In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:47:32 GMT, "Falky foo"
wrote:


It's idiocy and political correctness of the highest order.

Could you define 'political correctness'?

Your version or mine?

Political correctness is entirely subjective and while there are what
can be thought of as "PC", in fact, it is anything that one finds to
be offensive in particular when dealing with politicians and their
need to be all things to all people.

In short, there isn't a definition - it's whatever you find offensive.

In this case, it is an attempt by certain members of an outside
non-government agency to restrict the hunting/recreational fishing
communities ability to participate in their chosen sports. It is very
popular down state where people hunt their food in upscale, trendy
boutique stores. Up in the rural NW and NE CT, a certain population
which has moved instate and upstate which seems to believe that large
property owners can't or should not be allowed to set the rules by
which one allows hunters, or fishermen, onto streams, ponds or rivers
that adjoin or run through one's property.

So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as
it affects this particular issue.

Okay, so here's this "lefty's" view. I hate that people purchase meat
dressed up in nice packaging. I think it totally removes them from the
process and shields them from the realities of the feed lot and
slaughter house.

While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for
food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good
experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct
connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who
eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are
raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or
higher standards in the "meat" industry.

I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're
also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that
their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take
life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the
land can afford it.

But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and
downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway
just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in
in its entirety.

I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians
and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate
voters to vote for them or raise them money.

jps

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

~~ snippage ~~

So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as
it affects this particular issue.

~~ snip ~~

While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for
food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good
experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct
connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who
eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are
raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or
higher standards in the "meat" industry.

I totally agree with you here.

I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're
also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that
their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take
life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the
land can afford it.

I think I understand that.

But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and
downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway
just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in
in its entirety.

I agree here also.

I take a state granted property tax reduction which is related to
"open space". It's not a lot, but it helps when you own 300 acres of
property in a rural town with no industrial base to speak of. The
open space means that I allow access for the tax break. I can limit
the use of the land, for example, I restrict hunters to those I know
or those who have been verified and vouched for. I let kids use my
pond for fishing, but they can't swim and they have to wear a life
preserver when around the pond - my rules. I allow geo-cachers (sp?)
to run amok in the woods - these are just examples.

My pond is part of a town/city watershed and I have certain things I
can't do with it even though I live in a different town - I don't have
any argument with that.

It's probably the one thing the State has done correctly.

I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians
and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate
voters to vote for them or raise them money.

Which is probably the best definition of political correctness I have
run into. :)

Later,

Tom

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

~~ snippage ~~

So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as
it affects this particular issue.

~~ snip ~~

While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for
food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good
experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct
connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who
eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are
raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or
higher standards in the "meat" industry.

I totally agree with you here.

I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're
also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that
their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take
life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the
land can afford it.

I think I understand that.

But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and
downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway
just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in
in its entirety.

I agree here also.

I take a state granted property tax reduction which is related to
"open space". It's not a lot, but it helps when you own 300 acres of
property in a rural town with no industrial base to speak of. The
open space means that I allow access for the tax break. I can limit
the use of the land, for example, I restrict hunters to those I know
or those who have been verified and vouched for. I let kids use my
pond for fishing, but they can't swim and they have to wear a life
preserver when around the pond - my rules. I allow geo-cachers (sp?)
to run amok in the woods - these are just examples.

My pond is part of a town/city watershed and I have certain things I
can't do with it even though I live in a different town - I don't have
any argument with that.

It's probably the one thing the State has done correctly.

I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians
and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate
voters to vote for them or raise them money.

Which is probably the best definition of political correctness I have
run into. :)

Later,

Tom

Careful, if we agree on too much folks'll start thinkin' you're another
of them NE liberals.

As you know, they're the worst kind!!!

jps

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:15:04 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

~~ snippage ~~

So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as
it affects this particular issue.

~~ snip ~~

While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for
food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good
experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct
connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who
eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are
raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or
higher standards in the "meat" industry.

I totally agree with you here.

I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're
also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that
their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take
life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the
land can afford it.

I think I understand that.

But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and
downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway
just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in
in its entirety.

I agree here also.

I take a state granted property tax reduction which is related to
"open space". It's not a lot, but it helps when you own 300 acres of
property in a rural town with no industrial base to speak of. The
open space means that I allow access for the tax break. I can limit
the use of the land, for example, I restrict hunters to those I know
or those who have been verified and vouched for. I let kids use my
pond for fishing, but they can't swim and they have to wear a life
preserver when around the pond - my rules. I allow geo-cachers (sp?)
to run amok in the woods - these are just examples.

My pond is part of a town/city watershed and I have certain things I
can't do with it even though I live in a different town - I don't have
any argument with that.

It's probably the one thing the State has done correctly.

I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians
and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate
voters to vote for them or raise them money.

Which is probably the best definition of political correctness I have
run into. :)

Later,

Tom

Careful, if we agree on too much folks'll start thinkin' you're another
of them NE liberals.

It would amuse my wife, all four kids and most of my friends to think
of me as a NE liberal.

It's a concept that would, literally, cause a brain aneurysm it's so
foreign. :)

As you know, they're the worst kind!!!

Damn straight!!!

Later,

Tom

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:


Okay, so here's this "lefty's" view. I hate that people purchase meat
dressed up in nice packaging. I think it totally removes them from the
process and shields them from the realities of the feed lot and
slaughter house.

While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for
food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good
experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct
connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who
eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are
raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or
higher standards in the "meat" industry.

I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're
also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that
their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take
life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the
land can afford it.

But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and
downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway
just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in
in its entirety.

I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians
and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate
voters to vote for them or raise them money.

jps

Wow, something of jps's to agree with!

Here's a packaged chicken tidbit that you may or may not have noticed. Some of
the stuff sold right here in Safeway's is marked "15% solution enhanced" or some
such ****.

Check out the sodium content per serving on the back label. You'll find a sodium
content of about 450mg. Perdue, or any other label, which *isn't* enhanced with
this solution has only about 50-70 mg of sodium per serving.

Unreal!


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes