Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reality is multidimensional. It isn't a 2D cartoon. Trying to paint it with a broad flat brush either way isn't going to represent reality. Everyone has a unique perspective and focus. All information is gathered and processed through perspective.
I might not entirely agree with what someone says, but I am responsible for my perspective. Your post about "slop milk" and implication that raw milk is "unsafe" is just as 2D as any of these comments you attribute to others.
However, as I said I have no understanding of why someone would be on a thread about a subject they have no interest in. Your comments seem to indicate such.
Though, it seems this thread is going astray from an RP discussion, but I can see where the state of the economy would tie in.
I do find it interesting that if I type in "ron paul convention" to search I get a paid link for Mitt Romney first. (LOL)
You need to re-read my post. I NEVER said nor even implied that raw milk was unsafe. What I said was:
"Now, you can argue 'till the cows come home about whether or nor pasteurization is a good thing or not - BUT there were REASONS it was made standard procedure - and THOSE reasons had a LOT to do with the VERY POOR quality of milk in the 1800's for many city folks - milk that KILLED people."
And that is a simple statement of fact. CLEARLY there were problems with milk quality during that time - with unscrupulous farmers feeding their cows very poor quality food that made their milk dangerous. Part of the "solution" to the problem that was implimented at the time was to pastuerize the milk. That's not saying it's the ONLY possible solution but it's part of the solution that WAS implimented at the time. Again, that's just a fact. It's not a "rewriting" of reality, it's just something that HAPPENED. My personal (and YOUR) opinion about pastuerization is not really relevant - nor does it change the past (something the other posters I mention seem to be trying to do).
I realize it's not AS SIMPLE today to do those things, but to say "None of this would be allowed today" is just plain wrong.
I live just outside the Seattle city limits and several of my neighbors have chickens - and it's even allowed INSIDE the city limits (though there are limits on the NUMBER of chickens you may have). Seattle also allows raising bees, goats and ducks. It's not as simple as it was back then, but it IS possible (at least within limits - few cities will allow you to have pigs or cows for example). There's also nothing to prevent you from having a vegitable garden or fruit trees. Now, I'm only speaking for Seattle of course, but I don't think things are all that different in most other places. And remember this is for a major urban center. In smaller cities and towns- or especially out in the countryside - it's a whole lot simpler in regards rules and regulations.
In regards to local churches not being allowed to donate food - that's just nonsense. Churches do that all the time.
The BIGGEST obstacle for people today in regards to growing their own food (or at least supplimenting their food) is that today most people live in cities and simply don't a PLACE to grow anything - as compared to the 1930's when a much larger segment of the population was rural. Folks who live in private homes - even in metro areas - usually have yards of course, but many people today live in either apartments or condos and thus have NO land on which to either raise crops or animals. There's also the fact of course that most people are completely ignorant about HOW to grow crops or raise animals. The fact is, today most people are city-dwellers rather than country folks and just don't have a clue about what it takes to grow or raise your own food.
Ken
I am referencing what was widely ok legally, throughout the US, and commonly practiced. What you could do and where has changed radically.Though some local areas vary with regulations, this has become extremely difficult to do and certainly not w/o many restrictions. Being able to have "farm animals", even in "non-city" areas is now almost completely forbidden and most definitely heavily regulated. The past 5-10 yrs this has gotten even tighter.
My comment wasn't implying local churches could not donate. Of course, they can. It is just regulated. I was speaking of the animals, food and being able to build what you wanted.
To have chickens or animals was no big deal. Nowadays even in the country it is heavily regulated. Many people "owned" animals and did not live in the country. Having animals and farming or gardening was commonly practiced by people who were not in rural areas. Obviously society changed, skill sets etc... My comment wasn't addressing that.
Even trying to have plants in an apartment or condo can be a big no-no. Many places have very strict local regulations. Private orgs, like HOA can be the worst. Regulations that would have been seen as extreme by most, not long ago.
It's not that they "feeding the homeless" that's a problem. It's WHERE they are "feeding the homeless" that's the problem. That's a big difference.
Would YOU really want such an event occuring - say on your front lawn?
As I said - it's not as SIMPLE today to do all those things that were done back in the 1930's (and this is a prime example) but it can still be done. There are just more "hoops" to go through.
I am referencing what was widely ok legally, throughout the US, and commonly practiced. Though some local areas vary with regulations, this has become extremely difficult to do and certainly not w/o many restrictions. Being able to have "farm animals", even in "non-city" areas is now almost completely forbidden and most definitely heavily regulated. The past 5-10 yrs this has gotten even tighter.
My comment wasn't implying local churches could not donate. Of course, they can. It is just regulated. I was speaking of the animals, food and being able to build what you wanted.
To have chickens or animals was no big deal. Nowadays even in the country it is heavily regulated. Many people "owned" animals and did not live in the country. Having animals and farming or gardening was commonly practiced by people who were not in rural areas.
Even trying to have plants in an apartment can be a big no-no. Many places have very strict local regulations. Regulations that would have been seen as extreme by most, not long ago.
Again, not impossible - just not as simple to do. I mean after all, if we here in Left-wing Seattle can manage to do it, I'm sure folks most anywhere can manage to find a way.
You need to re-read my post. I NEVER said nor even implied that raw milk was unsafe. What I said was:
"Now, you can argue 'till the cows come home about whether or nor pasteurization is a good thing or not - BUT there were REASONS it was made standard procedure - and THOSE reasons had a LOT to do with the VERY POOR quality of milk in the 1800's for many city folks - milk that KILLED people."
And that is a simple statement of fact. CLEARLY there were problems with milk quality during that time - with unscrupulous farmers feeding their cows very poor quality food that made their milk dangerous. Part of the "solution" to the problem that was implimented at the time was to pastuerize the milk. That's not saying it's the ONLY possible solution but it's part of the solution that WAS implimented at the time. Again, that's just a fact. It's not a "rewriting" of reality, it's just something that HAPPENED. My personal (and YOUR) opinion about pastuerization is not really relevant - nor does it change the past (something the other posters I mention seem to be trying to do).
Ken
My point is I did not read the comments about pasteurization the way you did. Your interpretation is yours alone. Someone who has issues with current enforcement of such a process and selling of raw milk compared to wide availability, at one time, does not entail rewriting history as you state. I didn't even see someone say to do away with it or that it had no purpose. I believe the real issue is about choice, not "either" "or".
Certainly pasteurization does sterilize. This is a fact.
Reading documents that "headline" an issue doesn't mean the "reality" was as the headline stated. Only the one deciding to implement the policy would have any way of knowing what the purpose was.
Again, not impossible - just not as simple to do. I mean after all, if we here in Left-wing Seattle can manage to do it, I'm sure folks most anywhere can manage to find a way.
Ken
The "impossible" part applies to all of the US. It is now the exception and not the rule. In Seattle, your area, I am sure you are still quite restricted and regulated, as to what you can grow, "raise" and how you can do it.
It's not that they "feeding the homeless" that's a problem. It's WHERE they are "feeding the homeless" that's the problem. That's a big difference.
Would YOU really want such an event occuring - say on your front lawn?
As I said - it's not as SIMPLE today to do all those things that were done back in the 1930's (and this is a prime example) but it can still be done. There are just more "hoops" to go through.
Ken
It should not occur on my property unless I give them the privilege of going onto my land. You forget about property rights again?
It's okay to feed them as long as others don't see them?
Dallas also limits outdoor food giveaways to approved locations. Those distributing food must take a food-handling course and get a city permit, says Karen Rayzer, director of environmental and health services. A violator can be fined $2,000. Orlando adopted an ordinance in July that requires a permit to serve more than 25 people in a park within 2 miles of City Hall, where most food giveaways were taking place. An applicant may serve twice a year in each park.
Is it against the law to feed stray animals too?
Like you said, it still can be done, but why does it have to be hard to help others?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 08-09-2012 at 09:51 AM..
It's not that they "feeding the homeless" that's a problem. It's WHERE they are "feeding the homeless" that's the problem. That's a big difference.
Would YOU really want such an event occuring - say on your front lawn?
As I said - it's not as SIMPLE today to do all those things that were done back in the 1930's (and this is a prime example) but it can still be done. There are just more "hoops" to go through.
Ken
Actually it wasn't where. It was more like their quota was exceeded. A so-called public area should be ok to do this. You can bet, that if they were trying to do it at a house someone would also complain and a reg would be applied. I have been aware of people calling the cops on people trying to raise money with a "yard sale" for crying out loud.
A city just fined a parent for having her child use chalk on rocks at a public park. Really? Guess what? Most people thought it was insane and abusive.
I will also add that this org was making a statement about what they consider wrong. I would have to agree with this. A reg can be made about anything, but it is w/in a person's rights to protest what they find unacceptable.
Well, just the fact that these folks seriously think that Ron Paul is going to somehow magically become the GOP candidate shows just how divorced from reality they are - so I guess we really shouldn't find it surprising that they've constructed an alternate "fairy tale" past as well.
Ken
Yet you think big government which has destroyed the economy and proven themselves to be costly and inefficient is the answer? Ron Paul supporters are not the ones divorced from reality here.
So I guess we really shouldn't find it surprising that big government types have constructed an alternate "fairy tale" past as well. It's a shame the ones who do get it, have to live it. BTW it's not a fairy tale, it's a nightmare of mob rule.
Or maybe Loveshiscountry - who somehow still thinks the WWII years were a Depression (despite the fact that business was booming and unemployment was virtually zero):
Ken
LMAO you still refuse to address the FACT that a less skilled, less qualified labor force equates to a weaker product and weaker efficiency. Efficiency isn't in your vocabulary is it? You still refuse to address the FACT that there were little in the way of quality goods to purchase because little was produced. Guess why Americans saved during the war years? I'll have to tell you again, there wasn't much quality wise to purchase. Good economy pfffft. How does poorer quality equate to a good economy? Because we have more of it? This food may taste like raw sewage but there's tons of it.
Like I said, you never saw the Housing bubble coming so why listen to a person discuss economics when they didn't see the largest economic collapse in 70 years coming? The same reason I wouldn't listen to Herman Cain on the economy. He didn't see it two weeks before it happened.
The ones who made money during the war were the ones in the black market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
