Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a supermarket for
birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide enough
calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging, which
we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not eat a lot
of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form of worms
and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the supermarket
shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough calories.
Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would tend to make
meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around you,
there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution has
locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we can't
process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal which has
processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe them out

george conklin wrote:
"bill" wrote in message
I can tell you since I worked one whole day at a chicken processing plant
for KFC when I went to Arkansas to visit my dad. The high school kids who
work there grab the chickens out of the cage by the neck and twirl them to
break their necks. Now comes the good part. Somewhere in the past one of
them discovered that if you squeeze the **** out of a dead chicken, well,
you really can squeeze the **** out of a dead chicken, about a 15 - 20
foot squirt. They actually came to break covered in....you guessed it,
chicken ****, because they had chicken **** fights with the dead birds.
Now go to KFC and buy some chicken that has been processed by this
wonderfully sanitary plant.
Yuck.
Bill Baka


I'd believe this crap, except that my father-in-law processed several
thousand birds per day in his plant and then marketed them to small
restaurants. There was nothing like this there. Further, my wife can but
up a chicken to this day in seconds, and so can can her friends. There is
nothing mysterious about it. It is not unsanitary, unclearn or cruel. Try
working on a family farm 12 hours per day and then getting on the school bus
at 7:30 Am having worked all night. None of the girls resents that to this
day, because they needed the money and it was real work.

Too bad you can't believe this crap because it is true. I was on
vacation from my real job and decided to give Arkansas work a try while
I was there. There, meaning Clarksville, maybe the town that spawned the
song "Last train to Clarksville". As to the high school kids that worked
there, they were always getting in fights at break and lunch time
because half the kids were from Clarksville and half from a neighboring
town with a rival high school football team.
As to sanitation, well, it got better once the birds were de-feathered
and gutted. They went through a cold water tank that did a rapid cool
down on the carcass then got rough cut and deposited on the line where I
worked. 8 hours of grabbing breasts off the line and cutting them in
half with my thumbs barely missing the saw on each pass. I got to
thinking this was pretty dangerous and then noticed that a lot of the
'supervisors' were missing a thumb, all or part thereof. About every 15
minutes a cleanup guy would hose down the floor under our feet thus
washing the blood and guts into a drain under the lines conveyor belt.
As far as real work goes, that one day of play for pay convinced me that
my cushy electronics job wasn't really that bad after all. My hands felt
ready to fall off my wrists after 8 hours of high speed chicken handling.
It kind of reminded me of that "I love Lucy" bit they did with the
chocolate candy line. If we were keeping up the line lead guy would
speed it up just a hair, thinking nobody would notice, and kept trying
that until we started missing a few pieces.
Sure glad I don't actually live in Arkansas.
Bill Baka

Amy Blankenship wrote:
"george conklin" wrote in message
nk.net...

I'd believe this crap, except that my father-in-law processed several
thousand birds per day in his plant and then marketed them to small
restaurants. There was nothing like this there. Further, my wife can but
up a chicken to this day in seconds, and so can can her friends. There is
nothing mysterious about it. It is not unsanitary, unclearn or cruel.
Try working on a family farm 12 hours per day and then getting on the
school bus at 7:30 Am having worked all night. None of the girls resents
that to this day, because they needed the money and it was real work.

I have no issue with chicken processed by small plants. But when you read
the USDA regs and see how many hours they are allowed to take to cool down a
corpse to refrigerator temperature, you can see there's a lot of leeway for
unsanitary conditions.

I do agree that the story is unlikely, because if the chickens are fed
properly their poop comes out more in clumps than streams. Hopefully no one
is submitting birds for processing where the crap would squirt.

Maybe squirt was not the exact way it came out since the kids had more
like what looked like pigeon **** on them in clumps. Like I said they
must have really squeezed the birds. Some of those kids were pretty big
country boys, quite literally. For a time line this was back in 1985.
As for cooling the birds I think it was a brine bath they were cooled in
so the water would actually be less than 32 degrees F.
One day was not enough time to scope out the whole show, but I got a
fair if not complete look at life on the line.
Bill Baka

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a supermarket
for birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide
enough calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging, which
we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not eat a
lot of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form of
worms and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the
supermarket shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough calories.
Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would tend to make
meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around you,
there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution has
locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we
can't process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal which
has processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe them
out


Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to
death. That is not a solution except for death.

george conklin wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a supermarket
for birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide
enough calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging, which
we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not eat a
lot of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form of
worms and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the
supermarket shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough calories.
Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would tend to make
meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around you,
there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution has
locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we
can't process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal which
has processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe them
out


Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to
death. That is not a solution except for death.

I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound.

A couple of points about this discussion.

Frist, food is much safer today than at any time in history. There is
no study that disputes this. Sure there are al osrts of issues with
additives, pesticides, etc. but the negative impacts of these is far
less than the positive efects of refrigeration and rapid
transportatiion to market.

Second, while I will not be trapped into arguing for fried foods and
other choices that are sub optimum the reality is that many of the
dietary problems in modern society as a much related to (non dietary)
life style as to what is consumed. For example, in a study of Eskimo
and Inuit societies it was found that the traditional diet was
extremely high in fat. It has a been a long time since I read the study
so I'm not sure what the exact number was but the tradtional diet had
over 50% of its calories from fat. Yet there was virtually no obesity
nor heart desease nor diabetes. Why? Because in the tradional
lifetstyle these folks perfomred lots of hard, physical, labor in very
low temps and without large amounts of fat in the diet they simply
could not do so.
Obesity and heart desese and diabetes struck these people with the
advent and adoption of the snow mobile. As the amount of physical work
went down drastically without a change in diet bad things began to
happen.
Similar findings have been show in other societies such as the Masai as
well as tribes in the Amazon and South Pacific.

The point is that biologically humans are quite able to eat and
flourish when their diet is linked in a postive way with life style. If
one wants to be sedentary then perhaps the solution is massive caloric
deprivation.

Anyway, poor life style choices far outweigh mass farming as a cause of
human misery.

"george conklin" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a supermarket
for birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide
enough calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging,
which we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not
eat a lot of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form
of worms and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the
supermarket shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough
calories. Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would
tend to make meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around
you, there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution
has locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we
can't process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal which
has processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe them
out


Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to
death. That is not a solution except for death.

Polly want a cracker?

In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:

"bill" wrote in message
. net...

Trans fatty acids? Direct cholesterol intake, I.E. eggs?

Commercial eggs are bad for you, but pastured eggs are high in good
cholesterol and low in bad cholesterol. I've lost about 4 lbs since my hens
started laying.

The eggs you buy in the store come from hens same as the ones from
your barnyard; they're not manufactured products. Nutrient content
varies depending on the feed, but cholesterol content is fairly
constant.

good for an exercise oriented body. The obesity plague is a definite
problem with many people developing diabetes early on.

This is largely because processed starch is more easily converted to sugar
by the body.

The glycemic index of white bread is 100. The glycemic index of wheat
bread is 99. Processing isn't the issue.

In article ,
bill wrote:

future due to the junk food plague and the fact that people actually
think that sitting at a computer all day is *work*. Work is BTU output
actually doing something like our parents did.

Hey, I'm a second generation computer geek. Anyway, if you want to
get strict about it, BTU output is neither necessary nor sufficient
for work.

"gds" wrote in message
oups.com...

george conklin wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is
no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a supermarket
for birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide
enough calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging,
which
we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not eat a
lot of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form of
worms and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the
supermarket shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough
calories.
Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would tend to
make
meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around
you,
there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution
has
locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we
can't process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal which
has processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain
is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe
them
out


Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to
death. That is not a solution except for death.

I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound.

A couple of points about this discussion.

Frist, food is much safer today than at any time in history. There is
no study that disputes this. Sure there are al osrts of issues with
additives, pesticides, etc. but the negative impacts of these is far
less than the positive efects of refrigeration and rapid
transportatiion to market.

Second, while I will not be trapped into arguing for fried foods and
other choices that are sub optimum the reality is that many of the
dietary problems in modern society as a much related to (non dietary)
life style as to what is consumed. For example, in a study of Eskimo
and Inuit societies it was found that the traditional diet was
extremely high in fat. It has a been a long time since I read the study
so I'm not sure what the exact number was but the tradtional diet had
over 50% of its calories from fat. Yet there was virtually no obesity
nor heart desease nor diabetes. Why? Because in the tradional
lifetstyle these folks perfomred lots of hard, physical, labor in very
low temps and without large amounts of fat in the diet they simply
could not do so.
Obesity and heart desese and diabetes struck these people with the
advent and adoption of the snow mobile. As the amount of physical work
went down drastically without a change in diet bad things began to
happen.
Similar findings have been show in other societies such as the Masai as
well as tribes in the Amazon and South Pacific.

The point is that biologically humans are quite able to eat and
flourish when their diet is linked in a postive way with life style. If
one wants to be sedentary then perhaps the solution is massive caloric
deprivation.

Anyway, poor life style choices far outweigh mass farming as a cause of
human misery.


Except that the poor lifestyle we are supposed to live today is
correlated with much longer life expectancy. When the study which showed
that you had to be about 50 lbs overweight before life was shorter was
published, the establishemnt went nuts. They live on a crisis-per-day
syndrome. But yes, you are right that we have safer food today than ever
before. The textbook we use in Human Societies mentions that 75% of the
world would die if we all went back to small-scale farming, so that figure
is established well enough to be a standard exam item.

"george conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"gds" wrote in message
oups.com...

george conklin wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bill" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Cholesterol is both. It harms you when you eat it, and there is
no
dietary necessity to eat it.
Tell that to the hawk that is using my back yard as a
supermarket
for birds and squirrels.

People have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. We
know
that gathering activities by women in tribes could not provide
enough calories to keep people from starving to death.

...In the event that they're spending all their time savenging,
which
we no longer do. And keep in mind that these people did not eat
a
lot of meat, and much of the meat they did eat was in the form of
worms and bugs. Anyone in favor of adding worms and bugs to the
supermarket shelves because we're evolved to eat them? ;-)

Hunting and scavenging meat was required to provide enough
calories.
Our millions of years of evolution as meat eaters would tend to
make
meat eating more than just a simple choice.

We are omnivores, which means we can choose. If you look around
you,
there's no shortage of calories in most developed nations.

Also no shortage of processed food that is now working to shorten
people's lives. We are indeed omnivores but that part of evolution
has
locked us out of being vegetarians in the natural world, since we
can't process grass the same way that cattle do.

That is why we eat animals. They eat grass; we eat the animal
which
has processed the grass for us. Simple.

That is the way it's *supposed* to work. But as you've often
pointed
out, grass is not what most meat animals are fed these days. Grain
is
among the more wholesome things they get.



True Amy. But whan can we do about it? Any ideas?

Support small farms that produce this way instead of trying to wipe
them
out


Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to
death. That is not a solution except for death.

I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound.

A couple of points about this discussion.

Frist, food is much safer today than at any time in history. There is
no study that disputes this. Sure there are al osrts of issues with
additives, pesticides, etc. but the negative impacts of these is far
less than the positive efects of refrigeration and rapid
transportatiion to market.

Second, while I will not be trapped into arguing for fried foods and
other choices that are sub optimum the reality is that many of the
dietary problems in modern society as a much related to (non dietary)
life style as to what is consumed. For example, in a study of Eskimo
and Inuit societies it was found that the traditional diet was
extremely high in fat. It has a been a long time since I read the study
so I'm not sure what the exact number was but the tradtional diet had
over 50% of its calories from fat. Yet there was virtually no obesity
nor heart desease nor diabetes. Why? Because in the tradional
lifetstyle these folks perfomred lots of hard, physical, labor in very
low temps and without large amounts of fat in the diet they simply
could not do so.
Obesity and heart desese and diabetes struck these people with the
advent and adoption of the snow mobile. As the amount of physical work
went down drastically without a change in diet bad things began to
happen.
Similar findings have been show in other societies such as the Masai as
well as tribes in the Amazon and South Pacific.

The point is that biologically humans are quite able to eat and
flourish when their diet is linked in a postive way with life style. If
one wants to be sedentary then perhaps the solution is massive caloric
deprivation.

Anyway, poor life style choices far outweigh mass farming as a cause of
human misery.


Except that the poor lifestyle we are supposed to live today is
correlated with much longer life expectancy. When the study which showed
that you had to be about 50 lbs overweight before life was shorter was
published, the establishemnt went nuts. They live on a crisis-per-day
syndrome. But yes, you are right that we have safer food today than ever
before. The textbook we use in Human Societies mentions that 75% of the
world would die if we all went back to small-scale farming, so that figure
is established well enough to be a standard exam item.

Cool. Make students' grades contingent on swallowing misinformation whole
without questioning it. No wonder you're so invested in believing and
making others believe it's true. Because if it's not, you've miseducated a
*lot* of students, and have written records of that fact.