HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Channel 1! (an affront to public education)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:03:57 GMT

If you have not heard of this, I suggest that you find out about it soon.
It is the worst affront to public education since the HSUS "Adopt-a-Teacher"
program.  I do not have full details on this yet, but will be following up
soon with a letter from a teacher with their opinion on this thing and the
damage that it can do.

Apparently, and from what I understand, there is some group that is offering
to install television facilities in every group in school if they "force"
their teachers to show their (channel 1's) student's news program every
morning to the schools homeroom class.  Apparently, this news program is
sensationalist and biased in its nature of reporting and is not merely a
reporting facility.

The show is apparently hosted by young individuals, and the first report that
I heard of a problem was of a peice that was done in regards to the aniversary
of Hiroshima.  They sent a young girl and a young boy over to Hiroshima to go
through the museum and somewhere near the end of the piece, they asked them
their opinions.  In tears the young girl stated something to the effect of
"It makes me sorry to say I am an american!"  Perhaps they should have
taken her to Pearl Harbor (the sight of the Japanese SURPRISE attack) or
some of the islands in the south Pacific or even better, some of the
sights of the old POW camps and/or concentration camps to get a better
feel for the time period and global atmosphere.

From my understanding the counter-reaction to this peice was so severe, with
teachers writing in and contacting their unions (as they are not able to turn
this thing off with fear of getting fired), that there was an on air apology
(after the fact of course) to this statement.

Now the most recent showing of a couple of days ago was a peice glorifying the
terrorist interventions of Green Peace activists.

Regardless of your opinions on this issue one way or another, these concepts
have no place being distributed, propagated or facilitated through our
public school systems any more than the concepts of religion or a specific
philosophy do.  And these are not just being used in the schools, but forced
on the teachers and their students by the adminstrations as a result of a
desire for media facilities in the schools.  Sort of a high-tech extortion.
Schools have no money for such utility, so they jump at the chance only
to find out it wasn't worth the cost.

As I have stated, if you have not heard of Channel 1! then ask your local
schools for more information.  And keep an eye out for the up and coming posts
on this newsgroup.

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:58:40 GMT

From article <1993Jan22.014645.28033@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <C1862L.KnA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Why don't you help "poor Russell" by providing us with the 
>>evidence that the author of the Tufts article used in reaching
>>his/her conclusions about the relatively unimportant role
>>that cattle play in global warming.
> 
>Why should I do your homework for you, Russell?  I gave you the
>quote and the source of the quote.  If you want to know more, then
>feel free to explore it further with the Tufts Letter.

Since your estimates were kinda vague, I had assumed that you might
want to refine your argument.

Right off hand, I'd say that there isn't too much that we can do 
to reduce termite-methane-production, and even if there 
was, it would have no bearing on our decision to-produce or 
not-to-produce cattle for consumption.  Vis-a-vis the methane 
that you say is produced by rice paddies, bear in mind that the 
global production of rice is 450 million metric tons or 
thereabouts, whereas global meat production (including non-ruminant
animals) is roughly 100 million metric tons (carcass weight).

Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
we cut without causing famine?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:59:16 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It seems rather obvious that cutting
rl> back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
rl> quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.

Rich Young writes:
ry>It seems to ME that a nearly equivalent benefit could be realized
ry>in drought-stricken California by cutting back on lawns, fountains,
ry>and swimming pools.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Proof?   

From article <1993Jan23.185359.3039@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> By your own numbers, 20% of California's water is not used for
ry> agriculture, which means it must be used by the human population.
ry> Now, it is clear that not all of this 20% could be saved, since
ry> humans must drink water, but the portion wasted on swimming pools,
ry> decorative fountains and displays, and nurturing of non-native
ry> decorative shrubs and ground covers by businesses and individual
ry> property owners could be saved.

The 20% non-agricultural allocation includes industrial and commercial
uses as well as toilet flushing, bathing, dishwashing, etc.  Would
you care to tell us roughly how much is used to stock fountains
and swimming pools, so that we can't gauge the savings more accurately?   

ry> About 25% of California's water is used for livestock, so simply
ry> "cutting back" wouldn't save all of that water, either.  

It depends on the level of the cuts, don't you think?  If 
Californian's were to eliminate animal agriculture altogether, 
it's clear that they would realize a savings of 25%.  By contrast,
eliminating fountains and swimming pools woulr realize a much, much
lower savings.

ry> Hence, one might realize a "nearly equivalent benefit" by cutting 
ry> back on "lawns, fountains, and swimming pools." 

Ah, I'm beginning to get your drift.  What you're saying is that
if there's a cutback of 100% on fountains and swimming pools, it
might superceed the savings wrought by a .001% cutback on meat,
dairy, and egg consumption.   Do you think such comparisons
are reasonable?  

ry>Frankly, I think growing cotton, lettuce, and oranges (not to
ry>mention grass, fountains, and swimming pools) in the middle of
ry>a desert is incredibly stupid, and would rather see such crops
ry>grown elsewhere.

rl> I noticed that you didn't mention dairy cows, Rich.  Why not?

ry>Frankly, I think growing anything in a desert which requires the
ry>importation of water is stupid, including dairy cows...and people.

Is your concept of "stupidity" a black-and-white determination, 
or, are there any shades of grey?  For example, let's assume that 
you were living in an arid region and had a fixed amount of water at 
your disposal for all purposes, including food production.  Don't 
you think it would be smart(er) to spend it on the foods that provide 
the best nutrition with the least expenditure of water over all?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:21:54 GMT

In <C1DvCC.4Mw@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1993Jan24.065052.3877@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>
>
>Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
>facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
>another evasive maneuver?  

	Already asked and answered.

>You say that my arguments are weak.  However, I'm certain that 
>most critical readers understand by now that the meat-component 
>of a 1/4 pounder requires roughly 340 liters of water to produce 
>in the US.  By contrast, all the at-home uses of water for bathing, 
>cooking, washing clothes, etc is roughly 380 liters per person 
>per day, on the average.  Gee, that's a lot of water for one 
>burger, eh Rich?  

	How much is used for swimming pools, watering of lawns, washing
	of cars, displaying of fountains, etc.?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Debate over 60 minutes segment.
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:13:09 GMT

In article <2B6701F9.9616@news.service.uci.edu> ruman@meroot.eng.uci.edu (ruman) writes:
>
>I am really surprised to see all the anti-AR types getting so ex-
>cited over the 60 minutes segment. I don't particularly empathise
>with AR movements, but the 60 minutes segments  was  one  of  the
>most  biased  ones  I have ever seen. Today's LA times carries an
>article by their critic Howard Rosenberg in  which  he  discusses
>the same thing.

Hey, I'll admit that 60 min can make the pope look bad if they want.  Its
just easier to make the AR movement look bad.

 >
>I am attaching a rebuttal  from Neal Barnard which  I  picked  up
>from  a  vegetarian  list  (Granola). One shot that remains in my
>mind is one of the doctors mentioning with a  rather  bland  face
>that   animal   veterinarians  don't  know  anything  abt  animal
>anaesthesia and hence the report presented by them was worthless.
>I  was  expecting mike wallace to ask for an explanation for this
>very surprising (to say the least) statement but  mr  "seeker  of
>truth"  wallace  proceeded to ask the next leading question. 

Yhey said that the animal anesthesiologist have no experience with
neurological research.  Please get your facts straight before you post.

>Also
>the retraction by the female nurse has very little relevance (and
>mike wallace knew about it) as the attached letter shows.

Dr. Bernard said that the cat screaming incident was a FACT.  Then it
turns out to be false. "Someone who worked there saw it" I belelieve was
the quote.  Then the woman admits she got here information from Cats
Magazine.  I suggest the Dr. Bernard get his facts straight before
publishing something as fact.

Letter deleted...

Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:54:16 GMT

From article <C16xLL.L1y@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>>>>Yes, I realize that an idea is
>>>>"acceptable" if nearly everyone accepts it.   As an example, the
>>>>concept of a flat earth was "acceptable" just a few centuries ago.
> 
>>> The flatness of the earth is independent of social consensus. 
> 
>>So is the pain of a torture victim.   
> 
> The existence of pain, yes. Is it not possible for you to remember
> from one sentence to the next that we're discussing the ethics of
> pain, not its existence.

Our knowledge of the goodness or badness of pain hinges on simple
observation... not discussion.  Let me know when you're ready to 
submit to our little experiment, Werner.

> You believe that needless pain and suffering are wrong for facts and
> reasons that you refuse (or are unable) to disclose.
> 
> I believe that needless pain and suffering are wrong because this is
> the consensus of society. 

After the experiment gets underway, I'll remind you of your beliefs
when you begin begging for mercy.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Texas Cattle Experience
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:00:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <viking.728202284@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	We don't worry about it -- we can get all the water we need
>from normal rainfall.  Did you happen to look for Texas and Colorado
>in your study?  American Cattleman magazine reported them as far ahead
>of Iowa and Nebraska for raising cattle just a couple years ago, and
>the trend seems to be continuing.
>
>	BTW: it takes roughly 40 liters of water pumped and normal
>rainfall to produce whatever the cow will gain each day.

Texas does infact produce a great deal of cattle and, being a Texan, I can
offer the following observations.  In the eastern half of the state,  the
cattle require no extra water.  Rainfall is sufficient enough to fill tanks
(small ponds) which provide cow with a yearlong sourch of water.  The
cattle graze in large rural pastures, usually far from where anyone wants
to live.  During the winter, the cows eat Hay.  Hay is classified as a
grain crop for the governments's purposeses but is merely tall grass that
is mowed down (harvested), rolled into bales and allowed to dry.  The cows
are not kept in any sort of building and their patties (shit) does not form
pools, it is randomly dispersed across the pasture.  The only time the cows
are in stalls is when there is a livestock show/auction/rodeo.  In the
western part of the state, the part where rainfall is not sufficient to
keep the tanks full of water yearround, longhorns, goats, sheep, bison,
emus, and gazelles are raised.  These animals do not require as much water
as your standard beef and dairy cows.  They are supported largely by the
water in the vegetation they eat and from the streams nearby.  Windmills
are used to agument the water supply.  The land is west texas is not really
suitable for any other form of agriculture and most people really wouldnt
want to live there.  The largest user of water in the state is a catfish
farm south of san antonio.  I may be mistaken but I believe it uses more
water than the 1 million people of that city.

I think that Hay accounts for a large percentage of the "70% grain" that is
fed to cattle.  Hay is not something that people can eat and is
environmetally friendly, considering oxygen production it is probably good
for the environment.  It doenst require ammonia nitrate fertilizer as it is
a native grass.

alex the omnivore
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:22:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.222347.2844@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) wrote:
> 
> Bob, Martin:  How many infections were present in the lab monkey
> population?

James, please see my reply to Bob Black in the "Silver Spring monkey"
thread.

One week after being taken from Taub's lab, 15 of 17 monkeys had normal
leukocyte (white blood cell) counts of 7000 per milliliter.  Two monkeys
had slightly elevated values, perhaps indicative of an infection.  These
two monkeys had normal rectal temperatures, indicative of the absence of
severe infection.  It is equally possible that the elevated values in these
two monkeys was attributable to the stress of unfamiliar location and
handlers.

After the monkeys were "stolen" and transported ~2000 miles by truck, they
were returned to Taub.  At this point, their leukocyte counts exceeded
15000 per milliliter.  This value exceeds the accepted threshold indicative
of chronic stress.

If we use the leukocyte count as an indicator, it is apparent that the
monkeys were better off when they left Taub's lab than when they returned.

The antics of the antivivisectionists in trying to keep these monkeys from
Taub did not benefit them, but, unfortunately, caused them to suffer
stress.  This is yet another example of the willingness of some animal
activists to sacrifice animal welfare for the sake of animal "rights."

A severe bone infection (osteomyelitis) was alleged by the prosecution in
one animal (Nero).  Taub was convicted on one count of cruelty to animals
based on this incorrect diagnosis.

Contrary to Taub's advice, vets applied bandages tightly to Nero's arm, and
gangrene developed.  Nero's arm was needlessly amputated simply because
Taub's advice was not followed.  The prosecutor had a lab report, of which
I have obtained a copy, that clearly indicates that Nero DID NOT have
osteomyelitis.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Pollution and Cows
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:18:11 GMT

From article <1k0ckmINNlno@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article <C1DsLr.46q@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>How about methane emissions, nitrate pollution, acid rain, etc, 
>>etc?  And, how about water shortages, desertification, use of 
>>(non-renewable) petrochemicals in livestock agriculture, etc, 
>>etc...
> 
> Its amazing that you continue to harp about methane when that has 
> already been proven a worthless point for you.  

I disagree with your claim that the methane arguments have been
disproven.

> And to mention 
> Nitrate Pollution?  Why where do you think most of the nitrates 
> on this country's soil come from?  Ever heard of ammonia nitrate?  
> The fertilizer sprayed in mass quantity to grow your prescious 
> grains. 

Are you referring to the grain used to raise livestock?

Do you understand the impact that nitrate pollution has on streams
and groundwater?

> And acid rain, oh i'd like to see you link that to 
> cattle, blame industry for that one, just look at where most of 
> the acid rain is coming from...the industrialized northeast!  

A study conducted by the Netherlands government demonstrated that
ammonia from produced by the livestock industry was the single 
largest source of acid deposits on Duct soil.  

> Desertification has been occuring cyclically for eons as I stated 
> previously and you seemed to concur with.  

This is true, but such an argument wouldn't justify policies
that aggravate desertification.

> As far as 
> petrochemicals are concerned, you surely realize that driving 
> tractors around a field to first plow it, then plant seed, then 
> harvest it, not to mention the cropduster that flys overhead 
> spraying pesticide and nitrate fertilizer...dont you see 
> petrochemicals at work here as well?  

Of course.   Haven't you figured out by now that we could reduce
these uses substantially by feeding grain directly to humans,
rather than to livestock?

> Note that cattle are often 
> rounded up either on horseback or with a single jeep that gets 
> much better gas mileage than a tractor, combine, or airplane.  

Don't forget the herbicides and fertilizer and tractor gas that
are required to produce cattle feed.

> Also cattle dont have to be replanted each year, free grazing 
> ones dont require their food be replanted every year, not to 
> mention the fact that they release their own natural fertilizer, 
> but it seems that Russ already knows all about bullshit.  

Again, 70% of the grain produced in the US in 1990 was consumed
by cattle.  Did this grain require replanting, Alex?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:58:03 GMT

itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

>I can not believe this.  Spare us you glorification of the "dedicated"
>activist.  They are terrorist!  Nothing more than common criminals.  I
>view your glowing accounts of this activity as irresponsible and an
>unethical.

Believe it, Greg.  And if you don't want to read my "glorifications" of the
ALF, put me on your kill file, but don't tell me what to think.  I define
"terrorism" in a slightly different manner than you do.  You see, I think 
that animal experimenters are terrorists, nothing more than the sort of
people that set their dog on fire or put their cat in the microwave oven to
see what will happen .. except they get published & paid for doing that.
Our ethics are very different.  I wasn't brought up to think of animals as
being some lesser form of life.  I wasn't made to believe that humans have 
souls while animals don't.  It is part of the way that I was brought up, and
indeed, part of my cultural heritage to INCLUDE ANIMALS IN MY MORAL UNIVERSE.
Viewing animals as "things", as means to *our* ends is, in my opinion, 
morally bankrupt, and certainly unethical.  Promoting that viewpoint in the 
manner that you do, I believe, is most irresponsible.

alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:53:59 GMT

In article <C1A0Hr.9Gz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan22.165819.5717@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

[...]

>Which one of these "single use categories" [your terminology] is
>indispensable?    "livestock agriculture" or "non-livestock 
>agriculture" ?

	Asked and answered.  See <1993Jan22.233938.20777@pixel.kodak.com>.

Russell said:
>>>   It seems rather obvious that cutting
>>>   back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
>>>   quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.
>>
>>It seems to ME that a nearly equivalent benefit could be realized
>>in drought-stricken California by cutting back on lawns, fountains,
>>and swimming pools.
>
>Proof?   

	By your own numbers, 20% of California's water is not used for
	agriculture, which means it must be used by the human population.
	Now, it is clear that not all of this 20% could be saved, since
	humans must drink water, but the portion wasted on swimming pools,
	decorative fountains and displays, and nurturing of non-native
	decorative shrubs and ground covers by businesses and individual
	property owners could be saved.

	About 25% of California's water is used for livestock, so simply
	"cutting back" wouldn't save all of that water, either.  Hence,
	one might realize a "nearly equivalent benefit" by cutting back
	on "lawns, fountains, and swimming pools."

>>Frankly, I think growing cotton, lettuce, and oranges (not to
>>mention grass, fountains, and swimming pools) in the middle of
>>a desert is incredibly stupid, and would rather see such crops
>>grown elsewhere.
>
>I noticed that you didn't mention dairy cows, Rich.  Why not?

	Frankly, I think growing anything in a desert which requires the
	importation of water is stupid, including dairy cows...and people.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg