Now you are getting in the spirit of things. Next come to grips with the fact that society will invest hundred's of thousands of dollars in your education over many years. Their only payback is that you will be part of the army that will labor full time to extend and improve our lives. It may be that all or most of your work will be to rectify problems we bring on ourselves, but labor you will in order to get your Porsche.

The biggest health risk to our people may be the unlimited availablity of low priced food. As my old boss, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems used to say, "hurt me with that problem."

I have seen so many adults suffer from the way their parents approached the subject of food. I couldn't agree more with Yaquicarbo's point that food should not be used as a reward, nor should kids be punished for not "eating everything on the plate".

I decided when my son was in the womb to not have battles with him about food. I have heathly habits and we don't have much junk food around. We do have ice cream and cookies. I've never hassled him (except when he asks me to make something labor intensive and then he doesn't eat it!).

He's almost ten, lean and active, and prefers fruit to sweet snacks (he doesn't even eat cake at birthday parties "too sweet"). Sometimes he eats almost nothing for a couple of days, other times he eats as much as an adult. I think these are a kid's natural rhythms. I had to survive "monochrome" days when he was a toddler (an orange day would be nothing but mac and cheese, goldfish crackers, and oranges). But since my son is extremely heathly (he gets sick once every two years for a day) and growing really well, I have to believe he is getting what he needs.

My point: don't make food an emotional issue and model good behavior and your kid will make the right choices on his own. Allow him to listen to his body.

Leigh

If y'all knew me better, you'd probably think I'm the worlds biggest A-Hole! (Some of you probably already do!)

I said i wasnt gonna post, but i just wont touch that intelligensia thing. Anyway, there were never high fat/sugar foods in my house growing up, we didnt have any candy, no cookies. My mom was/is diabetic (NOT from obesity, shes about 5'8" and 120 lbs), so she watched her diet, bought healthy foods, so i in turn ate those foods. i didnt exercise back then, but thats a different story. Anyway, i still eat those sort of foods, and in fact, i cannot eat high fat, high sugar (simple) foods. I dont really like the way they taste, and if i do, my body sends them flying out the rear exit. I have had times in my life where i have gotten used to these foods (friends houses) and could eat them, but i find that your body desires and adapts to your regular diet. If you eat healthy for a while, thats all youll want, you wont want to eat bad foods, they wont taste good, and in my case, your body will reject them

I go past Rocky Bayou SP on the way to work every day. Between burns and logging, they've spent the past two or so years getting rid of the slash pines in order to replant with longleafs. Same with some big chunks of Eglin reservation land. The slash pines are better than nothing, but still not ideal- one of the big problems with the slash pines is that the woodpeckers and other birds who nest in dead trees don't like them as well, and Eglin's trying to increase habitat for the red cockadeds. (Eglin really seems to have a good endangered species protection program)

This is *so* funny. Sounds exactly like what the Bush administration is doing by running a campaign of fear, so they can justify running huge deficits and erode civil liberties.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

hehehe...

Huh. I found this:

"Forestland area in the United States (737 million acres) is about two-thirds of the forested area present during the 1600s (Darr 1995). Since the seventeenth century, approximately 124 million acres of forests have been converted to other uses, primarily agricultural. More than 75 percent of this conversion has occurred in the last century (Darr 1995)."

What's your source for your claim?

Even if true, it's most likely that we now have more trees packed more densely in smaller forests, with less diversity (you thing Georgia Pacific replants lots of different trees after it clearcuts?), and permanent loss of old growth forests and the biodiversity that went with it.

You know, I'd rather have the "radical environmentalists" and the Democrats in bed together (and in power) than the oil and gas industries and military contractors in bed with the Republicans. Who is more corrupt and a greater threat to our descendents, Enron/Halliburton or the Sierra Club?

Ken "here we go again" Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ken, I do think the Democrats have a much better history on environmental issues than Republicans. I think that our Spaceship that we call "Earth" is one of the most important things to take care of, not only now, but in the future.

Neither party has everything correct on all accounts. I tend to be conservative, but that doesn't make me a Republican. I consider the environment in everything I do, but that doesn't make me a Democrat.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

My 5 year old daughter has a BMI of 14.1. Her strength/weight ratio is incredible; you should see her traverse the monkey bars (she once stopped, hung by one arm to hand me her hairband, then proceeded to the end).

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

no matter who gets elected, he will have to take a closer look at the environment...even without talking about catastrophic events (ozone layer disappearing --> apparently, the holes have been there for a very long time, melting of the ice --> it will not raise the level of waters according to some, etc...) you don't need to be a genius to realize that the thick yellow layer you see when flying over LA, or over El Paso/Juarez is not good for you...you don't need to be a genius to know that it will take an eternity for nature to get rid of plastic bags, and all sorts of craps that people just ditch wherever they feel like ....etc...

btw, I hope you guys keep the wraps of power bars, gus etc...in your pockets when you race...

"Forestland area in the United States (737 million acres) is about two-thirds of the forested area present during the 1600s (Darr 1995). Since the seventeenth century, approximately 124 million acres of forests have been converted to other uses, primarily agricultural. More than 75 percent of this conversion has occurred in the last century (Darr 1995)."

"Forestland area" does not equal trees.

What's your source for your claim?

Several foresters I know personally.

Even if true, it's most likely that we now have more trees packed more densely in smaller forests, with less diversity (you thing Georgia Pacific replants lots of different trees after it clearcuts?), and permanent loss of old growth forests and the biodiversity that went with it.

Same "biodiversity" exists in "new" growth forests. To a deer, a pine tree is a pine tree. To a spotted owl, a KMart sign is as good as a tree.

You know, I'd rather have the "radical environmentalists" and the Democrats in bed together (and in power) than the oil and gas industries and military contractors in bed with the Republicans. (Interesting side note here--The Army just canceled the Comanche helicopter project because it was too expensive, overweight, and non-survivable. Guess which politician squealed the loudest? Joe Lieberman. Is he a Republican? No, he is a Senator trying to protect jobs in his district.) Who is more corrupt and a greater threat to our descendents, Enron/Halliburton or the Sierra Club? (Another interesting side note? Guess who was one of the major contributors to Bill Clinton's political campaigns? Enron.)

No doubt in my mind, the Sierra Club. Their brand of radical environmentalism would have us all living in caves, freezing our asses off in the dark. We wouldn't have to worry about obesity then--we wouldn't live long enough to get obese. Even if we did, it's hard to get fat eating nothing.

"To a spotted owl, a KMart sign is as good as a tree. "

you know one who told you?

You guys are both right. There are far more trees per acre now in our forests. Sadly, that is not a good thing. Four hundred years ago, you could easily walk through forest with about 40 trees/acre and little undergrowth since it was mostly squeezed out by the large trees that dominated. Such forests were highly resistant to fires, since the large trees would sustain minimal damage.

Now we have overgrown forest with hundreds of trees/acre. As we see, these forests are forest fires waiting to happen. Naturally you will never see an intelligent discussion of these differences in our news media. They don't care about the issue, just on what party will posture successfully as a tree hugger.

Enron is defunct and no threat to anyone. I guess I don't understand your attempt to connect them to the Republican party since their growth, theft and fraud occured in the prior administration, not that they were at fault either. Halliburton is an oil service company without peer that has been used as a critical government contractor for decades by both parties. There are crucial logistical operations that no other country in the world can do. I don't see the threat here.

Stop repeated the mindless Rather/Jennings/Brocaw (sp?) blather, look below the surface, and think for yourself.

Are the trees obese? That is the problem that needs addressed. Are they constantly absorbing much more wavelengths of light than they need? Are the getting any exercise in? Are they living a sedentary lifestyle?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

How sad. Right to personal, anecdotal "evidence."

Some of us like our information footnoted, sourced or otherwise attributed but tri_bri2 knows people.

People who know stuff about things.

I'd like to say expected more, but tri_bri2's previous posts don't really allow it, which is why he actually puts fingers to keys like this:



I think we can assume from this gem that explaining concepts relating to "biodiversity" to tri_bri2 is like talking to your dog:

Cute, but ultimately not very productive.

There might be a bark here and there, sounding like:



Good boy, tri_bri2! You're so cute! Yesyesyesyes you are!

I walk out to get the twice weekly town newspaper this morning. First story is about controlled burns on Eglin reservation lands, and how this year they just might actually meet their annual goal of 70,000 acres burned. The goal of it all is habitat and woodlands resotration, and one of the big parts of that is getting rid of the sandy/slash pines and getting the longleaf pine cones hot enough to drop seed.

Now if there wasn't good cause to get rid of the old plantation pines, and restore the forest to its former state, then why is the government spending huge sums of money on it and even going to the point where they fly fire crews in from Vandenberg in California in order to supervise the burns at the start of the woods restoration process?

I'll believe the Jackson Guard folks who say the burns and replanting are necessary, and that to some species, there is a big difference among types of pine trees.

<<I'd like to say expected more, but tri_bri2's previous posts don't really allow it, which is why he actually puts fingers to keys like this:




I don't have a major in any of the enviromental sciences, so perhaps what I have to say does not mean diddly, but I have seen many a spotted owl in second/third growth forests during my many excursions into the woods of Western Washington. I'm not a "Earth First, we'll log the other planets later" kind of guy, but sometimes the enviromental movement tends towards the extreme. I've seen eagles and hawks enjoy the easy hunting that a clear cut affords them. Stewardship of resources, managed use, it's all possible. We can share this planet and sustain it's resources.

<<

---

Quote

---

What's your source for your claim?

Several foresters I know personally.
[/quote]

How sad. Right to personal, anecdotal "evidence."

Some of us like our information footnoted, sourced or otherwise attributed but tri_bri2 knows people.

People who know stuff about things.>>

I hope, tri_larry, that you are not one of those condecending, "I went to a big name college" types, but you come accross that way. You present yourself as one who thinks that farmers are a bunch of baseball cap wearing dumb-fucks that only know chewin' tobacco and rusty pick-ups. If you ever talk to these people, you might be suprised by what they know, particularly about hard work and financial struggle. They even know a little about the enviroment...

Brett

"farmers are a bunch of baseball cap wearing dumb-fucks that only know chewin' tobacco and rusty pick-ups. "

Living in a rural area I can testify that some are, but I'm also amazed at how well read and intellectual others are. I just wish that urbanites would appreciate farmers a bit more. Where do they think the food they buy at the grocery store comes from.

Why? To keep the federal money coming in.

   



I plead guilty to condescention right off the bat, but who said anything about where I went to college? Not me.

Do you consider Joliet Junior College to be "a big name college"?

I don't, but maybe you should; your reading comprehension needs some serious "base work" because what, exactly, in my post leads you to the conclusion that I am:



That's a truly bizarre statement, one not supported by any facts I'm aware of.

Why do you think I think that?

Please explain...though I'd be surprised if you can.

The following link is to an essay written by Patrick Moore, PhD., and co-founder of Greenpeace (how about that for environmentalist creds?).

http://http://www.dsisd.k12.mi.us/...ance/GreenSpirit.htm

In this essay, he states that there is no evidence that the logging industry has ever caused the extinction of a species--the only proof of this allegation resides in computer models, the threat to the spotted owl from logging never existed, and that the Spotted Owl can and does live in second-growth forest, and that deforestation in the U.S. was principally caused by agriculture--not logging. Here is one of his quotes concerning biodiversity--"When it comes to biodiversity conservation, there is no more sustainable primary industry than forestry." Here is another concerning paper production--"30 percent of the wood harvested is used to manufacture pulp and paper mainly for printing, packaging, and sanitary purposes. Fully half of this wood is derived from the wastes from the sawmills which produce the solid wood products for building. Most of the remaining supply is from tree plantation's many of which are established on land that was previously cleared for agriculture. So even if we did stop using wood to make pulp and paper it would not have the effect of "saving" many forests."

that's a good article tri_bri2, thanks for linking to it.

just curious, though, when he writes:

"Think of a biodiversity on a scale from 0 to 100. You would have to admit that the parking lot is pretty close to 0"

How does that square with:

To a spotted owl, a KMart sign is as good as a tree.

Have you seen KMart signs that were not attached to parking lots?

I hadn't really considered that the timber industry might be hauling KMart signs into clear cuts to provide owl-nesting opportunities.

And here I was, blithely thinking you weren't up on your facts. My apologies.

<<I plead guilty to condescention right off the bat, but who said anything about where I went to college? Not me.

Do you consider Joliet Junior College to be "a big name college"?

I don't, but maybe you should; your reading comprehension needs some serious "base work" >>

Larry, please note that I included the phrase "I hope you are not one of those condecending "I went to a big name college types." Therefore, leaving the option open that you just simply prefer to use a condecending tone when conversing with people you disagree with. An assumption-yes, an absolute statement, no.

I'm going to concede this whole thread to you, larry, because this will go nowhere quick. Sometimes, I am too quick to type when I should just let people with your attidue roll on by. My apologies to you and the readers of this forum.

Brett