[meat] humane solutions needed

No need to reiterate and regurgitate the sheer scale of the population growth dilemma. Here are the main culprits in order of births. No need to reiterate and regurgitate the sheer scale of the coming water crisis, also related to world population.

This article concerns itself with another aspect of the population dilemma - food and in particular, meat.

As demand outstripped supply in the last 100 years, it was only logical that debate would be fierce - both pro-meat and anti-meat. Meat-eating has a long history and there is a case for saying that it's difficult for a vegetarian to completely cover the loss of nutrients, e.g. Vitamin B12, entirely through vegetable sources.

There's a case for saying that humans have evolved with meat and that meat is a necessity for growth and nutrition. I used to teach a girl from a vegetarian household and she was always anaemic and sick with something or other. She lacked energy.

Hers was not an isolated case and here are some of the myths of vegetarianism. [At the top of the page is an extremely annoying pop up - just ignore it and below you'll find Myth N1.]

Some vegetarians, realizing the logical impasse they're in, then regard fish as "not really meat", especially shellfish but that's not the main dilemma with meat today. The main dilemma is the inhumane way battery and factory farms operate, designed to cater for the ever burgeoning market.

The Omnivore's Dilemma addressed the entire path of certain foods from source to table and it is not a pretty picture. As we tuck into our steak this evening, let's remember the sight of this cow watching others killed and this goose being force-fed for foie gras.

As the Food and Wine article said:

The terms "grass fed" and "pasture raised"—meaning that an animal was allowed to graze the old-fashioned way instead of being fed an unnatural and difficult-to-digest diet of mostly corn and other grain—have now entered the food-shoppers' lexicon.

Some say leave off the meat altogether and stick to fish. This article from Canadian West is about how far the Blue Fin Tuna travels but along the way, these things are also mentioned:

The catch soared after development of harpoon rifles and hydraulic net lifts in the 1920s. The fishery helped strip the bluefin population from northern European waters in a "relative blink of time." The creatures had virtually disappeared by the 1960s, the researchers report.

Bluefin stocks on the North American side of the Atlantic are at about 10 per cent of their historic levels and are "approaching commercial extinction," says Ron O’Dor of Dalhousie University in Halifax. There is evidence bluefins from the endangered North American stock are crossing the Atlantic and being caught off Europe, where there are much higher quotas than in Canada or the U.S.

So there's clearly a dilemma. Meat is part of the human diet but for reasons of population growth and common humanitarianism, it's best from local producers who have raised the animals naturally or from local fishermen. And what if you're near neither sea nor river? Then maybe you should stick to local livestock and locally produced produce in season.

But you won't and I won't because we've already tasted fish and it's good for our bodies.

Either way the slaughter is not a pleasant thought and I have unpleasant memories myself, from my younger days, of sticking knives into fish's skulls to quickly despatch them, even though we were at sea at the time and every fish killed was eaten.

The way the path from source to table has been smoothed over so the consumer needn't see the messy business involved in the killing or the appalling conditions under which the animals spend their last days has also meant that producers can do as they damned well please and the average consumer will be none the wiser.

And yet I would never advocate vegetarianism - it's unnatural. We are a species, there is a food chain on this planet, we have animals and plants we can eat and those we can't.

If we can get back some control, some humanity shown the poor animal [and plant for that matter - I hate chopping a cabbage in two and I'm sure I can here it scream] via our buying choices, it doesn't solve the problem but it's maybe looking in the right direction.

I'm off now for some tuna and cabbage.

[hindenburg] explosive sausage

Long time since I strafed and quite frankly, it's overdue. What better subject than the conflagration of the Hindenburg, thereby killing two birds with one stone - the strafing aspect and an air disaster which I'm sorry I haven't posted on for over a week now, in deference to Ruthie Zaftig.

It's a fascinating tale when you get into it and I admit that this is virtually a Wiki-summary but it's a good article:

Named after Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), it was a visually striking "ship of the air", at 245 m (804 ft) long and 41 m (135 ft) in diameter, longer than three Boeing 747s placed end-to-end and only 24 m (78 ft) shorter than the Titanic. It was originally equipped with cabins for 50 passengers and a crew complement of 40.

It was originally intended to be filled with helium but the United States, the main world supplier, had imposed a military embargo on helium. Dr. Eckener, the chief designer, expected this ban to be lifted but it wasn't, leading to the modification of the design to use flammable hydrogen - 200,000 m³ of the gas in 16 bags or cells.

It wasn't as dangerous as it sounds. Germany had extensive experience with hydrogen and accidents had never occurred on civil zeppelins.

Summarized story of the disaster is continued here.

[poll result] feeding pigeons

Should we be able to feed the pigeons?

Yes - cruel not to 68%

No - let them starve 19%

At certain times 14%

37 votes total, which is not bad for summer. So, Ken, what do you think of this result? Hello? Ken? Ken? Oh, he's over there cleaning pigeon dos off his livery.

[boris reassessed] a blogger can be wrong

In shape and ready to assume the mantle

Now you've gathered that the thing this blogger dreads above all else is to be labelled a hypocrite and so, when he wrote, insignificantly, here:

Note the Bullingdon eyes. This is one aristocratic Rottweiler of a candidate.

and

There is a deep disrespect for and indifference towards what others hold dear in the Bollinger modus operandi and by extension, in Boris himself,

Tom Paine took exception and opined:

Is it me, or is this post unadulterated snobbery? Your youthful escapades differ only from those of the Bullingdon Club in that the members of the latter paid for the damage.

Tail firmly between hind legs. Why am I railing against a fellow maniac? So when I read Prodicus' thing about Boris and bearing in mind Lady Ellee's appreciation:

The reason I like Boris Johnson is because he is obviously very intelligent (and I have a weakness for brainy men), and the way he tends to smile and charm his way through life, through his various gaffes,

… well, so OK, I was wrong. Prodicus then quotes Tim Hames' comparison with Milligan:

For instance, when he was asked by an officer who found him lurking in an “inappropriate” place “Milligan? What are you standing there for?” he replies: “Everybody's got to be standing somewhere, sir.” It can be on this logic alone that Boris Johnson is standing for Mayor of London.

Hames continues:

Four candidates have been selected by the Conservative Party to woo the activists and then members — plus anyone else who wishes to participate in the process. They are Mr Johnson, Mr Neverheardofhim, Ms Neverheardofher and Mr Neverheardofhimeither.

He then offers three reasons Boris should withdraw:

1] He will not be able to be the Boris he has become.

2] Boris is incapable of maintaining discipline until next spring.

3] It could easily be the end of his political career if only because of timing.

When I moseyed on over to Longrider and read:

It’s starting to look that way. I happen to like Boris. Indeed, I frequently share his views. This is because Boris supports such liberal concepts as free speech, freedom of association and so on; the hallmarks of a civil, civilised society,

… Well, it was time to do this post.

Vote 1 Boris!

… and this time I mean it. I desperately want to see how the lovable rogue handles the 2012 Games. I bet the IOC won't know what hit them.

For that reason alone you should give him your hard-earned vote. Hell, he might even make a good fist of it, with absolutely no breaking glass.

Boris is Mayor and Prodicus is his prophet

[catharsis] have to let it out

Blogging can be quite a cathartic exercise, really - purges the pent up emotions and leaves one refreshed and if someone has read and commented along the way, that's the icing on the cake.

For someone like Prodicus, whom I've always admired, to blog is the thing. He can have his rant, get it down "on paper", shake his fist, nod and go off to the kitchen, feeling braced.

Competition.

Nothing to do with Prodicus but one of the two topics of this post. Competitiveness. Ben Johnson, the drug takers, the ones who stretch the rules, Hand of G-d. Alonso and Hamilton.

And hypocrisy.

It's everywhere and goes with competitiveness - the practice of spouting about fine and noble virtues whilst behind the façade pursuing an aggressive policy of self-aggrandizement.

Long ago, in sportsmaster days, there were a series of incidents still etched in the mind. I'd been seconded to an older rugby team and they were, quite frankly, appalling. They had no spirit as it had been knocked out of them and had won nothing in two years.

Players were not getting to the ball and when the ball came to them, some sort of malaise came over them, some hesitation. We had a pow wow during the week and though nothing had been expressly said, it came out that their coach had drilled them with such discipline that they were afraid to try anything which wasn't by the book.

There's not a lot wrong with self-discipline and playing for the team, especially on a wet day and against tougher opposition but there's also not a lot wrong with breathing freely, trying nifty plays and throwing it about a bit, especially if you'd had no taste of success for two seasons.

Lateral thinking

With our younger teams, you had to take a more Irish approach. There were more constant breakdowns of play and as long as everyone was in support, kicking the ball along the ground was a real option - it broke the opposition plays open but the key to this was playing to your teammates.

However, the purists didn't like it. Said it was teaching bad habits, like William Webb Ellis who in 1823 had had enough, picked the ball up and ran. There'd been a complaint from the opposition coach from the last match that though we'd played within the rules, we hadn't played within the "spirit of rugger".

Oh really? And did the "spirit of rugger" include the eye-gouging and testicle grabbing they'd been allowed to try on our boys whilst ours were expressly forbidden to indulge in that competitive advantage? I suggested our head coach put that to the complainants.

Such rank hypocrisy. It's a competitive game and our small school was a terror in the district precisely because the players were totally ball aggressive, with back-up discipline. Plus, that attitude, with good conditioning, lessens injuries through the season.

I can't see any logical reason, when in a competitive situation, to pursue vague notions of "fair play" the opposition likes to cite at you, as long as you play within the rules and take no unfair advantage. Take unfair advantage and the victory is hollow.

Two case studies

Yesterday I saw two examples of this sort of hypocrisy.

1] I visited one particular blogger outside our sphere who'd been rabbiting on about how statistics don't matter and someone had commented "yes they do" and he'd started about how the main thing's the joy of conversation with others and so on and some people had admired his calm wisdom.

Three comments further down, someone had then commented about his own 5000 visitors that month and this blogger countered, in a throwaway line, about his 7000 that month. Two posts further down the page the blogger had run a graph of his stats for the last month. I nearly spilt my coffee.

2] The second incident was an "A" student on a scholarship in America, at a college whose buzzwords are "civility", "tolerance" and "diversity of opinion" who told a professor in 2006 that she was due to attend a conference and when asked which conference and saying it was conservative, promptly received failing "F" grades on every work she submitted from then on and eventually brought a lawsuit against the professor.

Now, as a professor of sorts myself, I don't smile kindly on troublemakers like this but she seems to have had a point here. She won her case and the college was forced to rewrite its tolerance regulations. Now she was sent constant rape and death threats from the feminist lobby who'd organized her demise and an anti-Ruth site was set up on campus, all condoned by the admin and academic staff.

Detractors said she was an intolerant bigot because Christianity does not accept homosexual marriages and she spoke against them. By also speaking against radical feminism and lesbianism, she'd effectively taken on the whole university as these are the two fascistic groups who control all campuses today.

What she took offence at was a play which was being taken round 650 major campuses, at taxpayers' expense, where actors dressed up as vaginas and other women's organs and "celebrated the throwing off of the fascism of shame", "women as victims of a male-dominated society"; marriage as an "instrument of oppression"; and fathers as "foreign male elements."

All with the full backing of staff and administration. The woman who'd written this stuff, Ensler, had been raped as a child and was now "reclaiming her private parts" by pushing it onto students across the U.S. How much collusion does it take to reach 650 universities before someone complains about the obscenity?

The rest of the story will have to wait for another post as this post was just about competitiveness and hypocrisy.

Photo below: admittedly this sort of thing would be red rag to the bull with the leftist controlled academia.

[chainsaw massacre] this time in britain

Do only Ents look after trees?

Matt Wardman has a horrifying piece about local councils across Britain tree lopping and felling. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings and the mad Saruman's uprooting of trees. We need some Ents now, to stop the murderous foe. Matt reports:

Councils across Britain have embarked on what environmentalists have called a “chainsaw massacre”.

Why? Who is deciding these things?

Trees are coming down as a Health and Safety risk (”trip hazard”), or being replaced by “lollipops”.

Who specifically has given these orders and is that person a horticulturalist?

And trees that will take 50 years to regrow are being removed without thought being given to long term consequences.

Don't the idiots understand that trees aren't just trees - they are an ecosystem for birds, for us? No, they don't understand that, do they?

Bureauman sits in his office and gets a great idea - let's lop down the trees. Or else he gets a directive from above.

I find it highly surprising that in an age of “Environmental Friendliness”, and at a time when birds are under threat, that this is even possible. This state of affairs is unacceptable under Environmental Policy - never mind Tree Policy.

The thing is, Matt, we need a Tree Policy and fast. The blogosphere is good at petitions and campaigns. I wonder what can be done about this atrocity?