StarBucks - Now I'm a fan!

[milod]

Ziggie...

 

Yeah... I think it's time such discussion follow more of an analytical "what is going on within the culture" than specifically the passionate politics involved.

 

Back in the 1960s the young left turned off a lot of the older "thinking left" like Asimov because of lack of logic and what appeared often to be more anarchist or pro "soviet style" governance.

 

Meanwhile... I have an acquaintance I truly feel sorry for. His family was in ranch country; they had a number of heritage firearms from the pre-smokeless gunpowder days. His wife would not allow them in their home even if made absolutely incapable of firing anything in them. I don't understand that degree of hoplophobia.

 

In a sense I think arguments on firearms are something of a symbol and set of catchwords that represent a much deeper philosophical argument having to do with individual liberty vs. governmental control. Over the past 40 years the government control side in the US has maintained significant gains and that's been reflected in arguments over firearms laws.

 

The important thing to me isn't so much "guns" or "not guns," but what are social trends that lend themselves to relevance in the more overtly political argument of the day.

 

And... yeah, being left alone for guitar playing but... don't forget Thos. Jefferson figured taking a rifle on a walk through the woods was among the best truly recreational activities available to humankind in his era. A .22 revolver and a shooting range offers much of the same zenlike quality even in an urban environment.

 

m

[vourot]

I remember a Kurt Vonnegut line from one of his books.

 

"That there are such devices as firearms, as easy to operate as cigarette lighters and as cheap as toasters, capable at anybody's whim of killing Father or Fats or Abraham Lincoln or John Lennon or Martin Luther King, Jr., or a woman pushing a baby carriage, should be proof enough for anybody that being alive is a crock of sh!t."

 

When I read that it really stuck with me. You can see that KV had his opinion. Its the world we live in. This has been one of the best threads I have read on this forum ( non guitar related anyway ). Gun control zealots would do well to read it. If only to get a tiny cross section of intelligent, well reasoned discussion. Cheers to Milod and Neocon and all the others who have educated me through default.

 

P.S.

 

Kurt could have added another line " So that is I why I own a firearm, to counteract those would use one without forethought "

[EVOL!]

In what manner would you cast a shadow across freedom' date=' liberty, and personal accountability?

I really don't have a problem with "every man for himself" considering the alternative.

 

If I'm not for myself, who will I rely on to see to my best interests?

 

Government?

Police?

Legislators?

Neighbors?

 

Maybe I'm missing the point of your question...

 

 

I was talking about a comment on a comment about a photo in the story, but my point was on exuberant individualism. It's not about being for yourself. It's about being for yourself *only* regardless of the burden it puts on society.

[milod]

vourot

 

Yep. I think one problem with the real anti folks is that they have an image of an ideal world of no violence and tend to see firearms as objects that encourage violence of various sorts that different "anti" folks don't even all agree on.

 

The problem to me is that arms are an important part of human history. The ax was a major entry in the list arms for long before metals were used by mankind. Ditto blades that cut. Even today firearms have a fairly significant human input in their construction and that is, to me, as interesting and important as the very similar and parallel development of mass produced but still hand-worked guitars.

 

Those who believe eating food derived from animal sources as being evil, as well as violence among humans, will similarly tend to dislike any arms used in hunting.

 

I dunno. I think we've some interesting cultural artifacts here that spill over into politics.

 

I was watching a "meat processing" piece on CNN this morning.

 

I get the impression that among other things, a lot of urban folk can't imagine how a 4-H kid can raise a calf, train and pet it, then take the "pet calf" to the local locker plant to be converted into steaks, roasts and burger. The rural folk can't imagine how city folk don't understand the same stuff. That difference was even more obvious a generation ago when most rural families did their own meat processing at home.

 

m

[NeoConMan]

Yeah Milo,

My wife has often wished she could describe her growing up on a farm to her First Grade students in the

'hoods of Phoenix, but fears the reprisal from parents if she did so with any candor or realism.

 

As the youngest of four kids and with the voice of a songbird, she was outside practicing her talents

before she was old enough to attend school. Her mother laughs telling me of her singing to the cows...

 

They also knew that all the animals they had were for food, just like the vegetables in the garden.

 

Imagine nowadays telling 6 year-old children that you used to eat your pets, eh?

[zigzag]

Almost 100 million Americans own about 300 million guns.

If you look around your circle of acquantances and don't see guns' date=' either they are doing a good job with their privacy or you operate in a pretty Liberal circle by choice.

[/quote']

 

Neo. This has been fun and enlightening. Just to comment on the quote above... I've spent most of my life in the Charlotte, NC and Richmond, VA areas- both cities have spent time at the top of the violent crimes list. Relative to other areas in the southeast, there are liberal pockets in Charlotte and Richmond. We are probably a little bluer than the great red state of Arizona- the home of Dan Quayle, Gordon Liddy, Barry Goldwater, and John McCain- and our culture is definitely different from yours.

 

Just as a sidebar, I have been robbed at gunpoint in both cities- looked down the business end of a 9 mm and a .38. If I'd been carying a concealed weapon, I'm not sure it would have done me any good. I have also been shot with a .22 when I was a kid (around 8 years old), by another kid, with his father's gun. The solutions to the violent gun crimes in the US are obvious- don't let guns get into the hands of criminals and make sure culprits are prosecuted to the full extent. Getting to the solutions seems to be the hard part.

 

And as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."

[EVOL!]

I was watching a "meat processing" piece on CNN this morning.

 

I get the impression that among other things' date=' a lot of urban folk can't imagine how a 4-H kid can raise a calf, train and pet it, then take the "pet calf" to the local locker plant to be converted into steaks, roasts and burger. The rural folk can't imagine how city folk don't understand the same stuff. That difference was even more obvious a generation ago when most rural families did their own meat processing at home.

 

m

[/quote']

 

I cannot image raising an animal on a feed lot/factory far. What a waste of life. In the old days the animals on farms were allowed to be themselves. Cows grazed on sweet grasses in the field. Pigs rooted around the farm. Hens pecked in the fields after the cows, eating worms, grubs, and filling their gizzards with gravel. It was humane behavior for an animal that you knew at some point would give its life so that you could live. We need more of those 4-H kids.

[milod]

evol

 

I appreciate your effort to understand - and to support 4-H. <grin> But frankly the "feed lot" has been around in functional terms for a long time. The idea of free-roaming cattle then taken to market is a nice romance for an idealized "old days" of agriculture, but...

 

The 4-H calf is rather different from the rest of the livestock, even here where a "pasture" might be a section or more. (A section is a square mile.) In places with better soils one is that much more likely to see greater confinement - and such was the case as long as I've heard of. In the older days even in grass-only country like here, a lotta families would put a steer into a close corral and feed him corn to fatten him up. It's a different world.

 

In the real olden days, yes, the cattle were entirely on open range in today's "cowboy country." Costs were much less, and branded livestock had no fences at all - and mortality rates were very, very high during winter weather. Even now we've lost thousands of head of sheep and calves to 2008-9 blizzards, and that's with modern tech to help.

 

The town where I live once had big cattle herds from open range roundups driven here just like in the movies. But you don't see the nitty-gritty in the movies, and not just of branding. Steers ain't born that way, for example.

 

Grain-fed livestock has been the "beef" you'd want to buy, so livestock has been "confined" in various ways.

 

Hmmm. Perhaps I'd best leave it at that. Suffice it to say that nobody cares more for their livestock than the farmer or rancher, but they care also in large part because it's their living.

 

m

[EVOL!]

You should read Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. There are plenty of farms out there raising grass fed cattle. It isn't all marbled, fat laden, corn fed beef. We could have more of this if the industrial farms didn't have a strangle hold on agricultural policy and regulation. It would mean fewer McDonalds and Burger Kings, but is that such a bad thing?

[Artie Owl]

Wow, the conversation really spawned since I got ripped on last for my opinions, there are lots of great comments, and I should have realized arguing this topic is a losing battle, at least for me anyway. So instead I'm going to set a few things straight that I DO know.

1.) I'm not a lefty or righty. I cannot stand the legal system here in Canada most days, I wonder why we don't extradite war criminals facing the death peanlty, and why we're so easy on drunk drivers here. You're also right in assuming that I've never owned a gun, but where I grew up there were many people who hunted with rifles for deer, moose, etc.

2.) I'm not opposed to guns, I'm still considering the army and navy as a career among others, and I have great respect for law enforcement who have to deal with scum on a daily basis. I fully endorse taser use also, I find the arguements about how they COULD be lethal vexing because if given a choice I assume more people would take their chances with a taser, than a bullet.

3.)I stand by my point that I don't really believe in Handguns, but I guess that's a luxury I enjoy Living where I do. If I HAD beed in situations like others have posted I'm not sure what my mentality would be now.

4.) I hereby appologize to those who I presumably offended with my ignorance of the complexities, but it's my opinion and I still think there should always be a system of some sort for the management of firearms. As it's been said, gun owners in America are responsible private citizens, and it would be comforting to keep it that way. I don't believe handguns are a positive factor in a society, but I am pragmatic in knowing the "BG" as they've been termed will always have some form of weapon like that.

5.) Whoever posted that video of hunting with a handgun was hilarious, thank you, though I think it's fair to say that that stopped being a "handgun" when you attatch an 8x32 scope and a tripod; though again, that's only my opinion;)

In conclusion yes, you're right, I don't have much gun experience and I shouldn't have weighed in as heavily as I did, but well, that's the internet for you. I hope we can all still be forum friends!

-Brandon

[Bowdiddley]

Wow' date=' the conversation really spawned since I got ripped on last for my opinions, there are lots of great comments, and I should have realized arguing this topic is a losing battle, at least for me anyway. So instead I'm going to set a few things straight that I DO know.

1.) I'm not a lefty or righty. I cannot stand the legal system here in Canada most days, I wonder why we don't extradite war criminals facing the death peanlty, and why we're so easy on drunk drivers here. You're also right in assuming that I've never owned a gun, but where I grew up there were many people who hunted with rifles for deer, moose, etc.

2.) I'm not opposed to guns, I'm still considering the army and navy as a career among others, and I have great respect for law enforcement who have to deal with scum on a daily basis. I fully endorse taser use also, I find the arguements about how they COULD be lethal vexing because if given a choice I assume more people would take their chances with a taser, than a bullet.

3.)I stand by my point that I don't really believe in Handguns, but I guess that's a luxury I enjoy Living where I do. If I HAD beed in situations like others have posted I'm not sure what my mentality would be now.

4.) I hereby appologize to those who I presumably offended with my ignorance of the complexities, but it's my opinion and I still think there should always be a system of some sort for the management of firearms. [b']As it's been said, gun owners in America are responsible private citizens[/b], and it would be comforting to keep it that way. I don't believe handguns are a positive factor in a society, but I am pragmatic in knowing the "BG" as they've been termed will always have some form of weapon like that.

5.) Whoever posted that video of hunting with a handgun was hilarious, thank you, though I think it's fair to say that that stopped being a "handgun" when you attatch an 8x32 scope and a tripod; though again, that's only my opinion;)

In conclusion yes, you're right, I don't have much gun experience and I shouldn't have weighed in as heavily as I did, but well, that's the internet for you. I hope we can all still be forum friends!

-Brandon

 

That should be legal gun owners are responsible citizens.

 

Man you didn't upset anyone I don't think. No apologies necessary.

[Artie Owl]

Yes, it should say legal gun owners, sorry I'm at work and customers won't leave me to type in peace.

Thanks,

-Brandon

[milod]

Brandon...

 

No hard feelings at all.

 

I do think, though, that handguns are at their best and most fun when used in "light" competition. Personally the most just plain clean fun I've ever had was competing at "cowboy action shooting."

 

No more, but I used to have a scoped .357 that was great fun at targets too.

 

The thought that firearms are only useful for "serious" use is kinda like a belief that guitars are only useful for gigs.

 

Nope.

 

They're both perhaps most useful for informal individual entertainment, alone or with friends.

 

m

[Artie Owl]

Or, for repelling Zombies. THAT I can get behind with a couple shiny Desert Eagles maybe?

[NeoConMan]

Nah...

No harm, no foul.

I think you'll find my persistence is the result of many, many years of learning about them.

Hearing the all-too-common criticism of lawful gun owners from those with no knowledge can't go unchallenged.

 

Kinda like the newbie LP owner telling the vintage guy how his only guitar beats anything the old guy owns...

 

[cool]

 

 

Desert Eagle?

Yeah, I got one of them too.

 

:D/

 

 

Actually, mine is nearly 20 years old and has never been fired - still in the original box.

My Dad bought it years ago when he was a licensed gun dealer, got it cheap from somebody needing cash.

He never shot it, and made sure I understood that when he gave it to me....

 

I really have no use for it, as it's extremely dressy with gold appointments and such.

Pretty gaudy looking, like something from a movie - I'm not that big on guns that are that shiny.

Still, it ain't for sale.

 

I've fired plenty of other Desert Eagles - in all available calibers and configurations.

Once you've done it enough, the novelty wears off and you realize that the gun is beating the hell out of you.

Two of them at once (like you see in the movies) would be a pretty masochistic thing to do.

And don't even ask what .50 caliber ammo costs nowadays...

 

[Blackie]

Desert Eagle is good for a fight with a bear biting into your skull.

[Bowdiddley]

Desert Eagle is good for a fight with a bear biting into your skull.

 

or a possible mugger.... just saying[biggrin]

[retrosurfer1959]

 

I get the impression that among other things' date=' a lot of urban folk can't imagine how a 4-H kid can raise a calf, train and pet it, then take the "pet calf" to the local locker plant to be converted into steaks, roasts and burger. The rural folk can't imagine how city folk don't understand the same stuff. That difference was even more obvious a generation ago when most rural families did their own meat processing at home.

 

m

[/quote']

 

I grew up with a dad that was a military ordinance diver so we got much of our meals out of the ocean and raised cattle and chickens to supplement the seafood. I can remember as a child all of us whining because we had to have lobster and scallops for dinner again can't we go to McDonalds wish that choice was still available

 

sadly this kinda explains the most common beliefs of Urban life

 

 

Although I did turn a older sister in a vegetarian after asking her if she wanted a spook burger shortly after my pet cow spook disappeared :- maybe it makes me violent but I actually prefer my livestock neatly wrapped and frozen and I'm happy to be an omnivore no matter what they can mold tofu into looking like nowdays

[Blackie]

All for being an omnivore...............and I will make my own coffee as usual.

[milod]

I kinda like the way this thread has broadened. It's also shown some cultural differences among urban and rural populations as well as difference in knowledge base. For what it's worth, I have yet to meet an anti-firearm person in the U.S. who had a really good grasp of the cattle business. <grin>

 

Re: Grass-fed "natural" cattle for the food supply... Grass-fed beef is not bad, but ask why ranchers in range country buy beef at the market in town or buy corn and feed a steer down by the barn? Also, the faster livestock put on weight with a given cost of feed, the lower the price of the meat and the greater the profit for the producers. In fact, a lot of livestock breeding programs are to maximize growth on X amount of feed during X time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns about the fact that there are something like three or four big companies putting out a majority of the beef sold to consumers in the US. But it's like blaming the concept of "guitar" for a poor guitar-making company or worse, for chain store incompetents not recognizing guitar (food safety) problems caused by shipping and handling. <grin>

 

There always are questions about safety and long-term quality when a half dozen companies own pretty much the means of production of foods. Yeah, I mean veggies too. Is what's questionable a relative concentration of livestock in feed lots by competent workers, or concentration of corporate enterprises that own the food supply?

 

We also forget how many people got sick from food problems when we did do our own gardening, slaughtered and processed our own meats, canned our own apples and peaches, made our own mayo. There are a lotta factors involved, both positive and negative, that average city folks can't even imagine because it's not part of their "world."

 

I could go on and on. <grin>

 

m

[NeoConMan]

In fact' date=' a lot of livestock breeding programs are to maximize growth on X amount of feed during X time.[/quote']

When I was growing up in Kansas, a friend of mine's family owned a large feedlot.

I worked out there off and on, helping as I could.

 

It was a big deal making sure the cows got the proper feed mix.

Too young, the other feeds could make them deathly ill.

Too old, the younger feeds did them no good.

 

I was amazed that those cows would put on 4 pounds every single day before catching the taxi out.

 

And I don't care what anybody tells you, despite being penned up those cows were as happy as a cow can be.

They had room to walk around, and every day you'd see them playing.

Seriously.

 

Sick or mistreated cows get stressed.

Stressed cows don't eat.

If they don't eat, they don't put on weight.

If they don't put on weight, nobody makes any money.

 

Everybody has an interest in seeing they are kept healthy and given the food they will devour.

Corn + hay = bovine bliss.

Even added molasses to it so they'd eat it all up and not leave any to spoilage if it rained.

[EVOL!]

Corn + hay = bovine bliss.

Even added molasses to it so they'd eat it all up and not leave any to spoilage if it rained.

 

Wrong. Cattle are ruminant animals. Their natural diet is grasses, not grain. At the feed lots they have to force feed the calves grain (corn) to get them used to eating the stuff. And when you force an animal to eat something it normally does not, it Fs up the PH in their guts which is why they have to include antacids and other drugs in the corn. It also caused the bacterium in their intestines to blossom. This is why you have so many ecol i outbreaks with beef. Their dung is now very toxic.

 

Yes, the corn fattens them up real good and gives us consumers that fatty, marbled meat that someone thought was desirable, but you are going against thousands of years of evolution with this species. It's like forcing you to eat spiders, centipedes, scorpion stingers, and other venomous insects and then chasing it with anti-venom; all because it softens your meat for better eating.

 

Hay is OK, though, since it is a grass. What else are the cattle going to eat in the winter time?

[NeoConMan]

Wrong.

(heavy sigh...)

 

Here we go again....

 

 

 

Really?

How many feedlots have you ever set foot in?

Did you ever actually work in any of them?

As I posted before' date=' I spent a lot of time in one as a kid, owned by the family of a good friend of mine.

Worked out there during the summers and on weekends.

 

Worked full time in them for awhile after high school.

 

So let's look at this a little more closely, and see if this is something you actually know for a fact.

Maybe you learned it in college, or on the internet, eh.....?

 

 

 

Their natural diet is grasses' date=' not grain.[/quote']

So, you're telling me they would pass the grain by if they wandered upon it?

Wrong.

You've never been on a farm where cattle got out, eh?

If there's mature grain around, they'll tear it up.

 

 

 

 

At the feed lots they have to force feed the calves grain (corn) to get them used to eating the stuff.

How' date=' exactly, do you force-feed a cow?

You gonna stick YOUR arm in that mouth?

IV's?

Come on....

 

 

 

 

And when you force an animal to eat something it normally does not' date=' it Fs up the PH in their guts which is why they have to include antacids and other drugs in the corn.

Funny, I saw the corn harvest, saw it loaded in the hundreds and hundreds of 18-wheelers.

I saw it weighed and dumped in the corn pits.

I saw tractors driven all over the top of the mountain of corn to pack it down.

I saw the millions of square yards of plastic sheeting they rolled out to cover it.

I saw the thousands of old tires they placed on top to keep the sheeting from blowing away.

I personally drove the Caterpillar 950 front-end loader to scoop it out as needed.

I personally drove the trucks to haul it into the feed mill.

I personally drove the feed trucks that weighed, measured, mixed and dispensed the finished feed.

 

There was NOTHING added to any of the millions of tons of corn I ever worked with.

 

I'm sorry that doesn't confirm your story in any way.

 

 

 

It also caused the bacterium in their intestines to blossom.

This is why you have so many ecol i outbreaks with beef.

Their dung is now very toxic.

I... never mind.

I suppose e. coli is a recent development' date=' never before seen by mankind or the animal world?

I think the issue is that it was discovered by the media some years back -[i'] THAT[/i] makes it real, eh?

 

 

 

Yes' date=' the corn fattens them up real good and gives us consumers that fatty, marbled meat that someone thought was desirable, but you are going against thousands of years of evolution with this species. [/quote']

It's a business.

They give the customer what they want.

They do their best to provide the most value for the money.

They want to stay in business so they can KEEP making money.

 

By the way, do you have any idea how much of our beef is imported now?

Compared to China, Brazil, Argentina (who's economy beat ours to the toilet) and other money-grubbing nations,

you think the USA will cut corners and poison people? Give me a break.

How many USDA meat inspectors are traveling the globe to watch over every cow...?

 

 

 

 

It's like forcing you to eat spiders' date=' centipedes, scorpion stingers, and other venomous insects

and then chasing it with anti-venom; all because it softens your meat for better eating.[/quote']

I got nothing.

Sorry, that's just a little too far-fetched and absurd for me...

Would you like to hear what my Bible tells me our diet should be? Makes a hell of a lot more sense!!!

 

 

 

Hay is OK' date=' though, since it is a grass. What else are the cattle going to eat in the winter time?

I'm glad you approve.

Feedlots buy millions of tons of feed at harvest, and spend millions of dollars to store it and keep it dry.

They do this so the diet for the cattle is un-altered throughout the year.

 

You can buy "free-range" beef it it helps you with the guilt.

Tell me, what do THEY eat during the winter when the grasses are dead and buried under snow?

I'll give you a hint - they starve. Cattle will not root through very much snow to get to food.

 

Go ahead and pay the money for it, just don't look into that part of the business too close.

Then you'd REALLY be pissed about being lied to.

[milod]

Neo...

 

A few more points... "Hay" is various sorts of cured stuff and uncured alfalfa is not necessarily good for cattle to get into - nor are grasses at various times. A single type of grass or "hay" can be far less than a healthy "cow" requires in terms of nutrition.

 

Today's domestic livestock is a far cry from wild cattle. Far, far cry.

 

Also one should consider that corn is functionally the same stuff wild cattle eat/ate.

 

Grain is nothing more than a human-cultured grass. If I might quote the wiki, corn, known as maize outside North America, "is a grass domesticated by indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times."

 

As you said, one doesn't force feed cattle in the numbers required for the general U.S. marketplace.

 

One doesn't individually force feed a cupla thousand cattle in a feed lot. In fact, if that were being tried, one would find the price of beef many times what it is now because of labor costs.

 

Marbled beef is what gives it the taste. In fact, even sparse rangeland grass-fed steers will end up with at least some marbling, depending in ways more on the breed and age than anything else.

 

Also, as I've said before, I'm not much of a spokesman for the three or four remaining big meat packers who aren't my sorta folks to defend, but I'll certainly support your contention that there's also way too much bullpookie out there with reference to ignorance of the producers' side of agriculture.

 

m

[retrosurfer1959]

Wrong. Cattle are ruminant animals. Their natural diet is grasses' date=' not grain. At the feed lots they have to force feed the calves grain (corn) to get them used to eating the stuff.

 

Hay is OK, though, since it is a grass. What else are the cattle going to eat in the winter time?

[/quote']

 

 

 

 

 

Actually your wrong - all I can say is Wow guessing you have not spent much time around horses or cows? I'm pretty much a city boy compared to some of the people here but grew up on a five acre mini farm with horses and we always had a few calfs around as future dinner . You sure don't need to force feed grain or corn you do need to lock it up and protect it from the calf and trust me they never stop looking or trying to get in to the grain and corn. Your comment is kinda like saying kids like only brocoli, green beans and pea's and you need to force feed them cookie and ice cream.