Search Members Calendar FAQ Portal
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


  • Navigation
  • The Garden District
  • →
  • The Keyhole Doorway
  • →
  • The double parlour
  • →
  • Weird News

Announcements and links

Henry Cavill
Hayden Christensen
Comics Continuum
Doctor Who Online
Ebay
IMPORTANT MESSAGE!!!

WE HAVE NOW MOVED TO YUKU! VIEW AND POST AT OUR NEW/OLD FORUM HERE!
Charlie Hunnam
Outpost Gallifrey
Anne Rice
David Tennant
Tenth Planet
Welcome to The Garden District. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our fabulous features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
Weird News
Tweet Topic Started: Oct 1 2007, 10:16 PM (3,378 Views)
la anaconda de chocolatee Jan 20 2008, 04:11 AM Post #361
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Mystery man's annual visit to Poe grave

By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press Writer Sat Jan 19, 11:08 AM ET

BALTIMORE - Undeterred by controversy, a mysterious visitor paid his annual tribute at the grave of Edgar Allan Poe early Saturday, placing three red roses and a half-filled bottle of cognac before stealing away into the darkness.
ADVERTISEMENT

Nearly 150 people had gathered outside the cemetery of Westminster Presbyterian Church, but the man known as the "Poe toaster" was, as usual, able to avoid being spotted by the crowd, said Jeff Jerome, curator of the Poe House and Museum.

The tribute takes place every Jan. 19 — the anniversary of Poe's birth.

The visitor did not leave a note, Jerome said, electing not to respond to questions raised in the past year about the history and authenticity of the tribute.

Sam Porpora, a former church historian who led the fight to preserve the cemetery, claimed last summer that he cooked up the idea of the Poe toaster in the 1970s as a publicity stunt.

"We did it, myself and my tour guides," Porpora, a former advertising executive, said in August. "It was a promotional idea."

Porpora said someone else has since "become" the Poe toaster.

Jerome disputes Porpora's claims and says the tribute began in 1949 at the latest, pointing to a 1950 article in The (Baltimore) Evening Sun that mentions "an anonymous citizen who creeps in annually to place an empty bottle (of excellent label)" against the gravestone.

Jerome invites a handful of Poe enthusiasts to join him inside the church every year but withholds details of the tribute in an effort to help the toaster maintain his anonymity. He said the visitor no longer wears the wide-brimmed hat and scarf he donned in the past.

In 1993, the visitor left a note reading, "The torch will be passed." A later note said the man, who apparently died in 1998, had handed the tradition on to his two sons.

This year's visitor was the same man who has come to the grave site many times in the past, Jerome said.

"We recognize him from his build, the way he walks," he said. "It would be very easy for us, visually, to see if this were a different person."

Poe, who wrote poems and horror stories including "The Raven" and "The Telltale Heart," died Oct. 7, 1849, in Baltimore at the age of 40 after collapsing in a tavern. Next year will be the 200th anniversary of his birth.



that is so cool! I still have not been to Poe's house yet, even though I have passed it a gazillion times in Philly. For two years I worked on the same street as his house, only about 6 blocks down. I am lame.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Jan 23 2008, 06:48 PM Post #362
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Police fear internet cult inspires teen suicides
By Nick Britten and Richard Savill
Last Updated: 6:36pm GMT 23/01/2008

Detectives fear a bizarre suicide craze is sweeping through teenagers in a small town fuelled by chat on social networking sites after seven friends took their own lives.

Have your say: How do you protect your children from the internet?
As well as the deaths during the last 12 months, several more have attempted suicide and police fear they are being driven by a desire to achieve prestige by having a memorial website set up in their name.


Thomas Davies, Zachery Barnes, Gareth Morgan, David Dilling, Natasha Randall, Liam Clarke, Dale Crole

Many of the victims had their own web pages on the social networking site Bebo, which they spent hours on each day. After their deaths a special site is set up where friends can leave messages, photographs and videos.

Police have visited the parents of every member of a 20-strong group who they are most worried about warning them to keep a close eye on their children.

The latest victim is Natasha Randall, 17, who was found hanged at her family home last Thursday. Within 24 hours two of her friends had tried to kill themselves. One 15-year-old girl was on a life support machine yesterday while the other, also 15, was recovering after slitting her wrists.

Police, who are investigating a possible suicide chain, fear the teenagers think it is "cool" to have an internet memorial site and are killing themselves to achieve kudos among their peer group.

Within hours of Miss Randall's death, a tribute site called "R.I.P. Tasha" had sprung up with photos, videos and messages. It has 345 members been viewed more than 2,100 times.

Her death follows those of Gareth Morgan, 27, Liam Clarke, 20, Thomas Davies, 20, David Dilling, 19, Dale Crole, 18, and Zachary Barnes, 17. Like Miss Randall, all lived in and around Bridgend in south Wales and all are being linked.

Miss Randall was in her first year on a Care and Childhood Studies course at Bridgend College. Her stepmother, Katrina, said the teenager spent hours every day on her computer using the name "Wildchild".

She said: "The police have been and taken Natasha's computer away to help with their investigation. This has come as a shock to all of us. We're just too upset to speak about it, her dad especially."

Thomas Davies' mother, Melanie, 38, said: "It's like a craze - a stupid sort of fad. They all seem to be copying each other by wanting to die.

"I think the problem is they do not know how to speak like adults about serious issues like this. They can speak to each other on the computer but do not know how to express their emotions in other ways.

"He did go on Bebo and apparently he had a page on there. He must have discussed his other friends dying on there because it had upset him.

"Like most parents, I have no idea how to get on these sites or what other kids are talking about. But I would warn other parents to beware and to keep a close eye on their children."


A memorial website was set up within hours of Miss Randall's death


A police source said: "Parents should keep a close watch on what their children are doing on the internet and what they are talking about.

"It's often easier for them to disclose their real feelings on a computer rather than face to face with an adult or even their friends, and social networking sites are the ideal way to do that."

Madeleine Moon, Bridgend MP, has met with senior police officers to discuss Bridgend's alarmingly high suicide rate. The Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys Coroner, Phillip Walters, has also raised his concerns and a special "task force" has been set up in the town to investigate the problem.

Consultant psychiatrist Tegwyn Williams, director of mental health services for the NHS Trust, said: "Unfortunately there's a culture where men don't tend to talk about how they feel. It comes to the point where they can't see any way out.

"The key is to break down the stigma attached to suicide in the community so that people aren't afraid to talk to someone of they feel depressed."

It comes after the deaths of three teenagers in a suicide pact in a small village in Northern Ireland in the summer.
__________________________________________________________________

Call me insensitive but I just look at this as less dumb people in the world.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jane Jan 23 2008, 06:56 PM Post #363
Member Avatar
Board Bitch!
Posts:
9,474
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
March 19, 2006
It is strange though! They go through losing friends to suicice and then do it themselves, knowing how devastating it would be for those left behind. Selfish!

It's too easy to blame the internet, why weren't they able to talk to their parents? Surely there must be signs when someone is going to kill themself, or are they brushed aside as being a typical tantrum throwing teenager?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Serpy Jan 23 2008, 07:04 PM Post #364
Member Avatar
I <3 Koda Kumi!
Posts:
2,466
Group:
Members
Member
#16
Joined:
June 27, 2006
I agree with Jesse. These kids are fucking stupid.

Who cares if you get a neato memorial site after you die... YOU'RE DEAD!!!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Hunter Jan 23 2008, 09:24 PM Post #365
Member Avatar
Loving Life
Posts:
6,491
Group:
Members
Member
#3
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Jane
Jan 24 2008, 04:56 AM
It's too easy to blame the internet, why weren't they able to talk to their parents? Surely there must be signs when someone is going to kill themself, or are they brushed aside as being a typical tantrum throwing teenager?

Was talking about that just last night. I was a bit p*ssed off actually
With most suicides, it is blatantly obvious they needed a lot of help and yet
they just get pushed aside and then when they commit suicide, those around
them, that knew they weren't ok, are shocked as if they had no idea they were
ever unhappy.

On the other hand suicide is such a friggin' cop out that I have no respect for
and yeah suicide its their choice but...
I'll never understand why people WAIT when you can clearly see a certain
someone is mentally, emotionally messed up and needs heaps of guidance, help etc

There's suicide message boards
Saw it on the news not long ago, this girl had joined it and her final post was
letting them know she's going through with it and she did. All the replies to her thread
were congratulating her, supporting her and saying things like "I'll see you on the other side"

:huh

Her family tried to shut the site down, but no law over it, so it's all allowed.
They couldn't do a thing about it. Pretty sure the parents set up a website to bring
awareness to these suicide sites though.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Jan 23 2008, 09:25 PM Post #366
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
:alien
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 23 2008, 10:20 PM Post #367
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Quote:
 
Have your say: How do you protect your children from the internet?


teach them not to being fucking idiots.

seriously? where are parents now a days?
all these fat kids being babysat by the fucking computer :jesse
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Hunter Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM Post #368
Member Avatar
Loving Life
Posts:
6,491
Group:
Members
Member
#3
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Denovissimus
Jan 12 2008, 05:05 AM
Nothing like a story about a doggy licking dead pussy to warm the cockles of your heart.

:ha :ha :ha
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 24 2008, 02:30 PM Post #369
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Top Ten Shocking Deaths of Young Hollywood

• James Dean, 24, died Sept., 30, 1955, after an automobile crash on the highway near Paso Robles, Calif.





• Sharon Tate, 26, was murdered Aug. 9, 1969, by followers of Charles Manson in Los Angeles.

• Freddie Prinze, 22, died Jan. 29, 1977, after shooting himself in Los Angeles.

• Jon-Erik Hexum, 26, died Oct. 18, 1984, after accidentally shooting himself with a
prop gun in Los Angeles.

• Rebecca Schaeffer, 21, was murdered July 18, 1989, by stalker Robert John Bardo in Los Angeles.

• Brandon Lee, 28, died March 31, 1993, after accidentally being shot on the set of “The Crow” in Wilmington, N.C.

• River Phoenix, 23, died Oct. 31, 1993, from a drug overdose outside of a night club in Los Angeles.

• David Strickland, 29, died March 22, 1999, after hanging himself in a hotel room in Las Vegas.

• Jonathan Brandis, 27, died Nov. 12, 2003, from injuries he suffered after hanging himself in Los Angeles.

• Brad Renfro, 25, died Jan. 15, 2008, the day after reportedly spending the previous evening drinking with friends
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Taman Jan 24 2008, 02:48 PM Post #370
Member Avatar
The Darksider
Posts:
2,629
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
September 16, 2007
River Phoenix was such a cute boy. He would have made a great Daniel.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 24 2008, 02:55 PM Post #371
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
I loved him in STAND BY ME.
CHARLIE HOGAN!!!!

anyway, my mum just told me how Freddie Prinze died.


reminds me of my guys dad. he shot himself when my lovah was like 2 yrs old.

all in the same room. his mum and sisters were in the same bed.my babe was in his crib.

how fucking sad is that?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Jan 24 2008, 10:32 PM Post #372
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
I dont know who David Strickland is


damn jules, that is so not right. He couldnt have at least done it somewhere else? Not in front of his whole damn family?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 24 2008, 10:34 PM Post #373
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
he was a heavy drinker.

thats why my guy hardly drinks.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 25 2008, 10:38 PM Post #374
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
[size=14] BRONZE THE FONZ![/size]

aaaaaaaaaa oooooooooo

Milwaukee statue will `Bronze the Fonz'

By CARRIE ANTLFINGER, Associated Press WriterFri Jan 25, 12:58 PM ET

Aaaaaaay! The Fonz will be returning to Milwaukee later this year — permanently, and in bronze.

A statue of Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli, the leather-jacketed biker from "Happy Days," will be erected in the city where the TV sitcom was set, now that local groups have raised the $85,000 needed to do it, civic leaders said Friday.

Henry Winkler, who played Fonzie during the show's run from 1974 to 1984, called the "Bronze the Fonz" project "a phenomenal compliment."

"It's not often you have a dream when you're 7 lying in your bed, you get to live your dream out and then someone is going to erect a life-size statue of your creation," he told The Associated Press earlier this week.

Winkler was in Milwaukee on Friday morning when organizers officially announced the money had been raised. Plans call for dedicating the statue around Labor Day. It will likely be downtown along the Milwaukee River.

Two booster groups, VISIT Milwaukee and Spirit Milwaukee, spearheaded the fundraising. Among the donors was cable network TV Land, which has sponsored similar statues such as ones of Bob Newhart in Chicago and Mary Tyler Moore in Minneapolis.

Other supporters included a bakery in Jefferson that sold thumbs-up cookies and a fan who established a "Bronze the Fonz" group on the social networking site Facebook.

Some serious art lovers were less enthusiastic. Mike Brenner, founder of the Hotcakes Gallery, called the statue a "publicity stunt" that perpetuated lowbrow stereotypes about Wisconsin.

"Can we just try to move forward, a little bit?" he said.

In an e-mail, Dave Fantle, spokesman for VISIT Milwaukee, said he's spoken with Brenner and another disenchanted gallery owner and hopes everyone can "live harmoniously with the Fonz."

"We can either run and hide from our traditions — beer, brat, fish fries, custard, `Happy Days,' et cetera — or realize that they all embody good times and we should celebrate this."



:alien
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Jan 29 2008, 02:40 PM Post #375
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Strange Creature Immune to Pain Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Mon Jan 28, 8:31 PM ET



As vulnerable as naked mole rats seem, researchers now find the hairless, bucktoothed rodents are invulnerable to the pain of acid and the sting of chili peppers.

ADVERTISEMENT

A better understanding of pain resistance in these sausage-like creatures could lead to new drugs for people with chronic pain, scientists added.


Naked mole rats live in cramped, oxygen-starved burrows some six feet underground in central East Africa. Unusually, they are cold-blooded — which, as far as anyone knows, is unique among mammals.


"They're the nicest, sweetest animals I've ever worked with — they look frightening, but they're very gentle," said neurobiologist Thomas Park at the University of Illinois at Chicago


Scientists knew the mole rats were quite sensitive to touch — perhaps to help replace their almost useless eyes. After probing their skin, Park and his colleagues unexpectedly discovered the rodents lacked the chemical Substance P, which causes the feeling of burning pain in mammals.


Acid test


The researchers discovered that when unconscious mole rats had their paws injected with a slight dose of acid, "about what you'd experience with lemon juice," Park said, as well as some capsaicin — the active ingredient of chili peppers — the rodents showed no pain.


"Their insensitivity to acid was very surprising," Park told LiveScience. "Every animal tested — from fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and all other mammals — every animal is sensitive to acid."


To explore their pain resistance further, the researchers used a modified cold sore virus to carry genes for Substance P to just one rear foot of each tested rodent. Park and his colleagues found the DNA restored the naked mole rats' ability to feel the burning sensation other mammals experience from capsaicin.


"They'd pull their foot back and lick it," Park said. Other feet remained impervious to the sting of capsaicin.


"Capsaicin is very specific for exciting the fibers that normally have Substance P," Park added. "They're not the fibers that respond to a pinprick or pinch, but the ones that respond after an injury or burn and produce longer-lasting pain."


Curiously, the researchers found that mole rats remained completely insensitive to acids, even with the Substance P genes. This suggests there is a fundamental difference in how their nerves respond to such pain.


"Acid acts on the capsaicin receptor and on another family of receptors called acid-sensitive ion channels," Park said. "Acid is not as specific as capsaicin. The mole rat is the only animal that shows completely no response to acid."


Why so insensitive?


Scientists theorize naked mole rats evolved this insensitivity to acid due to underground living. The rodents exhale high levels of carbon dioxide, and in such tight, poorly ventilated spaces it builds up in tissues, making them more acidic. In response, the mole rats became desensitized to acid.


"To give you an idea of what they experience, we normally all breathe in carbon dioxide levels of less than 0.1 percent. If people are exposed to an air mixture with as low as 5 percent carbon dioxide, we'll feel a sharp, burning, stinging sensation in our eyes and nose," Park said. "We hypothesize that naked mole rats live in up to 10 percent carbon dioxide."


Researcher Gary Lewin, a neuroscientist at the Max Delbrück Institute for Molecular Medicine in Germany, noted, "People may say, 'So what — it's weird, but what has it to do with human pain?' I think that is wrong, unimaginative and short sighted."


Lewin noted that all vertebrate pain-receptor systems "are built in a highly similar way, so the mole rat may tell us how you can unbuild the system."

Help for people

Specifically, Park noted this research adds to existing knowledge about Substance P. "This is important specifically to the long-term, secondary-order inflammatory pain. It's the pain that can last for hours or days when you pull a muscle or have a surgical procedure," he explained.

As such, these findings might shed new light on chronic pain. Park said,

"We're learning which nerve fibers are important for which kinds of pain, so we'll be able to develop new strategies and targets."

Lewin added, "We really do not understand the molecular mechanism of acid sensing in humans, although it is thought to be pretty important in inflammatory pain. An animal that naturally lacks such a mechanism may help us identify what the mechanism actually is."

Park next plans to study distantly related animals that dwell in similar circumstances, such as the Mexican free-tailed bat and the Alaskan marmot, which both spend large amounts of time in high carbon dioxide caves or burrows. "How are they surviving down there? It'd be interesting if we saw some parallels there with the naked mole rats," Park said.

The scientists detailed their findings online Jan. 28 in the journal PLoS Biology.


them things are UGLY!

i still find it mean they subjected it to tests like that. heres a pic. if I saw that thing coming towards me... :faint
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/Mole%20rat.jpg

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Jan 29 2008, 02:49 PM Post #376
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Animal torture! Someone call PETA!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Feb 4 2008, 11:41 PM Post #377
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
[size=7] Give me my meat bitch![/size]

The Huge Flow of Animal Waste

Beef cattle raised for the Harris Ranch Beef Company, Coalinga, Calif.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.”

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.



To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough.

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.

What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat.”


Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel.
Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure “lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.)

These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings?

Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States.

“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.”

It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. “The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned,” he said.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality.

If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.

Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Feb 5 2008, 12:07 AM Post #378
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Only in Philly!!!

This poor guy, this is so ridiculous he needs to be compensated not only for the money wrongfully paid but for all the time and money and gas he has spent going to traffic court every year for 17 years


Ronnie Polaneczky: Oh, brother!
A judge threatened a man with arrest if he didn't pay twin's 17-year-old traffic tix

Philadelphia Daily News
SINCE NOVEMBER, Edward Stanley Harris has been paying Philadelphia Traffic Court $100 per month on a bill of $1,811.50 for tickets issued 17 years ago - which the court has admitted aren't even his.

He's paying them off because, he says, a Traffic Court judge said he'd arrest him if he didn't.

Harris, a producer at CN8 Sports, has never been inside a prison cell, and he'd like to keep it that way. So he's writing those monthly checks to Traffic Court.

But he says it's not fair.

Gee, ya think?

This guy's story is one of the wackiest ones I've ever heard, with twists, turns, infuriating judges and - wait for it - a long-lost twin.

If this weren't Philly, you'd assume Harris made up his story.

Alas, this is Philly.




It all started on Aug. 8, 1967, when Edward Stanley Harris and his twin brother, Edwin Shelby Harris, were born. Some might question the wisdom of a mother giving her twin sons, who share the same birth date and home address, such similar names.

At least the kids weren't identical.

All was well until the period between October 1990 and May 1991, when Edwin received eight traffic tickets, on three separate occasions, for moving violations.

In September 1991, Edwin pleaded guilty in Traffic Court to the violations and was ordered to pay $1,501.

Edwin never paid. Over the next 17 years, he fell on hard times, drifted South and stayed in touch with Edward only sporadically.

In the fall of 1992, PennDOT's driver-licensing bureau notified Edward that his license would be suspended for nonpayment of tickets. Realizing that PennDOT had confused him with his twin, Edward went to Philadelphia Traffic Court to straighten things out. The court wrote PennDOT, confirming that the tickets belonged to Edwin, not Edward.

Thankfully, PennDOT withdrew the suspension threat.

Nonetheless, between November 1992 and June 2007, the routine repeated itself, like a scene from "Groundhog Day":

Every year or so, PennDOT re-discovered those same, unpaid tickets of Edwin's, decided they belonged to Edward, and threatened to suspend Edward's license. Each time, Edward returned to Traffic Court, and the suspension threat got lifted.

So Edward assumed the same annoying scenario would repeat itself last Nov. 21, when he took his latest license-suspension notice before Traffic Court Judge Willie Adams. According to Edward, Adams wouldn't listen to his saga or review the copious paperwork that Edward supplied to support his innocence.

Instead, Adams ordered Edward to pay off the tickets - the costs, with fees, had grown to $1,811.50 - at a rate of $100 a month. Edward filed a petition to appeal the decision but also started paying the monthly fee, since, he said, Adams threatened an arrest if he didn't.

Last Thursday, during Edward's appeal hearing at the Criminal Justice Center, the payment order against him was withdrawn. The sympathetic clerk there suggested that Edward go to Traffic Court to get his money back, as it's the only entity that can straighten things out.

And "Groundhog Day" began again.




OK, so it's understandable that PennDOT confused Edward and Edwin the first time. The guys share similar first names, and their middle initials, last name and birth dates are identical. They even shared the same address back in 1991, when they lived at home with their mom.

But there's no excuse for PennDOT's incompetence since then, nor Traffic Court's. As for Judge Adams, his actions are just baffling.

"I am very, very pissed," says Edward, now 40, who estimates that, over the last 17 years, he has made 20 trips to Traffic Court and has lost close to $3,000 in court fees and missed time from work.

"This could be solved if someone felt like fixing it," says Edward, who also has asked City Council members for help, to no avail. "I can't get anyone to care. My biggest fear is that I'll be pulled over for a broken taillight and someone will say my license is suspended and I'll lose my job," which routinely requires him to drive CN8 vehicles.

A staff person for Traffic Court's administrative judge, Bernice DeAngelis, said 10 days ago that the judge would look into Edward's plight. But despite my repeated calls to DeAngelis last week, only silence has come from her 8th and Spring Garden locale.

Nor could I reach Edward's brother, Edwin, at his last known phone number, to ask if he plans to pay off those old tickets any time soon. Y'know, given the nonsense they've caused his twin.

Then again, PennDOT and Philadelphia Traffic Court have had 17 years to fix this for Edward. Instead they keep going after him like he's his brother's keeper.

Or his brother's ATM.

"The people in Traffic Court do their best, but PennDOT is a bloodless bureaucracy, devoid of compassion," says Norristown lawyer and driver's-license expert Basil Beck III, whom I called for advice on Edward's behalf. "This guy needs a lawyer."

And a big, fat apology.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Julesy Feb 5 2008, 12:11 AM Post #379
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
that fucking sucks
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Feb 5 2008, 12:19 AM Post #380
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Julesy
Feb 4 2008, 11:41 PM
[size=7] Give me my meat bitch![/size]

The Huge Flow of Animal Waste

Beef cattle raised for the Harris Ranch Beef Company, Coalinga, Calif.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.”

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.



To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough.

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.

What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat.”


Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel.
Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure “lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.)

These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings?

Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States.

“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.”

It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. “The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned,” he said.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality.

If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.

Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.

jeez this is scary and staggering. I dont eat nearly as much meat as most americans, some days I dont eat meat at all. But I may get to the point where I only eat organic meat, when I eat meat. At home I buy organic meat but when I go out to eat or eat at Chili's it is not organic obviously. Maybe I should start disiplining myself to not eat any meat at all that is not organic.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The double parlour · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Theme: Zeta Original Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 6:44 PM Jul 11

Skin orginally created by Malygos, Converted By Axonite of
Infinite Results.

Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy