I can't speak for where
you are, but deer are not borderline starving in Pennsylvania during
hunting season.
And how many million people does this support
Post by jpatti
In spring, wild animals are much hungrier, but then it's illegal to
hunt then anyways so kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
The whole hunting thing is. It is totally marginal to feeding millions
of people.
Post by jpatti
BTW, NO farming is sustainable.
Ummm... yes, some farming is sustainable. Not because of "organic" or
"free-range" labels, but because of using the best practices for
sustainability.
More sustainable, but eventually not sustainable. It is always running
down to a level of non-productivity. Nutrients always leach to the
sea, and then much energy is required to replace these in the soil.
Organic proscribes this, so is even more hamstrung and doomed to
unsustainabiltiy. It's just one level up from "slash and burn"
agriculture.
I've mentioned it before, but there are roughly 2 billion folks alive
on the planet today solely because of synthetic nitrogen produced from
fossil energy in the main.
Post by jpatti
I started to address this, but... it's too entirely long for me to do
so really. It'd take a few books. So I'll just disagree rather than
back-up my disagreement.
Unfortunately you would never be able to show that any farming is
absolutely sustainable forever. Just some procedures eke out the
practice for longer than some others.
Post by jpatti
And there are only degrees of humaneness.
That is no reason not to *minimize* cruelty.
And most folks do. But as they say about omlettes and eggs....
Post by jpatti
By your argument, I
might as well verbally abuse my daughter because there's natsy people
out in the world who are likely to sooner or later. Ummm... no thanks.
Sorry, I don't follow.
Post by jpatti
My post was addressed to the issue of animal cruelty in meat-eating.
It does not *have* to be that way.
And you give small scale examples that feed hardly anyone. I contend
that to feed millions, cruelty is unfortunately unavoiudable.
Post by jpatti
One does not have to choose
between having animals mistreated for your benefit versus being
vegetarian. One *can* eat meat without contributing to unnecessary
cruelty in the world.
Sorry, I don't see how. Your examples of hunting and keeping a few
chickens don't cut the mustard.
Post by jpatti
My daughter was vegetarian for many years, not because of the health
issus, but because she had concern for cruelty towards animals. She
has recently ceased being vegetarian in that she makes an exception
for my chickens - because she knows they had the best life a chicken
could really hope for, better than 99% of the chickens out there.
Whether it's a "good" life is debatable, I sure wouldn't want a
chicken's life. But no cruelty was *added* to their lives in the
course of raising them as meat.
That two, only another 6,000,000,000 folk to go :)
Jackie Patti
2004-04-04 18:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Ummm... yup. My eggs are much better-tasting than mass-produced
stuff.
And mine are better tasting than yours....
Possibly, though it'd be hard to say since you haven't eaten ours.

I have eaten mass-produced eggs though, for 4 decades. The home-grown
variety tastes way better. I don't think it has to do with the brown
vs. white shells, or the variety of chicken, though those may impact. I
suspect it's primarily the chicken's diet as the egg yolks look so much
brighter and darker, which I understand is related to the amount of
greens in their diet.

What do you feed your chickens?
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
So are my tomatoes.
Vine ripened? What variety?
Brandywines. They are *awesome*.

I also grow Debaros for sauce/paste/canning. But nothing has come close
to the Brandywines for fresh eating. They're incredible.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Growing stuff yourself or buying stuff grown locally means varities
can be chosen based on *taste* rather than on how well they keep while
being transported across country.
Agreed, but if you like the taste, there is no difference in
nutrition.
Course there's differences in nutrition in different varities. Heck,
some varities have been bred specifically for nutritional differences.

There's also differences depending on if they're vine-ripened or not.

And for me nutrition isn't the whole thing, better taste = better food.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
It also means they can be harvested
when ripe rather than prematurely... so much yummier.
Can be. My wife doen't like vine ripened, too strong tasting.
Go figure
Different strokes and all.

My husband doesn't care for Brandywines either. On the other hand, he's
not big on tomatoes at all until they've been ketchuped or sauced.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Factory farms that tranport tomatoes for several days to grocery
stores cannot grow Brandywine tomatoes, because they do not ripen well
if picked immaturely and go bad rapidly. And they also taste better
than *any* of the hybrids popular with mass producers. You *can't*
buy that at a store.
You can at mine. Sometimes even cheaper, depending on season and
weather. But then taste is very subjective and variable.
Your major grocery stores carry local produce? That's rare here. Some
of our smaller one-off stores do, but the major chains don't.
Post by Moosh:)
I just saw a
TV experiment on this very subject. They had two growers. One a
specialist "organic" vine ripened, and a commercial "factory"...
They cut up a few specimens from each and labelled them A and B.
The specialist chose the wrong one. Some of his pickers got it right
and some got it wrong. Proves nothing, but interesting.
Some restaurants put cheap cask wine in expensive bottles, and the
toffee-nosed, wine-expert customers can't tell the difference.
Heh.

I dunno though. We've gotten kind of spoiled with home-grown,
home-cooked foods. One of the major downsides is that going out to eat
kinda sucks now. Nothing is as good as it is at home, most food bought
out tastes mediocre at best. I kind of *miss* being able to enjoy going
out to eat - now it's just somehting that happens cause we're traveling
or like recently, when we spent 2 days in ERs due to a family crisis.

Hard to say whether that's about home-grown food or about home-cooked
food though. Just... everything tastes so the *same* when we eat out.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Vegetables grown in composted manure and humus-enriched soils have
better nutrient profiles than those grown with petroleum-based
fertilizers too - and it *adds* topsoil rather than depleting it.
Total misunderstanding.
Organic soil cannot be amended with non-organic manure and compost.
Conventional soil can be ammended with any compost or manure. The
convential soils are replenished for the "used-up" nutrients which
have been exported off the soil with the crop.
All good farmers ammend soils with organic matter. This is NOT the
sole province of "organic" farmers.They didn't invent this like they
try to claim.
We're arguing over terms, not reality. In the states, "organic" means
something entirely stupid, frankly. It's got to do with producing gobs
of paperwork and other stupidity. Genetically-altered foods here can be
considered "organic." Most labeled organic food is produced by factory
farms.

All *good* farmers amend with organic matter, true. But... large
factory farms here do not do so. They also produce the majority of the
food Americans eat.

I'm a chemist so "organic" has a different meaning entirely. ;)

"Good" farmers are what you can find buying from most CSAs... many do
not bother with the expense and stupidity of getting organic
certification, but practice good farming regardless.
Post by Moosh:)
Ummm, who pays for transport to the city? The wholesaler pays the
farmer. Commercial distribution systems are much more efficient wrt
ton.miles per litre of diesel fuel.
There are several local CSAs I'm familair with. The one I like
transports the food themselves in a pickup truck. Since they are only
10 miles outside of town, this is not a big deal. That's the point of
buying *locally* - besides getting ripe, in-season produce.

The grocery stores here import food from national distribution centers.
They sell lettuce from Florida.

There's no contest in terms of the fossil fuels used... at least the way
it works here.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Possibly. And many non-families too. Really depends on your
viewpoint.
What are "non-families"?
Do you mean shareholders? Are they not members of families?
No, I mean legal "persons" whom are not members of families.
Corporations are not actual people, regardless of US laws.

Can't say how it works there, but here corporate profits do not
necessarily get paid to shareholders. In fact, the vast majority of
time, they do not.

I think... you and I are talking differences that may be based on our
locations.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
The local hardware store supports several families at middle-class
levels. The newly opened Lowe's supports more families at
minimum-wage. I prefer the hardware store.
So the "more families" can starve? Do you not prefer cheap hardware?
Or would you rather pay the store for inefficient practices?
Super-chains do not support families. In this country, they provide
"jobs" without benefits and at payrates that do not support even a
single person living in a one-bedroom apartment, let alone a family. At
best, they provide teenagers with spending money, but they do not
support families.

I'd rather pay the store where the guy's sold hardware for decades. If
not for such stores, I'd have never learned anything. The minimum-wage
folks at Lowes don't know anything, can't advise me, can't teach me.
Local stores have explained stuf to me since I was in my first apartment
unable to figure out how to get the curtain rods to stay up all the way
to today where I need to figure out more complex stuff about building my
own home. I get *more* for my money, thus better value, buying from
locally-owned businesses.
Post by Moosh:)
No farming is sustainable, just "as-efficient (in all respects) as it
possibly can be".
Before I get "into" this with you... why don't you define "sustainable"
so I know what we're talking about. Maybe it'll turn out I agree with
you anyways once I know how you're defining it.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
The point is to buy from someone locally.
Why? How do you do this in down town NYC? London?
Tokyo? Rio?
There are CSAs in NYC. NYC happens to be located in the middle of a
state full of farmland.

Can't speak for elsewhere... haven't been to any other countries except
Canada.
Post by Moosh:)
Well labelling is pretty accurate in Australia, but I agree with the
"organic" myth.
Post by jpatti
"Free-range" chickens may have barely more space to move than caged
chickens in many cases.
Yep, it is worrisome, but if we knew everything that happend to our
produce, we'd likely starve.
I *do* know! I grow my own. And I buy from farmers I know.

And I used to be a chemist, so I know how Diet Pepsi is made too. ;)
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
It *does* have to do with sustainable practices, which are more often
used on family-farms runnins CSAs than on factory farms.
And who told you this? Most family farms are run by well-meaning
amateurs. "Factory" farms are run by professionals.
In the US, factory farms are run by corporations whom hire unskilled
labor to raise food.

My landlord raises cattle on a farm that has been in his family since
the 1800s. He knows quite a bit more than most employees of factory farms.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Certainly not
on *all* of them, but... if you buy your food fom the farm, you can
know... which you can't when you buy it at a grocery store.
Know what, exactly?
How it's raised.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
We don't *have* central locations served by public transport in the
states. What we have is semi-trucks that transport produce to
distribution points, then from distribution points across the country
to a town to numerous grocery stores that people drive to.
OK. I walk to several supermarkets served by daily semi-trailers. I
see them drive past my house from a central distribution wharehouse
out in the outer suburbs near the railway marshalling yards where much
produce and goods are imported from other states.
Post by jpatti
The town nearest me has *no* public transport at all within the town.
Yes, I've heard of that. What a terribly flagrant waste of energy
resources. I live close to two railway stations with airconditioned
electric trains every 15 minutes to where I want to go . And almost at
my door are busstops for other destinations. Way to go. Cheap.
Post by jpatti
You *can* get a bus there... to another town. There's two cabs.
Everyone drives - or walks. There's no other choice.
Sad. Are you sure it is the same all over the States?
Nope. I'm sure it's like this in many places I've lived though.

I live in the country now, 4 miles from town, in PA. There'd be no way
for there to be public transport to here efficiently cause we're too
spread out here.

I used to live in a suburb of Philadelphia. For a while, I worked in
that town and walkd to work. I could get most shopping down by walking.
There were buses that ran along the main routes of that town and
others, but there was limited usefulness unless you were going exactly
where the routes went. Most of each town was several miles from the bus
roues and they didn't run very regularly. When our main grocery store
in town shut down, I had to use my car to shop.

I later got a job in another town, in another state, and it was an hour
drive to get there. Theoretically, I could've done this on public
transportation, but realistically, the trip would take 6 hours each way
cause of switching from one train to another bus, etc.

When I lived in suburban NJ, public transport was the sanest way to get
to NYC. But it was the stupidest way to get anywhere in NJ for similar
reasons as above... it could take hours and hours to get somewhere that
would be a 20 minute drive in a car.

Living in MA was similar, it made sense to take public transport to
Boston and getting around within Boston, but local public transportation
in Lowell was inconvenient (as described above) and in Wakefield was
non-existent. On the other hand, it wasn't very needed in Wakefield...
you could get around the whole town in 10 minutes on a bike.

In Florida, there was useful transportation in downtown St. Petersburg
and Tampa, but you'd have to both live and work in those areas to find
that useful and most people didn't.

Public transport makes sense where there's a lot of people, but most of
this country is pretty sparsely populated.

And all the places I personally want to live in are *very* sparsely
populated... unless you count cows. Cows don't drive much though. ;)
Post by Moosh:)
And your selection must be terribly limited.
We get a huge variety of fruit, dairy and meat from hundreds or
thousands of miles away.
I find a larger selection of fresh produce from the CSA than from the
major grocery chains. I *am* discussing buying local produce, not
*everything*.

Though I think I began with meats... somehow we morphed into produce in
this thread.

Anyway, grocery stores have lotsa stuff that CSAs do not. For instance,
they have Diet Pepsi and DaVinci syrups, which I cannot buy locally
produced. ;)

I do shop at grocery stores, but rarely for produce.

Most of my whole foods are purchased from local sources. That includes
a variety of meats, fruits, vegetables, grains and honey.

Some stuff cannot be produced locally, so I don't buy it locally.
There's coffee, some spices, baking powder, baking soda and a few
mass-produced products like soda and DaVinci syrups (which I could
probably live without).
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
On the SUV thing... well, frankly, the sort of people who'd *care*
about animals being raised humanely and *care* about topsoil not being
depleted wouldn't be likely to be driving SUVs in the first place. So
they probably aren't the audience for my post.
But other than public transport is surely very energy wasteful.
Nevertheless, our discussion is not to do with your or my individual
circumstances, but the overall principle.
The overall principle originally was... if you choose to reduce the
cruelty inflicted on animals in producing food for yourself, there are
choices beyond being vegetarian.

Reduced fossil fuel usage buying lettuce grown across the country is
just a side-benefit of CSA buying.

I don't quite "get" what your objection is to buying from a CSA, but
whatever.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
All food animals are mistreated to some extent.
My chickens are not mistreated - unless you count the rooster's
behavior. ;)
And your chickens supply...?
My budgerigar is not mistreated. Supplies nothing except squealing on
the cockatoos who steal my almonds :)
We have over 90 eggs in the fridge right now. Sometimes, instead of
eggs, they produce chickens too. We've got a bunch of them in the freezer.
Post by Moosh:)
You do to feed millions at reasonable cost. Sorry, them's the facts.
Everyone can't live like you, I'm afraid.
Well, no... you don't. The "unreasonable" cost is about certification,
not about practices. My chickens live in a coop made out of pallets.
Factory farms do not raise chickens cheaper than I do!

CSAs that raise chickens and/or eggs don't need to raise each animal in
a cage with no room to move to make profits at reasonable costs. They
save costs on transporation and cutting out corporate profits, so can
provide eggs cheaper than so-called "organic" crap in the stores (which
is just more factory farming).

My local CSA sells eggs for the same price as regular eggs at the
grocery, which is significantly less than the cost of "organic" eggs.
Post by Moosh:)
So what population in USA could survive on hunting?
A majority of the rural population in some states gets all their meat
from hunting.

Hunting is unlikely to be a complete solution. My point was it's a
source of meat that does not involve human-inflicted cruelty on animals.

Family farms marketing through CSAs is another.

Raising your own is another.

You don't *have* to support human cruelty to animals *or* be vegetarian.
There are other choices.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Cause whether nature cares about cruelty or not, *I* do.
Well I see you only concerned with cruelty that you perceive as due to
your own needs or actions.
No. I'm concerned overall. But realistically what I can most effect is
what I do.

Some things I can change and some I can't. I spend more energy on those
I can cause it's the practical thing to do.
Post by Moosh:)
Only in rare examples by farmers heading into bankrupcy.
And feedlots.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Mass-produced animals are not fed diets healthy for
either the animal nor for the human who will eat them.
Nonsense. It is only a problem for overfed humans. Otherwise it is a
perfect diet for the animal.
Post by jpatti
As an example, cattle are not intended to eat the amounts of grain fed
into them in feedlots...
Who said? What possible problems does it cause? The animals enjoy it
as far as we know.
Fat in muscles is not healthy.

Children enjoy candy too, but that is not an argument for feeding them a
diet exclusively consisting of it.
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
cattle thrive best on a diet of consisting
primarily of grasses.
Who says? If that's all they can get.
I think you're just being belligerent now. Go Google it, d00d.

I also think you're confusing me with a certain type of PETA-nutcase.

This issue always brings out the *extremists* - somehow one has to be
for the human right to outright torture animals nonsensically or for
animal rights over people's rights. The extremes are both stupid.

I'm *for* good food raised well and minimizing cruelty unless it's
actually necessary. I like people better than animals., but I like
animals too.

For me, personally, corporate profits over the benefits of consumers,
animals, employees and shareholders does not qualify as "actually
necessary."

YMMV.
Post by Moosh:)
They grow the meat that the market demand. The Japanese market demands
marbled beef. They pay top prices for it.
And it's unhealthy stuff. Having more saturated fat in the animal is
not better for the animal nor for those who eat it.
Post by Moosh:)
Not here it isn't. I believe we have no or very few feedlots, but have
you got any evidence that feedlot nutrition is unhealthy for the
beast? They wouldn't do it if it was.
Yes they would. You stated so right up there. "Market forces" override
both human and animal health.

I think I'm tired of the silliness in this thread... only so much
Googling I want to do in a day. You're just being belligerent, which I
expect is due to thinking of me as some kind of PETA nutcase.
Moosh:)
2004-04-10 09:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Ummm... yup. My eggs are much better-tasting than mass-produced
stuff.
And mine are better tasting than yours....
Possibly, though it'd be hard to say since you haven't eaten ours.
Well I've eaten a wide variety of eggs. Home grown duck eggs and my
brother's free-range at times. All the same to me, sorry.
Post by Jackie Patti
I have eaten mass-produced eggs though, for 4 decades. The home-grown
variety tastes way better. I don't think it has to do with the brown
vs. white shells, or the variety of chicken, though those may impact. I
suspect it's primarily the chicken's diet as the egg yolks look so much
brighter and darker, which I understand is related to the amount of
greens in their diet.
What do you feed your chickens?
I haven't got any chooks.
But my brother feeds his commercial feed.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
So are my tomatoes.
Vine ripened? What variety?
Brandywines. They are *awesome*.
I also grow Debaros for sauce/paste/canning. But nothing has come close
to the Brandywines for fresh eating. They're incredible.
I daresay I'd like them if they are strong tasting, but many folk
don't like this.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Growing stuff yourself or buying stuff grown locally means varities
can be chosen based on *taste* rather than on how well they keep while
being transported across country.
Agreed, but if you like the taste, there is no difference in
nutrition.
Course there's differences in nutrition in different varities. Heck,
some varities have been bred specifically for nutritional differences.
For instance?
Post by Jackie Patti
There's also differences depending on if they're vine-ripened or not.
Only on acid/sugar content. But nutritionally, there are some better
and some worse. They're all pretty good, on average.
Post by Jackie Patti
And for me nutrition isn't the whole thing, better taste = better food.
Not necessarily connected.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
It also means they can be harvested
when ripe rather than prematurely... so much yummier.
Can be. My wife doen't like vine ripened, too strong tasting.
Go figure
Different strokes and all.
Yep.
Post by Jackie Patti
My husband doesn't care for Brandywines either. On the other hand, he's
not big on tomatoes at all until they've been ketchuped or sauced.
I eat tomatoes several time per day every day in some form.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Factory farms that tranport tomatoes for several days to grocery
stores cannot grow Brandywine tomatoes, because they do not ripen well
if picked immaturely and go bad rapidly. And they also taste better
than *any* of the hybrids popular with mass producers. You *can't*
buy that at a store.
You can at mine. Sometimes even cheaper, depending on season and
weather. But then taste is very subjective and variable.
Your major grocery stores carry local produce?
Yep, or from thousands of miles away. Huge variety.
Post by Jackie Patti
That's rare here. Some
of our smaller one-off stores do, but the major chains don't.
Ours use it as a big marketing feature, so I suppose competition and
keeping up with the opposition drives ours. Shows it can be done
though.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
I just saw a
TV experiment on this very subject. They had two growers. One a
specialist "organic" vine ripened, and a commercial "factory"...
They cut up a few specimens from each and labelled them A and B.
The specialist chose the wrong one. Some of his pickers got it right
and some got it wrong. Proves nothing, but interesting.
Some restaurants put cheap cask wine in expensive bottles, and the
toffee-nosed, wine-expert customers can't tell the difference.
Heh.
I dunno though. We've gotten kind of spoiled with home-grown,
home-cooked foods. One of the major downsides is that going out to eat
kinda sucks now. Nothing is as good as it is at home, most food bought
out tastes mediocre at best. I kind of *miss* being able to enjoy going
out to eat - now it's just somehting that happens cause we're traveling
or like recently, when we spent 2 days in ERs due to a family crisis.
Hard to say whether that's about home-grown food or about home-cooked
food though. Just... everything tastes so the *same* when we eat out.
Probably getting that way here, but I hardly ever eat out, so I'm no
judge.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Vegetables grown in composted manure and humus-enriched soils have
better nutrient profiles than those grown with petroleum-based
fertilizers too - and it *adds* topsoil rather than depleting it.
Total misunderstanding.
Organic soil cannot be amended with non-organic manure and compost.
Conventional soil can be ammended with any compost or manure. The
convential soils are replenished for the "used-up" nutrients which
have been exported off the soil with the crop.
All good farmers ammend soils with organic matter. This is NOT the
sole province of "organic" farmers.They didn't invent this like they
try to claim.
We're arguing over terms, not reality. In the states, "organic" means
something entirely stupid, frankly. It's got to do with producing gobs
of paperwork and other stupidity. Genetically-altered foods here can be
considered "organic." Most labeled organic food is produced by factory
farms.
Do you regard any large efficient farm as a factory farm?
BTW, there's no logical reason why genetically altered foods can't be
organic. We've been genetically altering plants for at least 10,000
years. Organic growing accepts Bt for pest control, and that's been
genetically engineered.
Post by Jackie Patti
All *good* farmers amend with organic matter, true. But... large
factory farms here do not do so. They also produce the majority of the
food Americans eat.
Sorry, I don't believe that. Have you seen analyses of their soild for
organic matter? There are many subtle ways to keep OM up to standard.
Post by Jackie Patti
I'm a chemist so "organic" has a different meaning entirely. ;)
Yes, I object to the bastardisation of a perfectly good word for a
rather vague and often mystical practice.
Post by Jackie Patti
"Good" farmers are what you can find buying from most CSAs... many do
not bother with the expense and stupidity of getting organic
certification, but practice good farming regardless.
That's fine.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Ummm, who pays for transport to the city? The wholesaler pays the
farmer. Commercial distribution systems are much more efficient wrt
ton.miles per litre of diesel fuel.
There are several local CSAs I'm familair with. The one I like
transports the food themselves in a pickup truck.
Big turnover? :)
Post by Jackie Patti
Since they are only
10 miles outside of town, this is not a big deal. That's the point of
buying *locally* - besides getting ripe, in-season produce.
And how would you suggest NYC, London and other large cities do this?
How many million pickup trucks?
Post by Jackie Patti
The grocery stores here import food from national distribution centers.
They sell lettuce from Florida.
There's no contest in terms of the fossil fuels used... at least the way
it works here.
Here being a small town? Sorry, but you have to up the scale and
efficiency somewhat to feed the rest of the world.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Possibly. And many non-families too. Really depends on your
viewpoint.
What are "non-families"?
Do you mean shareholders? Are they not members of families?
No, I mean legal "persons" whom are not members of families.
Corporations are not actual people, regardless of US laws.
But corporations don't have incomes as such. They disburse it to
families -- shareholders, and so on.
Post by Jackie Patti
Can't say how it works there, but here corporate profits do not
necessarily get paid to shareholders. In fact, the vast majority of
time, they do not.
So where do they go? Where do corporations get their capital from? I
thought you had a big stock exchange over there :)
Post by Jackie Patti
I think... you and I are talking differences that may be based on our
locations.
Perhaps.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
The local hardware store supports several families at middle-class
levels. The newly opened Lowe's supports more families at
minimum-wage. I prefer the hardware store.
So the "more families" can starve? Do you not prefer cheap hardware?
Or would you rather pay the store for inefficient practices?
Super-chains do not support families. In this country, they provide
"jobs" without benefits and at payrates that do not support even a
single person living in a one-bedroom apartment, let alone a family.
That's the "free enterprise" system. Maybe you need a bit of
unionisation :)
Post by Jackie Patti
At
best, they provide teenagers with spending money, but they do not
support families.
Sorry, I don't believe you. You have a minimum wage there I believe?
One salary might not support fully a family of five, but who said
fully supported?
Post by Jackie Patti
I'd rather pay the store where the guy's sold hardware for decades. If
not for such stores, I'd have never learned anything.
That's fine, so for all that money you spend, you get goods and an
education. I don't need an education (in that area) and so go
where they will sell me the goods only at the cheapest price.
Post by Jackie Patti
The minimum-wage
folks at Lowes don't know anything, can't advise me, can't teach me.
Local stores have explained stuf to me since I was in my first apartment
unable to figure out how to get the curtain rods to stay up all the way
to today where I need to figure out more complex stuff about building my
own home. I get *more* for my money, thus better value, buying from
locally-owned businesses.
Yep, see above.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
No farming is sustainable, just "as-efficient (in all respects) as it
possibly can be".
Before I get "into" this with you... why don't you define "sustainable"
so I know what we're talking about. Maybe it'll turn out I agree with
you anyways once I know how you're defining it.
Able to be carried on forever without a downside to any other area of
the planet.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
The point is to buy from someone locally.
Why? How do you do this in down town NYC? London?
Tokyo? Rio?
There are CSAs in NYC. NYC happens to be located in the middle of a
state full of farmland.
And some of it is hundreds of miles from NYC IIRC. What proportion of
NYC is supplied by CSAs?
I remember a chap telling me he keeps himself supplied from his London
allotment, but that can't work for any more than a few thousand.
Post by Jackie Patti
Can't speak for elsewhere... haven't been to any other countries except
Canada.
I've been to lots -- on the telly :)
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Well labelling is pretty accurate in Australia, but I agree with the
"organic" myth.
Post by jpatti
"Free-range" chickens may have barely more space to move than caged
chickens in many cases.
Yep, it is worrisome, but if we knew everything that happend to our
produce, we'd likely starve.
I *do* know! I grow my own. And I buy from farmers I know.
And no other source? But seriously. Your personal system sounds great,
and ideally would be wonderful for the rest of the world,
unfortunately, practically....
Post by Jackie Patti
And I used to be a chemist, so I know how Diet Pepsi is made too. ;)
What's the problem here?
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
It *does* have to do with sustainable practices, which are more often
used on family-farms runnins CSAs than on factory farms.
And who told you this? Most family farms are run by well-meaning
amateurs. "Factory" farms are run by professionals.
In the US, factory farms are run by corporations whom hire unskilled
labor to raise food.
Managed by professionals
Post by Jackie Patti
My landlord raises cattle on a farm that has been in his family since
the 1800s. He knows quite a bit more than most employees of factory farms.
The employees don't have to know much, just do as they are told by the
professional managers.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Cert seainly not
on *all* of them, but... if you buy your food fom the farm, you can
know... which you can't when you buy it at a grocery store.
Know what, exactly?
How it's raised.
You study the vet reports and soil analyses?
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
We don't *have* central locations served by public transport in the
states. What we have is semi-trucks that transport produce to
distribution points, then from distribution points across the country
to a town to numerous grocery stores that people drive to.
OK. I walk to several supermarkets served by daily semi-trailers. I
see them drive past my house from a central distribution wharehouse
out in the outer suburbs near the railway marshalling yards where much
produce and goods are imported from other states.
Post by jpatti
The town nearest me has *no* public transport at all within the town.
Yes, I've heard of that. What a terribly flagrant waste of energy
resources. I live close to two railway stations with airconditioned
electric trains every 15 minutes to where I want to go . And almost at
my door are busstops for other destinations. Way to go. Cheap.
Post by jpatti
You *can* get a bus there... to another town. There's two cabs.
Everyone drives - or walks. There's no other choice.
Sad. Are you sure it is the same all over the States?
Nope. I'm sure it's like this in many places I've lived though.
I live in the country now, 4 miles from town, in PA. There'd be no way
for there to be public transport to here efficiently cause we're too
spread out here.
Yep.
Post by Jackie Patti
I used to live in a suburb of Philadelphia. For a while, I worked in
that town and walkd to work. I could get most shopping down by walking.
There were buses that ran along the main routes of that town and
others, but there was limited usefulness unless you were going exactly
where the routes went. Most of each town was several miles from the bus
roues and they didn't run very regularly. When our main grocery store
in town shut down, I had to use my car to shop.
I later got a job in another town, in another state, and it was an hour
drive to get there. Theoretically, I could've done this on public
transportation, but realistically, the trip would take 6 hours each way
cause of switching from one train to another bus, etc.
When I lived in suburban NJ, public transport was the sanest way to get
to NYC. But it was the stupidest way to get anywhere in NJ for similar
reasons as above... it could take hours and hours to get somewhere that
would be a 20 minute drive in a car.
Living in MA was similar, it made sense to take public transport to
Boston and getting around within Boston, but local public transportation
in Lowell was inconvenient (as described above) and in Wakefield was
non-existent. On the other hand, it wasn't very needed in Wakefield...
you could get around the whole town in 10 minutes on a bike.
In Florida, there was useful transportation in downtown St. Petersburg
and Tampa, but you'd have to both live and work in those areas to find
that useful and most people didn't.
Public transport makes sense where there's a lot of people, but most of
this country is pretty sparsely populated.
And all the places I personally want to live in are *very* sparsely
populated... unless you count cows. Cows don't drive much though. ;)
Yep, my bil lived in NH for 20 years and claimed (bragged) that they
has NO public transport.
I must be incredibly lucky to live in Perth. An even better city is
Vienna so I believe. It is the way of the future and the way to get
off the Middle East oil addiction. We have had governments close down
railways here, and are screaming about a new one being built now. The
ones they closed down are now very popular and whizz past all the
clogged up traffic on the roads. Way to go. Light rail down the middle
of the freeways. I live 40 km from my daughter and trains every 15
minutes will take me there in 20 minutes for a couple of bucks.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
And your selection must be terribly limited.
We get a huge variety of fruit, dairy and meat from hundreds or
thousands of miles away.
I find a larger selection of fresh produce from the CSA than from the
major grocery chains. I *am* discussing buying local produce, not
*everything*.
Our local Woolworths or Coles supermarkets carry a very wide variety
of fresh produce coming from the closest farms to the other side of
the country or even nearby countries. It is done quite efficiently and
reliably. If this doesn't happen in your town, I wonder why not and
contend that this would be quite unusual.
Post by Jackie Patti
Though I think I began with meats... somehow we morphed into produce in
this thread.
Yep. We don't really have feedlots here (not needed I assume) but we
still have much unavoidable animal cruelty.
Are sheep mulesed where you are? They have to be here, by law, I
believe.
Post by Jackie Patti
Anyway, grocery stores have lotsa stuff that CSAs do not. For instance,
they have Diet Pepsi and DaVinci syrups, which I cannot buy locally
produced. ;)
I avoid both of these, but our supermarkets sell much more than
available in any CSA. No farm is allowed to sell meat anyway. It must
be processed in a certified abbatoir.
Post by Jackie Patti
I do shop at grocery stores, but rarely for produce.
I would have to travel many miles for a CSA. My daughter lives near
one and occasionally get a bargain there, but still shops at
supermarkets and she is one careful shopper.
Post by Jackie Patti
Most of my whole foods are purchased from local sources. That includes
a variety of meats, fruits, vegetables, grains and honey.
Who slaughters her meat?
Gee, local fruits are often very limited at times. A supermarket can
offer a huge variety of many locally out-of-season fruits all year
round. Tropical and cold climate fruits sometimes efficiently
transported for thousands of miles.
Post by Jackie Patti
Some stuff cannot be produced locally,
Most, in my experience here, but YMMV
Post by Jackie Patti
so I don't buy it locally.
There's coffee, some spices, baking powder, baking soda and a few
mass-produced products like soda and DaVinci syrups (which I could
probably live without).
I don't know where you are, but what about bananas, pineapples stone
fruits out of season, apple varieties, citrus and so on?
Can you buy a durian where you are? I can :)
Don't you import bananas from South America?
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
On the SUV thing... well, frankly, the sort of people who'd *care*
about animals being raised humanely and *care* about topsoil not being
depleted wouldn't be likely to be driving SUVs in the first place. So
they probably aren't the audience for my post.
But other than public transport is surely very energy wasteful.
Nevertheless, our discussion is not to do with your or my individual
circumstances, but the overall principle.
The overall principle originally was... if you choose to reduce the
cruelty inflicted on animals in producing food for yourself, there are
choices beyond being vegetarian.
My original contention was that feeding huge urban populations MUST
involve much animal cruelty.
Post by Jackie Patti
Reduced fossil fuel usage buying lettuce grown across the country is
just a side-benefit of CSA buying.
Driving millions of small inefficient vehicles many miles instead of a
large train or a fleet of efficient, well-maintained diesel trucks.
Post by Jackie Patti
I don't quite "get" what your objection is to buying from a CSA, but
whatever.
It's impractial for supplying large populations reliably and cheaply,
and uses way too much fossil fuel.
Otherwise it's fine.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
All food animals are mistreated to some extent.
My chickens are not mistreated - unless you count the rooster's
behavior. ;)
And your chickens supply...?
My budgerigar is not mistreated. Supplies nothing except squealing on
the cockatoos who steal my almonds :)
We have over 90 eggs in the fridge right now. Sometimes, instead of
eggs, they produce chickens too. We've got a bunch of them in the freezer.
My brother does the same, living on a semirural five acres, but I
can't do this, living on a tiny plot of land in the centre of a city
of over 1,000,000. I contend that only a tiny proportion of folks here
could do anything like what you describe. I wish I could, but if most
people here did, the city would spread over most of our vast state
with transport problems that overwhelmed our food production problems.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
You do to feed millions at reasonable cost. Sorry, them's the facts.
Everyone can't live like you, I'm afraid.
Well, no... you don't. The "unreasonable" cost is about certification,
not about practices. My chickens live in a coop made out of pallets.
Factory farms do not raise chickens cheaper than I do!
The certainly do, if your family's labour is costed into the price of
your eggs.
Post by Jackie Patti
CSAs that raise chickens and/or eggs don't need to raise each animal in
a cage with no room to move to make profits at reasonable costs. They
save costs on transporation
But then the consumer pays for the transport, and it is inefficient
and contributes to your scandalous fossil fuel usage.
They also can't compete equally on cost with large efficient factory
production and distribution methods.
The share dividends given to shareholders of all the required
infrastructure needed for this efficient distribution and sale of
reasonably priced eggs is itself at the mercy of market forces at the
stock exchange. There really is no other way to do it. Small
"boutique" egg farms are fine for those who want to pay a premium, but
are totally impractial for large populations.
Now if we could severely cull the human population....
Post by Jackie Patti
and cutting out corporate profits,
Profits to shareholders investing their capital for retirement or to
live on?
Post by Jackie Patti
so can
provide eggs cheaper than so-called "organic" crap in the stores (which
is just more factory farming).
Nope, see above. Big organisations are needed to suply big populations
efficiently.
Post by Jackie Patti
My local CSA sells eggs for the same price as regular eggs at the
grocery, which is significantly less than the cost of "organic" eggs.
But it is dangerous (unsafe in a legal sense) to extrapolate from a
small unusual example to the general.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
So what population in USA could survive on hunting?
A majority of the rural population in some states gets all their meat
from hunting.
Which is what proportion of the total populatio of the USA, an unusual
country in the world.
Post by Jackie Patti
Hunting is unlikely to be a complete solution. My point was it's a
source of meat that does not involve human-inflicted cruelty on animals.
But as it can't supply any but a tiny proportion of the population, it
really solves no problems, does it.
Post by Jackie Patti
Family farms marketing through CSAs is another.
And again, a tiny proportion of the population.
Post by Jackie Patti
Raising your own is another.
Totally impractial for most.
Post by Jackie Patti
You don't *have* to support human cruelty to animals *or* be vegetarian.
There are other choices.
A tiny number of folk hunting "farmed -- managed" flocks of "wild"
animals and a small amount of grow your own is not going to make a
tiny dent in the problem of animal raising for large urban
populations. I just saw a doco about Australian sheep exported to your
friends, Kuwait. The individuals buying a sheep or two for their own
family slaughter, butchering and eating was appalling. Our cruelty
pales into insignificance.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Cause whether nature cares about cruelty or not, *I* do.
Well I see you only concerned with cruelty that you perceive as due to
your own needs or actions.
No. I'm concerned overall. But realistically what I can most effect is
what I do.
Yep. Most of us do what we can. I'm unhappy with battery chickens, but
can't do much about it. We have no feedlots here, but I'm not too
happy about animal transport, but again see little available for me to
do effectively. Not eating meat is cutting off my nose to spite my
face, as it were.
Post by Jackie Patti
Some things I can change and some I can't. I spend more energy on those
I can cause it's the practical thing to do.
Post by Moosh:)
Only in rare examples by farmers heading into bankrupcy.
And feedlots.
Are they headeing into bankruptcy? I wouldn't know.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
Mass-produced animals are not fed diets healthy for
either the animal nor for the human who will eat them.
Nonsense. It is only a problem for overfed humans. Otherwise it is a
perfect diet for the animal.
Post by jpatti
As an example, cattle are not intended to eat the amounts of grain fed
into them in feedlots...
Who said? What possible problems does it cause? The animals enjoy it
as far as we know.
Fat in muscles is not healthy.
In animals? Please tell what problems it causes the animals.
Post by Jackie Patti
Children enjoy candy too, but that is not an argument for feeding them a
diet exclusively consisting of it.
But where are cattle fed a non-balanced diet?
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Post by jpatti
cattle thrive best on a diet of consisting
primarily of grasses.
Who says? If that's all they can get.
I think you're just being belligerent now. Go Google it, d00d.
Google what? You made the claim that "cattle thrive best on a diet of
consisting primarily of grasses."
If you can't justify it, then we will just forget it and move on. I
have not heard this despite many years of interest in this area.
Post by Jackie Patti
I also think you're confusing me with a certain type of PETA-nutcase.
Not at all. I am merely commenting on what you say here. Nothing else.
I know nothing (nor assume nothing) about you other than what you have
written in this thread.
Post by Jackie Patti
This issue always brings out the *extremists* - somehow one has to be
for the human right to outright torture animals nonsensically or for
animal rights over people's rights. The extremes are both stupid.
I agree. I'm just stating commercial reality, and commenting on what
you say here.
Post by Jackie Patti
I'm *for* good food raised well and minimizing cruelty unless it's
actually necessary. I like people better than animals., but I like
animals too.
That could equally well be said about me.
Post by Jackie Patti
For me, personally, corporate profits over the benefits of consumers,
animals, employees and shareholders does not qualify as "actually
necessary."
All businss has profit motive above anything else, otherwise, they go
out of business, involuntarily. These are the facts of life sorry.
Of course, if the society is organised on other than a free-market
regime, that may not be the case.
Post by Jackie Patti
YMMV.
Post by Moosh:)
They grow the meat that the market demand. The Japanese market demands
marbled beef. They pay top prices for it.
And it's unhealthy stuff. Having more saturated fat in the animal is
not better for the animal nor for those who eat it.
I can agree to those who may eat too much of the animal and too much
of the fat, but please show me any scientific evidence that it is
unhealthy for the animal. I've never heard of this despite an interest
in the area.
Post by Jackie Patti
Post by Moosh:)
Not here it isn't. I believe we have no or very few feedlots, but have
you got any evidence that feedlot nutrition is unhealthy for the
beast? They wouldn't do it if it was.
Yes they would. You stated so right up there. "Market forces" override
both human and animal health.
Can do, but not in this instance which I'm interested in, but if you
have just claimed that feed lot nutrition is unhealthy for animals,
off the top of your head....
Post by Jackie Patti
I think I'm tired of the silliness in this thread... only so much
Googling I want to do in a day. You're just being belligerent, which I
expect is due to thinking of me as some kind of PETA nutcase.
Not at all. I disagree with some of the things you put. If you're
tired, then you should participate no further.

Moosh:)
2004-04-02 00:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Bush got the job done!
What job was that? Bankrupting the economy?
I am canadian and we don't understand why someone can vote for Bush....
Are you an extremist religious, a crazy terrorist?
That's because Canada is more of a socialist country.
Bush is not a theocrat. His War on Terror has removed threats in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and has shown others that we mean business.
-Rubystars
Moosh:)
2004-04-02 00:42:53 UTC
Permalink
I am canadian and we don't understand why someone can vote for Bush....
Are you an extremist religious, a crazy terrorist?
That's because Canada is more of a socialist country.
Bush is not a theocrat.
So that slip in the beginning when he talked about a "crusade" was
Freudian?
His War on Terror has removed threats in
Afghanistan,
Which were? Ask the Spaniards. What about Saudi?
Hey, things are arguably far worse in Afghanistan today than prior to
911.
Iraq,
Don't make me laugh!!! What threats?
and Libya,
Lybia has seen the passing gravy train.
and has shown others that we mean business.
Shown the world that America is the same greedy bully it has been for
60 years?
Moosh:)
2004-04-02 00:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Not my experience. What would they need antibiotics for?
BTW, sick animals must be treated by a vet by law in Australia.
What a load of bullshit. If the nearest vet is 200 kilometres away and
the "sick animal" is a five year old ewe, it isn't going to meet the
vet. What it will get if its not something easily fixed is a bullet
and a cremation on a pile of old wood.
I thought we were talking about intensively farmed animals. Dairy
herds and feedlots.
Of course broad-acre farmed animals get humanely dispatched, (if they
are even discovered before they die). But then they don't get routine
antibiotic-like growth promotants either.
No farming is without a lot of animal suffering. Have a look at the
practice of mulesing sheep. Makes yer eyes water. I've seeen farmers
castrate lambs with their teeth.
Organic dairy and other intensively farmed animals must be treated by
a vet with whatever antibiotics are needed for their perceived
well-being. (In Australia)
Moosh:)
2004-04-03 01:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Saddam Hussein was a separate, but tangential, issue in the war on terror.
Is that waffle for he had NO connection with terrorism?
He
was in flagrant violation of 18 UN Security Council resolutions starting in 1991
and following over a 12 year period. He violated the terms of the ceasefire
which he signed in 1991. That alone was grounds for resuming war against his regime.
Huh? So because Iraq was in breach of some UN resolutions (like US and
Israel) it was the US right to invade this sovereighn country which
had no connection at all with terrorism? Pull the other one...
As for a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda, read the background briefing given
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
Iraq or Saddam are NOT even mentioned in this article!
Additionally, consider the presence of an al-Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
So now the Northern Iraqi Kurds are Saddam's friends? Give us a break!
Finally, Saddam did have direct roles in fostering terror. He paid blood money
to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
And the West pays "blood money" to war victims all over the world? Get
real.
lieing,
What lies?
Weapons of Mass Destruction?
What lies about WMD?
The main reason Iraq was invaded. Remember? 45 miutes to deploy?
Funny that Condy Rice and another high official said in around 2001
that Iraq had NO WMD, coz we (US) had prevented them from developing
any. I have heard/seen BOTH actually say these words.
Every nation in the Security Council agreed in Resolution
1441 that Saddam had failed to account for WMD.
So? That's not a declaration of war as far as I know.
The intelligence we had didn't
show convincing evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD.
So why did Condy Rice and others categorically claim he had NO WMD?
That's not deceit --
though it is a failure or limitation of our intelligence capabilities under
those circumstances (i.e., having been out of Iraq for over four years without
any follow up regime to verify or find WMD).
Are you really that naive? Wanna buy a bridge?
Yeah, right. His service record?
What has he lied about with respect to his service record?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
Who cares. The bum wasn't even democratically elected.
Most Americans who bothered to vote did NOT vote for Bush.
anti-democratic,
I seem to recall that the regime established in Afghanistan was
democratically-elected. I also seem to recall that the same is in process in
Iraq. If you're so concerned about democracy -- or the lack of it -- you
should've supported the end of Saddam's tyranny in Iraq. Most Iraqis are glad to
see him go.
He didn't exactly follow the democratic processes in view of the
Florida vote,
He did. There was an election. He participated in it. He won.
Nope, are you really that blinkered?
The whole world knows but you, apparently.
as well as several other states, did he?
Which "several other states"?
Have you forgotten the hanging chad controversy.
No, who could forget the Democrats' silly challenge to every fucking recount of
the vote?
Takes two to challenge. Remember his bro was in charge of Florida.
Too bad for your side that Florida law clearly spelled out
qualifications for voters and how votes were to be counted. Every news agency --
most all of them liberal and pro-Gore -- were there for the recounts even after
the Supreme Court put an end to Team Gore's silliness and they all concluded
that George Bush won Florida fair and square.
Not all the votes were counted
were they?
Yes, they were. Many times over. In the end, Bush won fair and square.
In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended,
The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have
widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to
continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled
"undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not
punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
He sure was quick to pull the plug on any effort to do a
fair and thorough recount, didn't he?
The plug wasn't pulled quickly, numbnuts. If you want to talk fair and thorough,
why did Team Gore only focus on a handful of heavily Democrat counties rather
than the entire state as the Bush campaign offered? Why did Team Gore seek to
avoid recounting military absentee ballots in Florida?
Hardly democratic minded.
You sure aren't. Our nation voted, Bush won, and you refuse to acknowledge the
result. It also makes you a whiner.
Good artgument. That's roughly how Bush stole the election, isn't it?
election-stealing,
Wrong. Every recount by every news agency showed Bush won Florida fair and square.
Bwah haaaaa haaaaaa....
Sure they were.
See above, and try not to hold your teddy bear too tight.
hypocritic-military-service-dodging,
What's hypocritical about his volunteering for the Reserves? Do you realize that
his MOS -- fighter pilot -- was one that was most likely to be called, even on a
faster track for deployment in Vietnam than regular service personnel?
BS and you know it.
The Air Guard flew ~30,000 sorties and over 50,000 combat hours in SE Asia
during our time in Vietnam. More than 340,000 Reservists served during the
Vietnam War, and almost 6,000 were killed in Vietnam.
Read these, hoser.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/mckinley.pdf
http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/sidebar600.asp
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/news/dquarterly/summer01/true_patriots.htm
Are these like your pathetic links above? Mind if I don't bother?
v
2004-04-08 17:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Their suffering is doing me a lot of good because I can enjoy
eating their corpses... Much better than chewing some tasteless
potatoes.
If we weren't supposed to eat them, why did nature make them taste
like
meat?
Coff
Humans are made of meat too.
-Rubystars
your a cannibal?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...