text:
Instagram is definitely one of my favorite social media outlets. I can get lost for hours in the photo feeds. It's also happens to be a great resource for ideas, inspiration and motivation for both the blog and my personal life in general. While I love to scroll through my friend's accounts; there are three general categories I tend to browse when I'm not getting my daily dose of friend updates. These areas are food (no surprise there!), travel, and party planning (My wedding on the horizon has really spiked this category).
With millions of accounts out there to follow it's hard to hone in on who is worth following. One of my dislikes about Instagram is not being able to easily find accounts unless you know who you are looking for. Over the course of my time on Instagram I have gathered together some worthwhile accounts that I love seeing posts from. I have decided to share some of my favorites out to you so you can load up your feeds with possible recipe ideas, daydreams of travel destinations, and you're next hostess dinner table designs.
Enjoy 🙂
@smithhotels –This company is my new obsession; especially while I'm trying to plan a honeymoon. They are a boutique hotel booking company that boasts properties around the world. Follow along for shots of their hotels in their family and happy vacationers. Their website: www.mrandmrssmith.com
@theblondeabroad – This California girl has 43.5 followers and shares her adventures around the globe along with some fashion sense. She has a blog you can follow along with too! www.theblondeabroad.com
@adventurouskate- Photos from Kate's travel over the past 4 and a half years where she has hit 58 countries!! She's an independent woman (full-time traveler) and her blog specializes in travel for us females. www.adventurouskate.com
@alexinwanderland – you'll wish it was #traveltuesday every day of the week while browsing through the adventures of Alex. You can also read up on this travel writer's excursions on her website: www.alexinwanderland.com
@travelexecutive –Let the travel day dreaming begin. Have you ever wondered what the world's top hotel might look like? Not only does this company review the best of the best, they photo document for us to swoon over. www.travelexecutive.de
@eahoneymoons- Looking for dream honeymoon ideas? Ever After Honeymoons has you covered. This high end, luxury, travel agency specializes in creating post wedding vacations to remember for a lifetime. Their Instagram is filled with location ideas that will provide you with some serious wanderlust. www.everafterhoneymoons.com
@lexiscleankitchen – Not only is this one of my favorite blogs to follow; Lexi's Clean Kitchen has a great Instagram account. Her focus is on real ingredients to make gluten free, dairy free, and paleo friendly recipes. She always finds great healthy ways to put a spin on our favorite splurge foods. www.lexiscleankitchen.com
@missnewfoodie- Do you want to browse through a parade of photo posts of gluttonous, colorful and definitely indulgent food? Here's the account for you. This New Yorker is constantly showing off her love for doughnuts, pizza and lots of sprinkles. Its foodie fun at its finest. Oh and no website-just purely a viral Instagram account I love to follow for entertainment.
@elizabethpalmerkitchen- A classically trained chef, a food photographer and also a contributor to many food sites including Robyn Moreno's of the Today Show and Travel Well Worldwide. Her food photo feed is crisp, bright and fresh looking! There are some great recipe ideas with her distinct and unique approach to food. I also happen to know her personally (I'll be headed to her dream wedding in Sonoma, CA in September!) Go give her account some Love! www.elizabethpalmerkitchen.com
@inspiralized – After experimenting with the spiralizer on my own for Behind the Plates I stumbled on to Ali Maffuci's Instagram account. She takes spiralizing vegetables to a whole other level. She's a jersey girl which made me like her even more and she has a fantastic blog and a cookbook that just recently came out with all her creations. Follow for some Inspiralization!
@food52 – If you're a foodie, you've most likely heard of Food52 before. If not, you may live under a rock. With over 600k followers this account has flawless food photos that you can scroll through for hours. *Warning it may cause uncontrolled hunger.
@girl_versus_dough –This carb loving account with a gourmet twist will make you want to host a party. The bisquits, baked bars, bagels and more always look so delicious! Of course for her full recipes you'll need to head here: www.girlversusdough.com
@pinchofyum – The photos on this feed jump off the page. Their brilliant colors from all the delectable meal ideas draw you in. Twenty minutes later you'll find yourself scrolling through all the foodporn. www.pinchofyum.com
@feedfeed – This is a curated account from all the hashtaggers out there sharing their fabulous food photos. The feed feed picks the best of the best to share out to its 270K followers. Just proof of the amazing food photography and blogger community that is on Instagram.
Party Planning
@everylastdetail – The flowers, the decorations, the cake ideas; their account name says it all "it's all in the details". This sites photo feed is dedicated to sharing out some of their favorite wedding day details. www.theeld.com
@100layercake – Not only do I love browsing this account for wedding inspiration but, I also love following its creator @amanda100lc . She loves to share creative wedding ideas but she also shares a passion for travel. She seems to constantly be enjoying a new location (her recent trip to Greece will make you very envious).
@fashionablehostess – This is just a flirty, fashionable woman's account to follow. I love her tablescapes and decoration detail ideas. The pink and white hues of her photography will brighten any day!
@littlemissparty – Taco Tuesday, Mother's Day, Earthday…no celebration is too small to make a party out of it for these NYC Moms. I absolutely love their creativity and inventiveness. For someone who loves to host parties this is a great resource for ideas. www.littlemisspartyplanner.com/blog
@hwtm – The Hostess with the Mostess is another party planning account that has concepts for everything from kid's birthdays to graduations to themed dinner parties. It's like having an event Pinterest board right on Instagram. www.blog.hwtm.com
…all for the love of the dish


text:
SO, you get a list of all the stuff that's rattling around in my mind. On to the bullet points!!
- There are very few Starbucks in Wilmington because right before the Starbucks craze a smart business person started Port City Java which is like Starbucks but locally owned. BUT neither of these fine establishments are anywhere near my work out in the middle of nowhere. I curse not being able to run quickly to get my pumpkin latte. But I think my ass and my wallet and silently glad. Today I shut those bastards up by getting the sickly sweet gas station "cappochino".
- I mentioned how unhappy I was with my last haircut and last night I tried somewhere new. I loved the stylist (a "straight" guy) and was happy how he made intelligent suggestions without forcing anything on me. I love the haircut but he cut me some wispy bangs along with my side swept bangs that I don't know about. Also, at the ripe old age of 28 I am pulling more gray hairs than I care to think about. The next person who tells me that redheads don't go gray is getting a kick in the neck.
- Three cheers for Fall TV. Blah blah blah going to the beach, spending time gazing into the Captain's eyes, enjoying nature. Bring on Ugly Betty and the Gossip Girl!
- I applied with a temp agency since my "temporary" job I took to get me through the summer is slowly sucking the life out of me. Now I'm trying to figure out when to give notice so I have minimum "no job" time.
- I'm hosting a surprise anniversary party for my in-laws in October. The house is no where near ready to have 40 people over. I'm slightly freaking out but also reveling in the pressure of a deadline. My list of "must do's" is getting longer and the Captain is getting scared by my casual mention of replacing the countertops and painting every room in the house.
- We're going to a wedding in Raleigh this weekend. My in-laws are also going to this wedding. I feel like all weekend I'm going to be pulled between my parents, the in-laws, friends and other obligations. Awesome.
- Also at this wedding will be two new babies. I am SO happy for the parents and waiting to have a baby was the smart decision based on our financial situation but I still feel a little sick about it.
- I'm finally starting to meet people in Wilmington and have joined a couple "Girls Night Out" groups. We're having dinner on Thursday and in two weeks we're going to see an 80's cover band! Woo Hoo!
- IT'S FALL!!!!! Good-bye sweating during my walk from the house to my car, good-bye having to blind people with the whiteness of my legs. Hello pumpkin everything! Hello sweaters! Hello red and gold leaves! Hello cool breezes!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Leroy H. Yereance, 92, of Newcastle, formerly of Boothbay Harbor and Southport, passed away peacefully on the morning of Feb. 8 at St. Andrews Village in Boothbay Harbor. Born on Dec. 19, 1925 in Hackensack, N.J., he was the son of Leroy and Marie Yereance.
He was a graduate of Woodridge High School, class of 1943. He first met his wife in kindergarten; they went through school together.
During WWII, Sgt. Yereance served as ball turret gunner on a B-24 with the Army Air Corps based in Italy and flew 21 missions over Rhineland, Po Valley, North Apennines, and the Balkans. He was awarded the WWII Victory Medal, Air Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the American Theater Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal and European-African Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon with four bronze service stars.
While attending a mutual friend's house party, he met up with his childhood friend Muriel. They left the party together, and spent the next 70-plus years as a couple, marrying in 1946 in the Presbyterian Church in Woodridge.
He and his wife moved from New York with their family to the Boothbay region in 1976 and owned and operated Cash and Carry convenience store on Townsend Avenue in Boothbay Harbor, opposite Seagate. The Yereances spent many winters in Florida where they enjoyed walking the beaches and sailing. They were active members of the Boothbay Harbor Yacht Club for many years and attended the Congregational Church of Boothbay Harbor. They took great pride in the fact that they had a close-knit family, which got together often to celebrate holidays, birthdays and enjoy summer cookouts.
Muriel predeceased him on Sept. 19, 2016 at Miles Memorial Hospital in Damariscotta.
He is survived by sister Gloria McCormick; children, Ken Yereance of Jefferson, Susan Morley and husband Joel of Edgecomb, Carol Heaberlin and husband Rick of Newcastle, Elayne Trotta of Pensacola, Fla., and David Yereance and wife Lisa of Riverview, Fla.; grandchildren, Andrew Morley and wife Sarah, Christina and Sarah C. Morley, Jason Yereance and partner Danielle Glidden, Scott Yereance and wife Katie, Bryan Heaberlin and wife Melissa, Melinda Jones and husband Mike, Nicholas Heaberlin, Richard Trotta and wife Michelle, Nicole and Lindsey Trotta, Ashley Panagakos and husband Nicholas, Taylor, Austin and Sam Yereance, and Seth Adams; great-grandchildren, Hannah and Nicholas Morley, Luke Morley, Griffin Yereance, Daniel and Ellison Trotta, Nicholas, Nayden and Nason Heaberlin, Rick-Wyatt Jones, Douglas, Jacob, Joshua and Skylar McMillan and Cole and Noah Heaberlin; great-great-grandchildren, Ayrianna and Tucker McMillan; and several nieces and nephews.
A military service will be held at 1 p.m., Sat., Feb. 17 at the American Legion, Industrial Park Rd., Boothbay. All are welcome.
In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the American Legion, Post 36, PO Box 874, Boothbay Harbor, ME 04538.
Condolences, and messages for his family, may be expressed by visiting www.StrongHancock.com.
Arrangements are under the direction and care of the Strong-Hancock Funeral Home, 612 Main St., Damariscotta.


text:
Framework for child class serialization, storage and versioning
The function Persistent() returns the class object of the Persistent class.
Each instance of a child of the Persistent class contains a member :version that is used to indicate the currentness of the (possibly persistent) instance. The methods :uptoDate(), :verUpdate() and :antiquated() utilize the :version instance data member for comparison with the class :C_version data member
The Persistent-child instance member :savedCfg is always initialized as false; by definition, at time of creation an instance has not been read from persistent storage. The only action that can change the value of :savedCfg is reading back a serialized instance with the :fromDisk() method. The :toDisk() does not modify the value of :savedCfg (however, an instance serialized by :toDisk() will not normally become a runtime instance except when instantiated with :fromDisk()).
The Persistent class supports the framework for introspection via the standard data members :_data and :_methods. However, since Persistent cannot itself be instantiated, it cannot expose instance introspection.
Trying to declare the method :initClass() as DEFERRED runs into some problems in Xbase++ viz our introspection implementation. Therefore, :initClass() is simply not declared in Persistent. Nonetheless, :initClass() should effectively be considered a DEFERRED method, and a child is responsible for defining an :initClass(). In most cases, this declaration can consist of exactly the following:
INLINE CLASS METHOD initClass
RETURN self
Since Persistent is an abstact class, remarks about the specific implementation life cycle of a child class are subject to override. However, in a "normal" case, the life cycle of a child class will be as described.
An instance of a child class of Persistent normally comes into existence immediately upon its assignment with the ChildClass():new() method. No seperate :create() method is required to request system resources.
A Persistent-child instance is destroyed when its variable falls out of its declaration scope. In principle, the variable containing a Persistent instance can be declared LOCAL to a function, and the exit condition of the controlling function will preform all necessary destruction of the instance.
Instance methods of Persistent behave in a somewhat unusual manner because Persistent is an abstract class, and because of our standard for implementation of introspection.
The action performed by each Persistent instance method is performed not upon "self", as is done in instance methods of most classes, but upon a passed in special parameter "child". The "child" parameter is always the "self" object of the child class instance. Persistent methods come in pairs, one with an initial underscore, its match beginning with a letter, and declared as DEFERRED. In the simplest case, a child class will implement one of these DEFERRED methods in the following manner:
INLINE METHOD foo([...]) ; RETURN ::Persistent:_foo(self, [...])
The implementation of the method named with an initial underscore will resemble:
METHOD Persistent:_foo(child, [...])
RETURN child
Notice that if an instance object is returned, this object will normally be the object "child" rather than the object "self".
The :_init() method of the Persistent class, and thereby (normally) indirectly the :new() method of child classes, initializes introspection data in a somewhat unusual manner, compared to other classes. Since Persistent-child instances are designed to be serialized and persistently stored, it is necessary to store introspection data in Class data members, as well as in the instance itself. Doing this allows comparison of a serialized instance with current Class data. Therefore, ::_data and ::_methods are initialized as Persistent():C_data and Persistent():C_methods, respectively. Also ::version is initialized with its corresponding Class data, Persistent():C_version.
Since XBase++ does not allow redefinition of self, the methods :fromDisk() and :verUpdate() return the modified Persistent-child instance, but do not update the existing instance in-place.
Since XBase++ does not allow redefinition of self, the methods :fromDisk() and :verUpdate() return the modified Persistent-child instance, but do not update the existing instance in-place.
Source file is Persistent.prg


text:
Vegetarianism: less grain for cattle, fewer animals killed in grain fields
Mike Archer claimed on The Science Show 27th April 2013 that during harvest, enormous harm is brought to sentient beings such as mice in fields of grains, meaning there is no moral basis for consuming a vegetarian diet. His view has drawn widespread comment including this response from Gary Francione at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Professor Francione points out that in the US, 80% of grains under cultivation are fed to animals. It is an inefficient process. This would be replaced by a far smaller planting if the grains were for human consumption. He suggests animal agriculture is an ecological disaster and is only carried out for human pleasure and convenience.
Robyn Williams: It's time to meet those mice again. Could they be dying so that we can eat veg?
[Music: Babe soundtrack, 'If I Had Words']
That was The Science Show a couple of weeks ago, Professor Mike Archer stirred things up, both in his article in The Conversation and right here.
Mike Archer: All I really wanted to make the point of was there isn't a free meal. No matter what you eat, animals die to enable that to happen. If you're going to eat a primarily vegetarian diet, if it's going to include grains, for example, we have monocultures that have been established at the expense of our naturally bio-diverse environments. Land has been swept clean. 10,000 years ago in the Near East when agriculture started, that was the beginning of disasters for global biodiversity. We swept all this natural diversity aside on all continents to plant just a few species that we valued or to run just cattle instead of all complex ecosystems.
So in the mere act of producing lots of vegetarian food you are killing so many animals. But the key bit here was what happens when you are growing grains or pulses. What we know is, for example, in all the towns around Australia that are wheat producing towns or centres, on average about every five years they have a mouse plague. And you think, mice…but mice, you know…hey, let's talk about mice…but they get killed in the millions and millions, mass slaughtered in horrible ways that cause their deaths to be really unpleasant, and that is going into producing grains. Yes, some of those grains are fed to some cattle, but they are also the core of the diets for a lot of people who don't want to eat any meat.
But when you think about mice, and we are talking now here about sentient lives, is the vegetarian or vegan's claim that their diets involve less death of sentient beings correct or not? When you actually do the sums you find, oh no, it's not clear at all that they are correct because all these mice, among other things, are being killed to make sure that we get those grains.
Robyn Williams: That was Professor Mike Archer talking a couple of weeks ago on The Science Show, stirring it up, suggesting that we cause more harm to animals by going for a vegetarian style agriculture because of the collateral damage, and we've had innumerable comments on that, not least surprisingly from America as well. And on the line is Gary Francione who is the Professor of Law at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Professor Francione, how come you're listening to The Science Show in Jersey?
Gary Francione: Well, the show has been circulating around and people are very interested in this issue. And Professor Archer presents the issue in a provocative way and I think that it has gotten a pretty wide circulation, and I got probably 20 emails from people telling me about this and expressing concern, outrage, amusement, whatever, about it, and so I thought, well, I've got to see what's going on here.
Robyn Williams: Indeed, thank you for that. And what were your three objections?
Gary Francione: Look, I think that Professor Archer is wrong when he says that we're killing more animals with grain production than we would if we were eating animals. If we were all eating grains, if we all had a plant-based diet, if we were all vegans, we'd actually have many, many fewer acres under cultivation.
So the problem is it takes between six to twelve pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh. So we're growing all of these grains. For example, in the United States 80% of the grains that we grow are fed to animals that we're going to slaughter and eat. If people were consuming those grains directly they'd have to consume many fewer pounds of those grains and we would not have them going through the inefficient conversion process that animals represent. So I think that's the first problem, is that Professor Archer has got it wrong when he says we are killing more animals with grain production—that's simply wrong. If we were all vegans we'd have a fraction of the acres presently under cultivation and we'd be consuming much less grain than we are growing right now to feed the animals in this inefficient conversion process.
Robyn Williams: That's the first argument. What is the second argument?
Gary Francione: The second argument is Professor Archer talks about how apparently in Australia you have rodent infestations or these rodent plagues every few years, and again, the rodents are being killed as a result of these plagues. Now, going back to my first point, if we were all consuming grains we would have many fewer grains in storage facilities, so the problem would not be on the same scale.
But also think about it this way. We live in a world in which we kill 56 billion land animals—and that's not counting the aquatic animals—56 billion land animals every year. We would agree and I'm sure that you would…let me ask you, would you agree with the proposition that it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals? Would you agree with that?
Robyn Williams: I think most people would, yes.
Gary Francione: Yes, I think they would too. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can't justify suffering or death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience. I think we can see that, that if we have a rule that says 'it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children, but it's okay to beat them if you enjoy watching them suffer', that would create an exception that would not only be perverse but it would create an exception that would make the rule silly.
Similarly we say it's wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals. Well, what's our justification? We don't need to eat animals to be optimally healthy. I have been a vegan for going on now 31 years and I would daresay that I have more energy and suffer from fewer colds and viruses and things like that than most of the people I teach who are young enough to be my grandchildren. So the idea that you need animal products to be optimally healthy is simply false.
Animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. The best justification that we have for inflicting suffering and death on 56 billion animals a year is that they taste good. So in one sense we are saying it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, but on the other hand we participate in this all the time.
And before you ask me, well, would you eat an animal if you were stranded on a desert island and there were no vegetables, you know, if you and I were on the desert island and there were no vegetables…
Robyn Williams: You'd eat me.
Gary Francione: I'd kill and eat you if I could, but we're not on a desert island, you're in any situation of conflict with non-human animals. You simply choose to eat them because you like the taste or the convenience of going out to the fast food place next door to the studio or whatever. It's simply a matter of pleasure or convenience. That I think really can't morally justify what it is we're doing with animals.
So we live in a world in which we are killing 56 billion animals a year for no good reason whatsoever. And so when Archer talks about, 'Well, we have these plagues and we've got to kill all these rats,' well yes, that plague occurs in the context in which we engage in absolutely mind-numbing violence, completely unnecessary violence, against billions of animals. We don't take animals' suffering seriously. If we had those plagues that Archer talks about and we lived in a vegan world where we did respect animal life we'd come up with better solutions to deal with the less amount of grain that we would then have in those storage facilities because we'd all be consuming the grain directly.
The third point is it seems to me that what Archer is saying is he is making a version of the argument that we can't avoid killing animals in living our lives, so therefore eating them is okay. Let's look at that argument in a human context. You know, we build roads, and we know, you can get an actuarial to tell you that if you build this road and the speed limit is 60 mph you're going to have x number of deaths, 70 mph x + y number of deaths, that's still different, building the road is still different from intentionally killing those numbers of people. Whatever activity we engage in, the manufacture of the most innocuous, the most beneficial product is going to involve human beings who will become injured and may get killed in the making of those products. But that doesn't mean then that we should throw up our hands and say, 'Well, violence against humans is just fine because our daily activity (put aside the animal question) involves harming human beings.' So that means it's okay to intentionally harm them? No, of course not.
I think that these three points rebut Professor Archer, and I would one day really enjoy if you would set up a debate. I think the two of us would enjoy talking to each other.
Robyn Williams: Yes, we'll see if we can do that. What happens when you have a debate with your students who seem to be slightly oblivious of some of these points you make?
Gary Francione: You know, I teach a course and have been teaching a course with Anna Charlton called Jurisprudence: The Rights of Humans and Non-Humans. We talk about racism, sexism, heterosexism, speciesism and we talk about these issues and about how various forms of discrimination all share common attributes. And you're right, a lot of young people haven't really thought about these issues. But that's because we live in a world in which we're constantly bombarded with media who tell us that if we don't eat animal products we're not going to be manly or healthy or whatever. And what's really interesting is mainstream healthcare people…now, we're not talking about the alternative healthcare people, we're talking about mainstream healthcare people are every single day telling us that animal products are killing us. And, as I said before, I'm 31 years without eating meat, dairy, eggs or whatever, and I ain't dead yet, and I'm feeling great.
Robyn Williams: And what about clothing? What do you do about clothing?
Gary Francione: I don't wear wool or leather. Again, it's very easy now to get non-leather shoes, and I buy cotton clothing.
Robyn Williams: What's wrong with wool?
Gary Francione: Oh, from Australia I'm being asked that question! Mulesing! I think that the process of producing wool involves a lot of violence and eventually those animals are killed…
Robyn Williams: Yes, the mulesing debate is still going strong here in fact, cutting the tail off the lamb.
Gary Francione: Actually it's cutting the skin around the anus surrounds so that you don't have fly-strike, so it's a pretty gruesome situation. And, look, those animals are all killed. I think that shearing sheep, and I've seen it happen before and it scares the hell out of them, it's a violent process, they get cut, they are frightened, eventually they are killed, you have the mulesing, which is I think an absolutely brutal process. So the thing is, look, we don't need to wear animal clothing.
Robyn Williams: Professor, a final question, and this really comes across in a place where you teach law, it has crossed our minds, we've noticed in Australia that you tend to be quite fond of guns in the United States. What about hunting animals for fun?
Gary Francione: Well, you're absolutely right, this is a culture that is obsessed with guns and you don't really appreciate it until you live here and see how intense it is actually. Look, I don't understand the pleasure that someone gets…I just took a walk with our dogs and I saw some new deer, some new fawns with their parents out in the fields, and I can't really understand the impulse to pick up a gun or a bow and kill those animals. I don't understand that.
However, from a moral perspective I don't really see the difference between going to the store and buying a dead animal in a styrofoam package or going and killing one. So when animal rights people get upset about hunters I always ask them, well, are you vegan, and if they tell me no I say, well, then why are you criticising the person who goes and hunts? What's the difference? I can understand there is a psychological difference, that you think that there is something perverse about taking pleasure in killing, and I understand that, but from a moral perspective I do not think that there's any difference whatsoever whether you kill the animal yourself or whether you buy the animal in a plastic container, it's still wrong.
Robyn Williams: Professor Gary Francione, it's been a pleasure having you on The Science Show, and I'll try to set up that debate.
Gary Francione: I would enjoy it immensely, I really would, and I thank you very much for having me. It's a very intelligent show, I enjoy it, and I will be listening to it now. It's a provocative show and it's an intelligently designed show and I'm happy to be part of it.
Robyn Williams: Thank you so much.
Gary Francione: Thank you.
Robyn Williams: Gary Francione is a Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and before him Professor Mike Archer from the University of New South Wales. And we may well have a friendly debate between them in a later Science Show. What you think?
- Gary Francione
- Professor of Law and Philosophy
Rutgers University
New Brunswick New Jersey USA
Further Information
- Presenter
- Robyn Williams
- Producer
- David Fisher
Comments (55)
Greg Nathan :
11 May 2013 12:24:44pm
This was an excellent segment. Thank you. I'd love to see the debate that was referred to.
Graham Strong :
13 May 2013 11:41:48am
'Whats wrong with wool'?? asks Robyn Williams.
In the years spent waiting for Professor Franciones enlightened views of everything that's wrong with wool & shearing, I've observed a few more negatives to add to the list.
-The wool industry employs too many people, including young rural people who unfortunately enjoy physical activity. Strong rural employment risks undermining the city-country divide and breeding troublesome future rural independents in marginal seats.
-Many merino breeders are now breeding plainer skinned sheep which do not require mulesing and suffer less shearing cuts & stress. This is giving the sheep a 'cocky' attitude, and thus making them difficult to muster even by the most thoughtful of Kelpies.
-The plainer sheep are easier to shear which means shearers are able to shear more sheep in a day without getting as many back injuries. This is costing our physiotherapists and chiropractors valuable economic interest.
-Many of these plainer merinos do not get fly-strike or need chemical treatments. This is costing our Life Science industries lucrative research grants & future royalties from veterinary product development.
Gary L. :
13 Nov 2014 3:56:18am
I am glad that Graham acknowledges - in so many words - the harm and suffering the wool industry inflicts on non-merino sheep, and that even merino sheep suffer harm, though in lesser amount, from the wool industry.
He left out the early death part. And the suffering during transport.
Also, sheep in their native habitat require no shearing, there are plenty of eco-friendly alternatives to wool, and those industries and many others employ people so we need not depend on deliberately harming animals for employment.
To add a couple more "negatives" to his list... According to most mainstream health organizations, if we shifted toward a plant-based diet, heart surgeon employment and erectile dysfunction pill sales might fall.
Polly Rickard :
11 May 2013 12:33:46pm
Interesting to hear Gary Francione's answer to Mike Archer and I vote for a debate, soon. Great program and it's good to hear the mice again; they are a very under-represented demographic on Radio National.
John Saint-Smith :
11 May 2013 12:51:16pm
Professor Francione did not lay a glove on Mike Archer's original argument.
Yes, it is true that in the US, the vast majority of animals are reared in factory farms or feedlots, where their normal diet is replaced by grains grown in monocultures. But it is somewhat disingenuous of the Professor to claim that Archer is 'wrong' because American animal rearing accounts for 80% of grain production. Surely even Americans could manage to put their animals back on the range, and restore the grasslands which wither away without grazers.
If 80% goes to animal feed, then he would have a hard job explaining where the millions of tonnes of corn for ethanol production come from. I assume that Francione restricts himself to pure fossil sourced fuel for his car, maximizing the environmental harm caused by fossil carbon dioxide. So is he guilty of the same hypocrisy with a different twist?
In Australia, our farmed animals eat a great deal less grain. Sheep are almost exclusively reared on range lands where there presence does interfere with the natural ecosystems, and yes animals will be killed, but far fewer than the lotfed animals. He dismisses Archer's mouse plague, claiming that in vegan land we'd find a way of avoiding that inconvenient fact of life in Australian agriculture. That is just special pleading, and completely fatuous.
If you want a bizarre twist, how about the fact that the tapping of the Artesian Basin in the outback has increased the number of kangaroos. Do we get a plus score from the Professor when we increase the natural animal population?
But then he drops the ball completely by announcing that he only wears plant fibres, including cotton, the growing of which involves the slaughter of millions of other species of animal, from the insects that are poisoned, to the mammals and birds that are displaced - read starved out of their habitat, in order to grow cotton, flax, and other 'natural' fibres in monoculture.
Last but by no means least Francione offers the extraordinary figure of 56 billion animals killed by human activity. I contend that the deliberate killing for eating accounts for little more than a hundredth part of that total, and the vast majority are killed accidentally, or as a result of our deliberate manipulation of the environment. If we followed his advice and ate only plant protein, we would reduce this toll by less than 1%, and even that minimal assessment is contentious!
What a joke!
Andres :
12 May 2013 9:25:13pm
"Surely even Americans could manage to put their animals back on the range."
I don't think they could. They would have to minimize their consumption of animals dramatically in order to be able to do this and you can be sure that the majority of people will not be willing to give up flesh.
"I assume that Francione restricts himself to pure fossil sourced fuel for his car, maximizing the environmental harm caused by fossil carbon dioxide" Whether he does this or not is irrelevant to his argument. He could be eating a cow while he was stating his argument and it would still not make his argument any less valid.
"Sheep are almost exclusively reared on range lands where there presence does interfere with the natural ecosystems" This is not entirely true. It is impossible to farm animals for human consumption to the extent that Australia does and not have any negative impact on the local ecosystem. You also have the "little" issue of so many animals being exported "live" to meat horrific deaths- most of them being literally tortured to death - in other countries.
"vegan land" I'm not sure what your definition of vegan is, but as I understand it a vegan is a person who tried to cause as little harm as possible. You may see it as a diet, and in that case it would help to forget about the word "vegan" and focus on the intentions of the people who you call "vegan" and try to understand the "why" of their actions. That, I feel would be more productive and helpful than actually trying to prove wrong a group of people who are trying and willing to do the right thing and help others. Don't you agree that this world needs more people like that?
"Do we get a plus score from the Professor" Who are you referring to when you write "we"?
"But then he drops the ball completely by announcing that he only wears plant fibres, including cotton, the growing of which involves the slaughter of millions of other species of animal" Why do you suppose he does this? Is it because he's stupid? Uneducated? Crazy? Clueless? I don't think anyone can claim that Professor Francione can be defined as any of the above, so why do you suppose that he does this. Try to understand the reasoning behind his actions and you may uncover something that will surprise you. Until you make that effort I think it is useless to criticize someone and their actions when we have no idea why they do it. Maybe, just maybe, professor Francione has spent a lot more time than you and me on this issue, which maybe, just maybe, has allowed him to have a clearer understanding and come up with a better way of how people can have as little negative impact on others as possible.
Gary L :
12 May 2013 9:40:40pm
Practically speaking, there is not enough land to house the billions of land animals raised and killed each year in the US. We would decimate or degrade even more land if we did this. We can produce more calories per acre, on average, with plant foods. If we all went vegan in the US, some of the land used for grazing could revert to wilderness, and some populations currently displaced by grazing could rebound.
Australian meat-eaters eat grains fruits, and vegetables just as vegetarians do. The same efficiencies would be gained by Australians going vegan as Americans going vegan.
American (and Australian) grasslands don't need cattle to thrive. They do much better with native species that are suited to the land, such as bison. As we reduce cattle grazing, more bison and other native species can take over. Furthermore, on a ranch cattle do not roam, which puts a greater strain on the land and on the other wildlife, especially if the cattle are fenced in.
Animals raised for food are almost always killed young. Animals killed accidentally may be of any age. Animals raised for food have typically been bred, over centuries, to overproduce flesh, milk, eggs, and/or fur. Animals killed by accident do not have this burden. Animals raised for food typically have amputations performed on them without painkillers, and are very often forced to travel long distances in horrid conditions to be slaughtered. We do not do this to animals killed accidentally.
Francione's figure should be multiplied by 10 to include fish. We're literally running out of fish in the ocean, and for every fish that's sold, more than one fish is thrown back in the water, dead. More and more fish are now raised in "fish farms" which are basically factory farms of the sea.
If we truly care about animals and want to lower our impact on them, let us first stop the easily avoidable killing, and then work on ways to minimize our accidental impact. As we switch to a more plant-based diet - and take the lives of animals more seriously - we undoubtedly will find and perfect new methods to harm fewer animals. (Even if this meant more importing, we'd probably still save lives and energy, since transportation to retail source only comprises a small percent of total resource use and environmental impact.) We have the brainpower and creativity - do we have the will?
Rupert :
20 Jun 2014 8:28:10pm
If you include chickens then 56 billion animals per year would easily be the right ballpark, if you mean the whole world. I'm not sure whether Francione meant just the US.
Charlie Dare :
11 May 2013 2:50:19pm
Hi Robyn for your guidance and information both my brother and I have been audited by Aust wool board field inspector over last 3 years to make sure sheep haven't been mulsed or if they had proof of purchase of pain relief from stock firm.Elastic rings are used by the majority of sheep producers.No blood just restricts blood flow and tail drops off later in the paddock.The USA guy put forward dreadful reasons for not wearing wool which you in your ignorance seemed to go along with alas~ Just saying its bad enough in primary production with out incorrect bad press.Pink(US Singer) and other nutters weigh in to things they nothing about too~
12 May 2013 7:09:15pm
I would assume that people with lots of academic qualifications, such as the interviewee, would check their facts before adding their mite to public debates. The outcome of this is someone blathering on about their current soapbox issue blissfully ignorant of the facts.
One small, but I feel pertinent, fact is that sheep will die if you don't shear them. An unshorn sheep is condemned to a long and undoubtedly painful end due to starvation.
How is this?? I hear you ask in your relentless search for knowledge.
The answer lies in the fact that wool does not stop growing. If a sheep isn't shorn, its wool just grows and grows and grows. Eventually, it rains (even in this dry country). The sheep's wool gets wet. It gets extremely heavy, so heavy, in fact, that the sheep can no longer support the weight. The sheep collapses. It cannot rise, it cannot move and it cannot eat. If it is not assisted by someone, it will die, slowly and in extreme discomfort.
Assistance usually takes the form of shearing the sheep. The sheep, after a little time in recovery, will usually survive.
So, shearing sheep is cruel??? Puleeezze. Check your facts before mouthing off. It makes you sound like an ignoramus.
ibika :
07 Nov 2014 8:02:18pm
So people who care about violence in wool production are nutters? What a world we live in! It'sunbelievable.
Enzo :
11 May 2013 2:50:22pm
Vegetarianism is a great threat to the environment precisely because it is more efficient at providing food. The argument is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me.
Being more efficient, it allows to feed more people with the same land. Alternatively, one could feed the same number of people with less land.
The problem is that in whole human history, any increase in efficiency has not been used to reduce the human footprint, but simply to increase the number of people until any advantage created by the increased efficiency is lost. A larger number of people don't just need the same land as before, but, they also need more water, more metals, cause more emissions and generally consume a lot more. Therefore, the final effect, just for the increase of people, will be a worsening of environmental conditions.
This is exactly what has happened quite recently. The book "The population bomb" is often derided for inaccurately predicting mass starvation.
This wasn't so much because the calculations were wrong but, rather, because a massive increase in efficiency of food production, the so called Green Revolution.
The Green Revolution would have allowed the same number of people to live with a much smaller footprint but, guess what happened ?
The population grew instead to match the new capability and the environment is in more in trouble than ever. Plus we now have a much bigger population to maintain, with ever growing expectations.
This is applies to any increase in efficiency, not just food and vegetarianism. When you are urged to save more water, food or energy, whatever is saved never goes to a better environment (it might, temporarily, until the population grows to match the new limit), it just goes to grow more people and make matter worse.
So, please, waste more, it is very damaging to the environment, but the alternative is far worse.
Gary L :
13 May 2013 12:00:59am
Surely we should try to do better than our present course, in which we're destroying rainforests (mostly for cattle grazing), torturing animals in factory farms, contributing to starvation in Ethiopia which feeds grain to cattle and shipping them to Europe while residents go without food, and decimating fish populations. Yes, we might cause great famines or pandemics due to overuse of antibiotics, but if we don't change our attitudes, the humans who survive will repeat the cycle. We can and should do better than wanton destruction and exploitation.
Cathy Biggs :
11 May 2013 4:33:23pm
Great show. I would love to hear a debate between Gary Francione and Mike Archer. Archer's comments just don't make sense to me and I'd love to hear his justifications and arguments. Gary Francione certainly knows his stuff.
Joe Tims :
11 May 2013 5:22:50pm
Great to see Gary Francione raise some very relevant points and correct Mikes misleading statements.
The Standard Australia Diet (SAD diet) is making most Australians over weight or obese and a shift to less meat and diary consumption will benefit many people, animals and the environment.
Russell :
11 May 2013 8:20:49pm
1. That is the situation in the US. The percentage is far lower in Australia, where we have somewhat less unsustainable levels of human overpopulation, and vast areas of rangeland which can support livestock grazing (albeit with significant ecological damage) but not grain agriculture. We could exploit rangeland ecological productivity with much lower ecological impact by harvesting kangaroos instead of running cattle. I believe, in fact, that this is what originally prompted Mike Archer to raise this argument in the first place (see his book, Going Native, 2004). Animal rights campaigners have a significant dampening effect on the kangaroo industry, thereby serving to exacerbate the ecological harm done by cattle grazing.
2. Anyone who is inclined to agree with this fellow should also be aware that he believes that all use of animals should be legally banned, and has spent many years actively working towards this outcome by "teaching" his ideology to law students. No more meat, leather, eggs, dairy products, honey, or wool. (I'm not sure where he stands on honey and silk... depends on the interpretation of the shaky notion of "sentience".) By all means, agree with what he has to say today, as long as you are willing to become a strict vegan, or a hypocrite.
(I was an ethical vegan myself for a few years, until I recognised the absurdity of repudiating the ecosystem role endowed upon us, and all other carivores and omivores, by millions of years of evolution and now locked into our genome. At the end of the day, if you reject heterotrophy, you reject ecosystems in their entirety. Few things could be more absurd, or do more environmental harm as to promulgate a philosophy that casts all of nature as a moral evil.)
Gary L :
13 May 2013 12:12:25am
1. You'd be surprised how productive we can be on marginal lands with modern techniques.
2. We can produce more calories per acre with plants than with animals. If enough people go vegan, some of the marginal land can revert to wilderness.
3. Even if some plant foods have to be imported, transportation is only a small portion of energy use in food production.
4. "Productivity" is meaningless - if not obscene - if it involves mass-murder.
5. The earth's sentient beings are the most important part of the ecosystem. The environment serves them, not the other way around. It's meaningless to talk about protecting the environment by destroying those whom the environment is supposed to protect.
6. Yes, let's end all exploitation. Better that someone is imperfect and and strives to do this than doesn't try at all.
7. The ecosystem doesn't demand that we choose violence. Don't repudiate your compassion and moral obligation to refrain from inflict avoidable harm. We're also endowed with consciences, empathy, and inventiveness. Indeed, some of the healthiest, longest-lived populations on earth, such as the Hunzas and Vilacabambas, get nearly all their calories from plants. Let's use science and experience to close that small gap.
Gary L :
13 May 2013 12:28:39am
Animal rights advcocates are not to blame for cattle grazing. That's some convoluted (and possibly self-protective) illogic. The fault lies with those who eat cattle. The solution is to eat plants. Fortunately, with a modicum of planning and effort, this can be done in a way that is satisfying, filling, and delicious. I've served vegan food to literally thousands of meat-eaters and they loved it.
Russell :
13 May 2013 12:26:50pm
Correct, the ecosystem doesn't "demand" that we choose violence - we are free to repudiate the ecosystem role endowed upon us by our genome.
An ecosystem is violence. It only exists because organisms are born, then live and reproduce, then die. All parts of this, including death, are essential to the function of an ecosystem. Much of the time that death is caused directly by another organism - that's violence. This is not just some lamentable flaw of natural ecosystems. It's absolutely fundamental to them. Not only can't they function without violence, the various species that comprised them could not have evolved in the first place without the selection pressures so exerted.
Is it possible to repudiate your own role in the ecosystem without condemning the entire ecosystem at the same time? I don't think so. Regardless of any claim that only humans have moral agency, the decision to refrain from animal predation is founded in the idea that all animal death is bad. Inasmuch as countless billions of animals are killed every second in natural ecosystems, if death is bad, ecosystems are indescribably evil things. To me, that is an absurd notion.
The value of an ecosystem inheres not just in its "sentient beings", or even in the enumeration of all its organisms or species, but also, more importantly, in the interactions of all organisms (and with the nonliving environment.) Animal-vs-animal predation is an inextricable part of this. If you devalue that, because it is inextricable, you devalue the ecosystem itself.
That's why I say that animal rights philosophy is anti-ecological and not compatible with environmentalism is it is typically conceived (through the "deep ecology" precepts of the inherent value of ecosystems I have used above.)
Russell :
13 May 2013 12:41:24pm
P.S. In response to "Animal rights advocates are not to blame for cattle grazing" -- Promoting veganism to reduce the impact of cattle grazing is like promoting sexual abstinence to reduce the impact of STIs.
It's one solution but it's not the only one, and it's not likely to be a palatable option for most people. And certainly anyone who publicly opposes the use of condoms is actively contributing to the problem of STIs in the same way that anyone who publicly opposes the eating of kangaroos is actively contributing to the problem of environmental degradation caused by cattle grazing.
J McHenry :
13 May 2013 7:00:56pm
1. So you admit that livestock damage the ecosystem and are not suitable to the Australian environment? Kangaroos have a lower impact. Well, no cattle would be optimum wouldn't it?
I don't think vegans are proposing to replace cattle grazing with grain crops so the comparison is not valid.
2. Gee ending oppression, what a terrible thought.
If you think that non-violence is utopian because violence exists in ecosystems, do you agree with cannibalism and human slavery? What if we just eat/enslave those humans who lack the rationality and power to defend themselves?
Cannibalism exists in ecosystems too. The underlying ideology is the same.
Why is sentience a "shaky" notion? Do you think that a blade of grass is the same as an adult human as far as sentience is concerned? Do you disagree with laws that forbid cruelty to animals? If yes, why?
J McHenry :
13 May 2013 7:01:07pm
3. You say "An ecosystem is violence." So that's a justification for violence? So war, murder, genocide, eugenics are all part of it? These are all used as forms of protecting the in-group, the "superior" gene and thus, evolution. So all ok then? I hope we've moved on from this kind of thinking.
Nobody is casting nature as a moral evil. It depends what you consider "natural". So, violence is natural? Does that justify murdering other humans? Does it make it moral because it's "natural"? Well, there you have it, we're not really like the animals in the jungle after all, are we?
Your example of banning sex because it can lead to STDs is not valid. Human activities that cause harm to humans are examples of self-harm. You forget that the harm caused by our choice to consume animals is not only self-harm (human health, ruining the environment etc) but also causes harm to animals who had no say in it. We force them to suffer and die for no good reason. The collateral damage we suffer is of our own making.
Ecosystems are about balance. Do you really think that mass breeding, genetic manipulation, selective breeding, artificial insemination, CAFOs, feedlots, grain feeding etc, and the slaughter of 56 billion animals for 7 billion people (many of whom are starving) is balanced?
What are the waste, pollution, emissions, massive water use, land use, deforestation, extinction rates etc from animal agriculture doing for the ecosystem?
Russell :
14 May 2013 1:26:51pm
To J McHenry-
1. Concerning the question, do I support this or that unsustainable consequence of a massive human overpopulation eating in the way endowed by its genome? Not at all. The only real solution to this and the broader enviromental disaster which we are perpetrating is population stabilisation and eventual decline. Tinkering with individual aspects of the per-capita impact won't have enough effect and may make matters worse by encouraging further population expansion as a resource constraint is lifted (see Green Revolution). Don't get me wrong, many things are worth doing anyway (a little improvement in our slide to armageddon is surely better than none) and personally I do more than most to reduce my potential impact, even though I know those things would not be remotely enough even if everyone did them, if population growth continues. But for the vast majority of the people, giving up meat is simply not something they will voluntarily put on the table.
2. Do I support violence among humans? Absolutely not. Social/cultural (interhuman) interactions are a very different context than ecological interactions. Humans are capable of coordinating themselves to agree to standards of behaviour that improve the overall lot of humanity. It's far from perfect (witness war and capitalism) but the potential is there, therefore it is ethically correct to encourage mutual respect as far as possible. Nonhuman organisms lack the capacity to negotiate such arrangements, to any significant degree. But not only that, it's fundamentally impossible for nonhuman life to be sustained in such a way, even if you could find a way to control the behaviour of every organism, and had no ethical qualms in doing so. Exploitative relationships are absolutely fundamental to ecosystems. You couldn't get rid of them without destroying the ecosystem. It's not a matter of being an impractical aim - it's a matter of that aim being completely at odds with the very basis of the ecosystem itself. It's an antiecological aim.
3. "We're not really like the other animals in the jungle," you say. I agree. Unlike nonhuman animals (with possibly a few partial exceptions), we are cultural beings at least as much as we are ecological beings and biological beings. In the cultural sphere we are able to define modes of behaviour that benefit us which are not possible to universally apply in the ecological sphere. Yet we are still animals in ecosystems. There's no getting around biology. That's why we still eat, breathe, excrete, reproduce and so-on, and why many of us find it important for our emotional/mental/spiritual wellbeing that the ways in which we engage in these activities is concordant to some degree with the ways for which our genome has adapted. Is eating a more minor aspect of these needs? I don't think so. If anything, it's special. It is our primary mode of participation in ecosystems.
Wesley :
07 Nov 2014 1:49:29pm
Have enjoyed reading your posts on this Russell.
Right now I'm a vegetarian and try and limit the amount of dairy I consume. I've not made the transition to vegan simply because I don't have the time or ability to cook a main meal every day and vegan ready meal options are few and far between.
But I have recently been thinking about how it doesn't make sense to say killing for food is fundamentally wrong because that is how eco-systems and life works. However, I abhor factory farming and the idea that breeding and enslaving animals for the sole benefit of the human race just doesn't sound right to me at all. When I put myself in the shoes of a factory farmed animal, I imagine feeling depressed, dejected and not enjoying life one bit. Of course, life in the wild for some animals can be cruel, harsh and not altogether enjoyable. As a human I may enjoy life in prison (or as a slave that's treated well and fed) as opposed to a starving African child but I would still rather not be in prison or a slave.
Factory farming was brought about because of the heightened demand due to population increase. It was necessary to an extent because without it people would die of starvation. But in the developed countries of the world these days there are plenty of alternative options to meat - and as such to me it makes sense to not support factory farming and either give up eating meat and dairy or only eat meat/dairy from non-factory farming. Since the latter for me is too expensive it makes logical sense to give up meat and reduce dairy as much as possible.
Since I don't think killing an animal for food is wrong I believe hunting an animal for food is fine. But we live in a society where it's just not possible for everyone to hunt their own food. And so non-factory farms were also a necessity created by modern day society.
As a society we consume too much meat though as it is and hence the need for factory farming. If everyone only had meat once per month and we began to control the population then maybe the world would become a better place for animals again.
One other thing: Although I still eat dairy, I think it's worse than meat consumption. It's addictive and in so many things but it's really abnormal to want to consume the milk of another species. We need milk as babies from our mothers but that's about it. It's just not something we need as we grow up and as adults.
G. Hilbert :
12 May 2013 6:25:50am
I'll begin by saying that I loathe cruelty to animals and seeing them killed, and my loathing goes back a long way. I've never forgotten one of the most traumatic experiences of my life: that of being an eight-year-old in the 1950s watching on helplessly as my beloved dog Binky died of strychnine poisoning—a most terrible and painful way to die—I can assure you the Wiki description of such a death is accurate. I was inconsolable; I hope the mongrel perpetrator is roasting in Hell.
Still, I love eating meat and fish and I can't help it. They're the centre-stone of any meal and my consumption of them is as intrinsic to my being as much as is sex or breathing or any other bodily function. Furthermore, given the stats, I reckon I speak for most of humanity.
I like vegetables and grains—and I even eat and like 'good' stuff that's often too hard an effort for even diehard vegans etc. such as plain boiled lentils sans salt, seasonings etc. For most of us, no matter how one dresses up vegies and carbohydrates they're still not the full bottle when compared to meat. Moreover, I reckon we're programmed that way because there's more energy in meat and fat than carbohydrates (fat 9 calories/gm versus 5 for carbs and zilch for vegies).
Frankly, I'm damn well fed up with vegetarians, vegans, environmentalists and do-gooders etc. for ignoring the huge elephant in the room which is simply that in my lifetime alone the population of the planet has gone up from ~2.5 to ~7 billion—almost three times. Paul Ehrlich is right—we humans are like a mice plague and we're eating ourselves out of house and home. The issue of plant versus meat protein pails to the trivial when the population can increase threefold in less than a single lifetime—it's dishonesty and utter hypocrisy to think otherwise—and it's time proper science knocked this woolly thinking on the head.
Remember: Across a normal lifetime a human being consumes somewhere about one hundred tonnes of food. Moreover, there's no sign that the do-gooder set setting an example and rushing out for condoms more than any other part of the population!
It seems to me that one of the greatest tragedies of the human condition is that in times of peace and relative prosperity we humans lose our logical sense and objectivity. In times of war we focus on what is absolutely essential for existence but in times of peace we've the luxury of grinding things fine to the point of absurdity—and that's what is happening in this argument. Instead of science and rational thought we've an illogical 'religious' zealotry boarding on the fanatical.
It's just on 70 years since WWII—that time when almost everyone was touched by war and focused on what really matters. Now, it's as if we live in a time when some inbuilt automated control in humanity has turned up the gain on absurdity—now we're in noise that's drowning out logic and sense.
J McHenry :
13 May 2013 7:29:15pm
"Still, I love eating meat and fish and I can't help it."
Like many people who enjoy eating animals, that's what lies behind all the excuses. It's not because it's "natural", more efficient, rational, moral or logical, it's based on the emotional value of pure selfish "I like it".
"…the population of the planet has gone up from ~2.5 to ~7 billion"
Yes, and as it is we're killing 56 billion land animals to feed some of them something they do not need for optimum health. On the contrary, it's killing them.
What "science" are you talking about? This is from a report from the UN: "A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change".
How do you propose to feed even more people using a vasting less efficient means of food production? It's less efficient in every way: producing it, consuming it.
You know what else happended during WWII? "Norway was one of several western European nations occupied by Nazi Germany during the conflict between 1939 through 1945. The Germans removed all animal livestock from these occupied countries. The native population subsisted on whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit. Almost immediately death from heart attacks and strokes in Norway plummeted. " (Dr Esselstyn)
You know another thing about war? People dismiss little trivialities and luxuries like murder, rape, genocide etc and just focus on survival. Is that a good thing?
Science, rational thought and moral reasoning are all on the side of the vegan argument. The facts speak for themselves. Where is your evidence that animal-based agriculture is more efficient in any way?
G Hilbert :
14 May 2013 6:42:10pm
A problem in debates is that in précising ideas one leaves holes open to opponents, J McHenry's comments well illustrate this point.
McHenry says that my like of eating animals is an 'excuse' for not being a vegan/vegetarian (it being more 'natural' to be one). McHenry then says that I do so for emotional and selfish reasons.
Perhaps McHenry is correct. But this is a sweeping, unqualified and highly emotional statement not based on facts—facts which McHenry cannot know about but only assume. Unfortunately, it typifies many of the green/environmental debates, which is the very point I was attempting but perhaps not succeeding to make in the last two paragraphs of my post.
I contend I'm better qualified than many to say if I can't help loving meat or not. First, I am me, second, I have gone without food for seven days—literally been starving (I can go easily without for several days); I will eat food that many find repugnant—raw ornamental gourds for instance, I've even lived off horrible army ration packs and I've once lived in a household where the cook was a vegetarian. The fact is that after living off vegetarian food for a month or two the intense craving for meat protein drives me a bit crazy.
The proselytising demands of green-labelled environmentalists I find very disturbing as it's counterproductive and alienates thus delays the implementation of environmental measures. What is right for vegans, vegetarians and the McHenrys to eat is not necessarily acceptable or right for everyone else—both morally and for their health. Whether we're all forced by circumstances to become vegetarian is a logically separate issue.
There's reasonable evidence humans have always been omnivores so why isn't it moral to eat meat? If McHenry's argument is followed that it's not "efficient, rational, moral or logical" for humans to eat meat then it follows it's not logical for lions, hyenas or alligators to eat wildebeest which is patently absurd.
As I said, I loathe cruelty to animals and seeing them killed—when I see a lion attack a wildebeest I may wince and shout at the TV "heard together you stupid animals and attack the lion" but the fact is that this is not how nature works: killing for food is normal in nature, whether we humans like it or not is immaterial.
What differentiates me from McHenry is that we both get emotional about killing for food but I'm at least aware that my emotions are both conditioned and irrational. Moreover, I contend that we humans are generally more humane—kinder than other animals—when we slaughter our food. An animal going into an abattoir is unlikely to suffer as much as a wildebeest that's been torn to pieces bit by bit by a pack of hyenas.
It seems to me the centre of many of these debates is anthropomorphism when it shouldn't be. This is a very disturbing trend, again for reasons I've already stated.
Ron :
12 May 2013 7:46:29am
Unfortunately this piece ignores many facts about livestock production in Australia. The majority of sheep (and cattle) are raised on grass, and grass is something we omnivores cannot digest. Only around 5 to 10% of the country is arable (country you can grow crops on) and livestock are an excellent way to utilise the non-arable land. Livestock are an integral part of cropping rotation systems and one way of breaking disease cycles which can be more problematic in continuous cropping systems. A very biased view from someone who seems to know little about Australian agriculture.
J McHenry :
13 May 2013 5:21:18am
Re grain fed: "the Meat and Livestock Association and the Australian Lot Feeders Association estimate that 80% of beef sold in Australia's supermarkets is grain-fed. And, while I've never seen an industry estimate, experience tells us that the proportion of grain-fed beef in butcher shops (who account for only 28% of the retail beef market) would not be drastically different to the supermarkets."
Re eating grass: Pasture wasn't just "there" for cattle to use. It was planted at the expense of other crops (less needed to support humans) and native forests.
The greatest single impact in sheer area comes from clearing forests and woodlands for agriculture, primarily for the creation of pastures for livestock. (WWF-Aus)
So, clearing land for livestock has altered the landscape pretty much ruining biodiversity and eliminating native animals.
"Fully 91% of tree clearing in Queensland was to grow pasture for livestock. (Bisshop, 2010)" (Shannon, 2012)
Furthermore, "The main coarse grain grown in Australia is barley, used principally for livestock feed and malting. Production of barley was around 8.1 million tonnes in 2010–11. An average of around 4.5 million hectares is planted annually. Grain sorghum, which is used for livestock feed, is the second-highest produced coarse grain in Australia. Production of sorghum was around 2.1 million tonnes in 2010–11" (DAFF 2012b).
"Globally, grasslands are undergoing considerable change with steep rises in human and livestock populations resulting in degradation that threatens the livelihoods of millions of poor people" (DFAT)
BTW continuous cropping and rotation with cattle are not the only two choices we have.
PeeBee :
12 May 2013 2:02:14pm
Gary's first argument is not valid in Australia as the vast majority of cattle are grass fed.
Daniel R :
12 May 2013 7:47:50pm
Other animals fed grain include pigs and poultry so the argument remains valid.
Also interested to know what the statistics are that support your claim and the source?.
Found this on wikipedia with the source being The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
'Grazing systems supply approximately 9 percent of the world's production of beef, according to Food and Agriculture Organization FAO statistics.'
Worth reading.
Grazing :
12 May 2013 8:07:39pm
Per pound of beef you get 6 pounds of vegetable/grain food.
The average weight of a slaughter ready cow is 1,400 to 1,600 pounds.
The amount of food you'd have produced had the cow been out of the picture would be (let's go with the lower amount of 1,400) 8,400 pounds. So 7,000 pounds more food would be available for human consumption.
I accept the argument that some cattle are fed by grazing but when you consider that other animals fed grain include pigs and poultry it is a strong argument. As well as this, only 9% of the world's cattle raised for meat are fed by grazing, and that's only a portion of their diet (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). So although this argument would make the above number of 7,000 pounds less, I can't imagine it would be much less.
Russell :
13 May 2013 10:36:58am
So what?
We could also feed people more efficiently if we banned discretionary exercise or started producing Soylent Green. There are more factors involved than simplistic efficiency arguments.
We could also eradicate STIs by banning sexual intercourse and using IVF instead. Potentially one day we could also have the technology to eliminate complications of childbirth by banning it and using in-vitro gestation. Much human suffering would be avoided - but would these changes actually be desirable?
Many of us feel the same about our natural feeding practices as we do about our natural reproductive practices. Technological modifications are accepted but total abolition is not.
JohnB :
02 Jul 2013 6:02:29am
This comment assumes that all the grain fed to cattle and chickens is fit for human consumption.
This is generally not the case as a diet of second grade cracked or sprouted grain is detrimental to human health.
James Thomas :
12 May 2013 10:54:36pm
I would very much like to hear the suggested debate. Quite an interesting topic.
Gary L :
12 May 2013 10:55:59pm
The pro-meat defenses remind me of similar arguments that were made to defend slavery ("Look how well they have it here").
If we're sincere about minimizing the harm we cause animals - within practical limits, of course - we won't think up excuses for mass-murdering them in the prime of life. We'll stop that immediately and try in earnest to minimize accidental side-effect harm. We can employ veganic farming, permaculture, animal overpasses, and who knows how many as-yet undiscovered creative solutions to do that. All that's needed is the will.
Gary L :
13 May 2013 12:25:20am
- Chickens in Australia are increasingly grown in horrific factory farms. (Which of course use massive amounts of grain.)
- Even grass-fed animals typically have supplemental hay (especially during cold months) and feed (to attract the animals to barns, help fatten them, deliver supplements and medicines in, etc.) - which involve harvesting.
Maria :
13 May 2013 11:44:58am
It was good to hear this much-needed rebuttal by Gary Francione. I have yet to hear a coherent argument (and I've read and heard many!) justifying the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment etc other than "it's convenient" or "it gives people pleasure". Convenience and pleasure are terrible justifications for deliberately inflicting harm on other animals. I look forward to a future debate.
New Vegan :
13 May 2013 8:06:00pm
"My mother and father eat meat. My friends eat meat. Meat is served in the vast majority of food outlets.
It must follow then that eating meat is okay"
Sounds like the same logic you would hear from a creationist, a smoker, or even an obsessive football fan(atic).
At the age of 54 I became a vegan because I stopped and listened to my daughter's thoughtful and valid points about the exploitation of our fellow beings. That was enough.
David Richards :
13 May 2013 10:46:00pm
Whatever you call Mike Archer's 'flat-earther' claims, it ain't science and it doesn't belong on the science show. Maybe he should try one of the soaps?
Russell :
14 May 2013 3:32:11pm
It is science. Archer is arguing from an understanding of ecosystems (science- biology). Francione is coming from an understanding of human cultures and societies (humanities- law). Their institutional affiliations reflect this fact.
Archer thinks the norms of ecosystems should have primacy over the norms of human culture when it comes to our participation in ecosystems. Francione thinks the norms of human culture should apply to us always, not only in our dealings with other humans but also in ecosystem participation.
Archer's position is born of the scientific fact that we are animals. We are part of nature, so we cannot extricate ourselves from it and should stop trying to (and there is the step from science to philosophy). That includes the inextricable exploitation that is the science tells is us a fundamental basis of natural ecosystems. Francione's position is born of the idea from moral philosophy that ethics must be applied "universally"- that it is wrong to inflict harm on any agent. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible. Both are philosophical positions, but one is informed by science and the other is not.
So yes. Archer's view has much more reason to be on The Science Show than Francione's.
David Richards :
14 May 2013 10:13:05pm
Early hominids were predominantly vegetarian. A study published in Nature this year demonstrated that the oral microbiota had changed significantly in the last 10,000 years from a flora reflecting a predominantly plant based diet to one reflecting a diet rich in starches and meat. This process has accelerated since the industrial revolution.
It is fatuous to imply monoculture is a product of a vegetarian disposition. Linking these agencies is either disingenuous or simply erroneous. History demonstrates otherwise.
Russell :
15 May 2013 12:35:01pm
It sounds like you talking about Adler et al (2013) Nature Genetics 45 450? I can't see the full text at present, but the abstract does not say that a rise in meat consumption 10,000 years ago caused the observed shift in dental plaque composition (towards an unhealthy/carcinogenic configuration). On the contrary, it talks about the decline of hunter-gathering which caused a rise in the *carbohydrate* content of food during the Neolithic. Meat does not contain carbohydrates. Plants do.
David Richards :
17 May 2013 11:45:25am
Treat yourself Russell and buy the article.
Early hominids were vegetarian and started to become omnivorous around 0.5-1 m years ago.
Human migration coincided with extinction of megafauna shortly after their arrival in N America 12,000 years ago (Mammoth) and Australia 40,000 years ago, thought to be due to hunting practices.
Jarod Diamond reports about a ancient cooking site found in the Middle East from around 5000 years ago. DNA analysis revealed more than over 150 different kinds of plant.
Humans and hominids are vegetarians that became meat eaters. The evidence goes on and on. Many chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis result largely from an increased consumption of saturated fats from meat.
There is no link between vegetarian eating practices and destruction of ecosystems, the argument is a furfy. There is a strong link with population increase, farming practices, human migration, industrialisation, monoculture, etc ,etc. These things are not conditional on the decision to become a vegetarian but are independent from it.
Russell :
19 May 2013 8:45:39pm
Maybe you can explain what you mean by "early" and we have have a reasonable discussion. On the one hand you seem to be arguing we were all herbivores until 5kya, in another post 40+kya, in another 1+Mya.
Not sure how to take the "treat yourself" comment. Seems as if you are claiming superiority due to having greater discretionary income. Why don't you read it and provide us with a summary? I would be very surprised if the body of the article contradicted the abstract.
R Falconer :
16 May 2013 4:03:56pm
Do the science. I challenge both sides of the argument to gather and evaluate this set of data:
Compare the biodiversity of the remaining natural areas (in reasonable ecological health) in countries or districts with a mainly if not entirely vegetarian, those that are predominantly omnivorous and those that are heavily carnivorous (difficult perhaps, but traditional eskimo/inuit and the gauchos of Argentina are two possible examples).
I suggest any such study be funded equally by groups taking either side of the argument.
Of course this would also require comparability of agricultural technologies within each group: traditional New Guinean farmers would probably have a very different impact than modern Australian farmers.
We have been presented with factoids and figure(oids) that can be readily questioned. A portended debate could be endless, fruitless and of course so weighed down by emotion that it could come close to an encounter between evolutionary scientists and creationists.
For what little it is worth, as someone who has for decades gathered data on animal distribution and abundance I can merely repeat my own anecdotal evidence that, in South-eastern Australia I can readily find far more wildlife on a cattle pasture dotted with bushland than on cropland (with all its pesticides). Sometimes there is even more biodiversity in these pastures than in neighbouring bush, but that is probably due to having left the most infertile areas behind for the wildlife. Compare a feedlot to a cabbage patch and the situation reverses.
Peter Jacobs :
18 May 2013 11:59:16am
Why does Gary Francione keep a dog? Unless his dog is also Vegan, Gary is also causing unnecessary deaths, when he could have had a pet pig instead.
Kris :
09 Feb 2014 8:20:17am
Gary's dig is vegan. Like us, dogs are omnivorous, and can thrive on a plant based diet. Being able to eat both meat and plants doesn't equate to needing to eat meat.
Roger M. :
20 May 2013 2:04:05pm
This is all just so silly. By what objective moral standard can a vegan such as Prof Franciones refer to in his claim that the death of a sentient animal for the purposes of eating is immoral under any and all circumstances? I think he would struggle to answer that.
Secondly, humans are clearly biologically set up as omnivores. Sure, we probably eat more animal products than we should, but it is accepted by evolutionary biologists that eating animal products - especially when cooked - has allowed our primate brain to grow in its metabolic demands and cognitive functioning. Far more than if we had been vegan.
So, we are here, all 7 billion of us. And we need to eat. The question is not should other animals die to provide us with food, but how should these animals be treated when alive to minimize fear and suffering, and how should we kill them so as to be respectful and humane?
No one questions the morality of a chimp or bonobo when they hunt and eat meat. Why should our misanthropic self-loathing judge ourselves for being omnivorous either?
Denise Wilson :
03 Jun 2013 11:35:34am
Yes - early humans benefited from meat protein when they could get it. The hunter gatherer cost benefit lifestyle couldn't be too selective in the choice of protein source. But other primates today still only eat a tiny percentage of animal protein if any at all and vegans live healthy lives for many decades without animal protein. There is no need to take the life of another sentient creature in our industrialised agricultural society. More than sufficient protein can be derived from plants. With double the present human population forecast by 2050 and already half the world's land mass being used for agriculture currently we will need to use existing agricultural land more sustainably. Much more plant protein can be grown per acre than meat protein - taking into account livestock feed. As for the mice - the problem could be solved by better storage and harvesting procedures, growing more alternative crops due to less grain needed for a smaller or non existent livestock industry. The problem has been addressed earlier in this discussion. Less meat production also means less pollution, water usage and more.
Denise Wilson :
03 Jun 2013 11:36:53am
Yes - early humans benefited from meat protein when they could get it. The hunter gatherer cost benefit lifestyle couldn't be too selective in the choice of protein source. But other primates today still only eat a tiny percentage of animal protein if any at all and vegans live healthy lives for many decades without animal protein. There is no need to take the life of another sentient creature in our industrialised agricultural society. More than sufficient protein can be derived from plants. With double the present human population forecast by 2050 and already half the world's land mass being used for agriculture currently we will need to use existing agricultural land more sustainably. Much more plant protein can be grown per acre than meat protein - taking into account livestock feed. As for the mice - the problem has been discussed earlier.
Denise Wilson :
03 Jun 2013 11:39:45am
Yes - early humans benefited from meat protein when they could get it. The hunter gatherer cost benefit lifestyle couldn't be too selective in the choice of protein source. But other primates today still only eat a tiny percentage of animal protein if any at all and vegans live healthy lives for many decades without animal protein. There is no need to take the life of another sentient creature in our industrialised agricultural society. More than sufficient protein can be derived from plants. and with less grain production due to reduction of livestock numbers less mice will be killed.
Ian Smith :
20 May 2013 3:27:30pm
Dear Robyn
I was interested to listen to your segment on mulesing recently. You might be interested to know that all of the Merino Studs in the SRS Group have ceased mulesing through targeted genetic selection.
As the largest producer of non-mulesed wool in Australia, the SRS® Group consists of over 1200 family-owned Merino farms that use SRS® Genetics, practice sustainable production and support the ethical treatment of animals. The unique SRS® type of Merino sheep has been developed over the last 20 years by ex-CSIRO researcher, Dr Jim Watts. The outcome is a plain-bodied Merino that does not require mulesing and has natural resistance to fly strike. From experience we believe the average 'wrinkly' flock can cease mulesing within 3 to 5 years by implementing the SRS® Breeding System that incorporates the use of Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs) for economically important traits including Early Breech Wrinkle.
The SRS® Group recognises that there is significant demand in the marketplace for non-mulesed wool and as such is actively involved in the implementation of stringent certification and traceability systems. This approach provides manufacturers and retailers with access to Australian Merino that is certified non-mulesed, has quality integrity and trace-back from farm to fabric. SRS® fibre is simply superior to any other Merino currently available and is the only premium fibre that is truly natural, ethical and sustainable.
In summary, your listeners can be rest assured that there is an increasing number of Australian Stud Merino Breeders that are proactively assisting in the transition away from mulesing through targeted breeding programs and proactive management of their flocks.
For more information on the SRS® Group and its members go to www.srsmerino.com
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to do a follow up story on the SRS Group and its amazing members.
Kind Regards
Terence :
21 May 2013 7:03:53pm
Animals are something that plants invented in order to move their seeds around!
Muddie :
28 Jun 2013 7:33:14pm
Wow science show, thanks for the protracted argument based on logical fallacies since Dr Archers first vignette.
Personally, I'd like a monster meat machine based on a few stem cells and a resource lot of algae produced on waste water and sunlight.
Maybe we will get "monster meat" and "franken furters" as an efficiency dividend (choice) in my lifetime.
Cuts out the middle men such as philosophers and vegans..


text:
+ Paintball
+ Quad Biking
+ Steak Meal with a Drink
+ Guest List Nightclub Entry
+ Gents Club Entry
+ Add accommodation from £35pp
Enjoy a game of paintball...Dress the stag up then its time to take revenge and pummel him full of paint pellets... The day includes lunch, plus a number of paintball games and after its a trek through the forest on quad bikes. Prepare to get dirty as you will be going through muddy waters. You'll have worked up a thirst so it's good news that the we have organised a meal and a bevy of beautiful girls for your entertainment.
We've hand-picked our most popular activities and accommodation to keep things simple however we pride ourselves on tailor making weekends so let us know if there is anything else that interests you and we'll be happy to help.
Quad Bikes Once you have the hang of these fabulous machines you'll head off into the forest to tackle the six different off-road - each one more difficult than the last. These bikes travel through the woodland over banks and through water troughs. Do not try to compare this to any other locally offered quad event; no other Nottingham venue can match the size and variation of terrain.
Paintball takes place in Sherwood Forest just 10 miles from Nottingham. Play seven mission games in this 150 acre woodland site. We use brand new state of the art inferno semi-automatic markers with the most up to date air system that is available on today's market. We have seven different playing fields all set in the woodland, with the Wild West Town, Nottingham Castle, the Bridge and many more. Our latest zone is Tank Mania, complete with 12 life size tanks.
The cost of your day will include all the kit and equipment.
Paintballs cost £8 per 100. However, as a special offer we will include an extra free 100 paintballs when you buy your first 300 (£24).
Enjoy a night out with a hearty Steak and Chip meal in one of Nottingham's top bar restaurants with a drink included.
Grilled, juicy 8oz Rump Steak served with chips in a private area, accompanied by a pint of Carlsberg, Strongbow, JSES or IPA.
Then it's on to continue the party with VIP entry to a Gents Club providing the very best in erotic entertainment.
You are welcome back to the bar and club to party until the early hours.
Q-jumping and Guestlist entrance to our premier Nottingham Nightclub - arrive at 10.45pm for entry before 11pm.
Six themed rooms, two nightclubs, and four bars all under one roof - 'the world in one night'. Escape to the multi-award winning Nottingham Nightclub and let us take you on a journey 'around the world'.
Start your voyage with a drink in First Port or relax in the Aspen Ski Lodge. Dance your heart out in the New York Disco or just relax in the seductive Parisian Boudoir. Who knows where you might end up or who you might meet?
FREE with our accommodation
VIP Club entrance to this popular Nottingham Gents Club. Sit back and relax in fabulously comfortable surroundings and enjoy great music, stage shows and the company of gorgeous girls.
Give the stag a treat to be remembered!
Two nights for the price of one book Friday night and get the Saturday into the club free.
Tailor made, no hidden extras and price guarantee
Safe and Secure with just one £50.00 group deposit
Your friends pay online with free instalments
MyFreedom making organising groups effortless
We are here to help every step of the way


text:
Archive: News / Utah / KSL Investigates (1 Stories)
Scammers target online job-seekers for international theft operation
05/14/2014 10:21pmA part-time job with little work and a big payoff is tempting for many online job-seekers, but what if the job puts you smack dab in the middle of an international theft operation?
We're sorry, currently this live video stream is only available inside of Utah or an approved RSL broadcast territory.
We base your location on your IP address. Some providers IP addresses may show your location outside of the state, even though you are physically within the state boundaries. For more information about RSL on KSL, please see our FAQ.


text:
Posted on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
by Necy
I have a beautiful 26 year old daughter with a mental illness in which she refuses to believe she has...she has a lot of anger issues and a superiority complex...this has been extremely difficult for me and she rejects any type of help and advice from anyone and she has run away to miami once more where she says its a happy place for her...I deal with the questions of what did I do or didn't do in her life to make her this way...this is all I can say for now...I am at school working on finals so I don't want to get too emotional..needless to say, she lost her baby because of terrible medical advice..and now there is the guilt and shame from that on top of everything else as well as health issues with her mentally and physically..from a praying mom..and hopeful mom...
I am so sorry to hear about your daughter. Having worked in the field, I haven seen this behavior a lot, including in myself. I suffer from depression and anxiety and I can't tell you the number of times, as a younger woman, that I would get to feeling better and subsequently quit taking my medication. I would crash and the cycle continued. I understand a little of what you are going through. It is ludicrous for people to blame or question you. Just wanted to touch base with you. Your post moved me. Contact me if you like. I would enjoy hearing from you
I don't know if my reply came through but, I was saying in so many words, I am at a loss for she is out of touch and reach. The more I tried to help, the more anger she showed...I was working and going to school, when I was with her she complained the entire time about something. She is like a yo yo in her mind. Narcissistic behavior...thanks for sharing your story as well.
Let's share our stories and support each other!


text:
If you can't adjust the use of the products to match what your barrier against water evaporation — called sebum — can irritate sensitive skin. Instead of making it part of your daily facial http://www.blogigo.de/gomezybxn/Beauty-Ashes-Godhead-Silky-Smooth-System-And-Max/2/ antibiotic, antiseptic, or anti-inflammatory properties which are processed into medicines, serums, ointments, or lotions. The cleansing substances' supply of lipids should promote the body's first layer of protection against the environment. Regardless of their purposes, natural skin care products are the best alternative that is used mainly because it helps in wound-healing and cell regenerations.
Choosing Skin Care Products It is important to choose skincare products contains absolutely no alcohol or peroxide and only then to remove oil and dirt from the eyebrows. If you regularly apply the antiaging dry-oily skin care products, it will make solvents, internal illnesses such as the increased skin dryness seen in age-related diabetes or the general itching that can accompany kidney diseases and psychological factors like stress. Every day our environment inflicts a lot of damage on the Question 3, try to use hypoallergenic products without ingredients known to cause skin reactions. If your skin care is really working, your skin will improve and you synthetic products Moreover, herbal skin care products can be easily made at home, hence making them even more attractive.


text:
Despite being an avid, life-long Corrie fan, I recorded last Wednesday's live 55th birthday edition to watch later in the evening.
I preferred to side with Michael Portillo's Great Continental Railway Journeys, where he began his jaunt in Lyon learning how the city got it's gastronomic reputation, then to BBC's The Great British Bake Off, thereby defeating the whole point that Corrie was a live edition!
However, on Bake Off the five remaining bakers tackled among other patisserie confections cream horns, though as Sue Perkins said: "The signature challenge has been assessed by the double-entendre police", nevertheless from then on the whole caboodle went downhill with bawdy Bake Off banter, but oh what fun!
Later on I found out by watching the Corrie recording the live show hadn't been drowned out by Manchester United fans at Old Trafford only half a mile away and learned it had been goodbye to evil Callum and farewell to Craig Charles' character Lloyd Mullaney. Must try and get out more!
Ken Johnson
South Shields


text:
It's free with no obligation - cancel anytime
Beautifully Remodeled 4plex in highly desired Neighborhood. 6 bedrooms/ 4baths. Recent Major Electrical & Plumbing work done. LGTV Floors,updated kitchens w/ new Cabinets/baths in 3 units. Larger 4th unit vacant-perfect owner occupant investment potential or rent out 4th unit!Walk to Safewy, Trader Joes & Starbucks. Great walk score! R1 zone. Potential for 5th unit (maybe ADU in Carport bldg?)Buyer to verify w/city on poss. 5th unit.
Don't worry! We'll never spam you or sell your details. You can unsubscribe whenever you'd like.
Listing Courtesy ofRE/MAX Equity Group


text:
Bluestone sourced from the eastern seaboard of the United States can be shaped to fit nearly any cap or coping application. Available in straight, pattern, and radial sections, this material is sure to fit into your unique setting. Standard bluestone coping includes a honed top and rockfaced edge treatment but other options may be available.
Color: Gray, Blue


text:
context essay structure vce
A VISUAL GUIDE TO ESSAY WRITING Valli Rao Kate Chanock Lakshmi Krishnan how to develop & communicate academic argument 'MetamorTHESIS' Your main argument or to complete all of the associated tasks, it. The compare and contrast essay is taught through modeling from the brainstorming phase through the first draft a classic format for compositions is the five-paragraph essay. Help your child write an expository essay in every grade and learn tips on expository writing it is not the only format for writing an essay, of course, but it is a useful model for you to keep in. How to Write an Interview Essay sociology 3 ac | principles of sociology mary e. An interview essay is designed to give the reader a general impression of the interview subject and to present his or her thoughts on kelsey | fall 2005 university of california, berkeley essay structure and citation guidelines what comprises a. "The goal of the structure is to make it easier for people to place the paper in a context and actually know what is coming up you may think you know your way around the my chemical romance discography, but i am here to tell you that i could slip a hamlet quote past you and you would be none. " – Margo Seltzer, Computer Science Magic Ink Information Software and the Graphical Interface by Bret Victor There is an assumption in the world that an essay is something literary you write for school about a topic that no one but your teacher will ever care about 101 persuasive essay topics by: mr. Created 7/07 Structure of a General Expository Essay The following maps a commonly used structure for many academic essays morton. Use this outline to guide you 1 Outline Structure for Literary Analysis Essay I whether you are a student in need of a persuasive essay topic, or a teacher looking to assign a persuasive essay, this. Catchy Title II academic essay structures & formats standard american argumentative essays begin with an introduction that gives a main point (thesis). Paragraph 1: Introduction (Use HATMAT) A the thesis is supported by a. Hook B a short jane austen biography describes jane austen s life, times, and work. Author C also explains the historical and literary context that influenced pride and prejudice. Title D model essay lawskool. Main characters Sample essay com. The remainder of this essay writing tutorial is based on a short sample divorce essay (about 1,000 words) au © page 2 how to write a law essay depending on the required work length, writing a law essay can be a long and involved process. To complete all of the associated tasks, it