archenemy

Thanks guys, you beat me to it. I personally know a man who was killed three years ago when his tractor rolled over on him. He left a wife and six kids behind. Not a whole lot of people I know can say they know someone in their "line of work" that was killed on the job due to an inherent danger of that job. (Of course, I don't know many firefighters or police or war journalists). But it does make you pause and reconsider what you are doing for a living (especially when that living doesn't pay much)

Just so we don't get off track on a tiny part of the overall point, you can begin reading here: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_067555.pdf and find much more current and interesting reading about agriculture-related deaths and injury. Back to the larger point--who is going to line up to do all this farming work? Is there a sector looking for this that is sizeable? I honestly do not know.

Yes. It ain't crab fishing or police work, but far more people die in agriculture than in cubes.

There are other factors to consider. Long term soil, water, and air quality, for example. Public health issues (e coli, etc). Farmers are going more towards sustainable practices, but the process can be accelerated by eliminating the current regimen of farm subsidies, which favor large operations growing a limited number of 'scheduled' crops, rather than more smaller, more diverse operations. Education and incentives to switch to sustainable practices are other ways government can help move things in the right direction. And finally, a move towards local (township level) control of farming practices is another way to promote healthier, more sustainable farms. I agree with this and would like to see it. However, I don't really know how many people would be up for farming. As it is, my family can't find enough pickers, punchers, or tractor drivers for harvest. There just isn't a long line of people who want to work really hard, be exempt from the minimun wage law, risk their lives in one of the deadliest professions, and work 12 hour days. And that is just for the employees. The owners get to figure out yearly taxes (those subsidies don't just get brought to the doorstep, and the rest of us who manage to break even or even make a little money spend a great deal of time doing the phenomenal amount of accounting that every small/med business is required to do), worry about how to prepare for the estimated pestilance for the upcoming year (the "bug guy" makes home visits), amend the soil (rotating crops means no breaks, brewing your own means managing a bunch of manure out in the back 40), repairing all the machinery that broke last year, keeping up with new species entering the market, and on and on. Maybe you grew up in a farming background and these things don't phase you. But to someone who has never worked a farm or an orchard, they are in for a great surprise when they take on that cute little hobby farm.

What kind of extended client are you calling?

My worst boss was at WAMU. I think I sprayed about her. Search for the word "cunt" and that thread may come up. But don't confuse it with the Marylou thread.

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me. You're saying that reproduction of the species is a selfish psychological drive? I would've thought it's more of an inherent evolutionary drive. I was gonna say hormonal, but maybe you pegged it. Without fail, once a society accepts birth control and becomes financially sound and fairly secure; people have fewer children--to the point where often there aren't enough kids being produced to replace the existing population. So I would think the "hormonal" drive seems to have a little merit, but not a whole hell of a lot. People often get control over their "hormones" when not having a litter of six is a viable option.

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

Breakfast beer is my favorite.

Agreed that he is a turd. But more and more I get concerned about the socially accepted eco-rightiousness that pervades so many conversations. Why is it that the same group of folks who often pride themselves on being open-minded and non-judgemental don't hesitate to pry into other people's lives and judge their personal choices? Yes, yes, the environment is important. Without it's health, we die. But anyone who is concerned about this may make choices that are different than yours and have made trade-offs that you don't see--just like you do. Yet you feel totally comfortable ragging on that person and their choices with the army of "I'm more environmentally purist than you are" holier than thou psuedo wanna be hippie sixties punters.

How sad. What will they ban next?

Naked Hula http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120AP_Naked_Man_Theft.html?source=mypi

That ought to be a party!

Whatcha gonna do?

That sounds like there are only three.

Poor planning. The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

I take it you haven't read the book. (the one I mentioned)

the stupid one is the fool who can't read through the sarcasm w/o it being spelt out for them. I'm glad to see our (future) lawyers have such a finely tuned ability to read between the lines. maybe some emoticons will help. mmmmmm spelt. He who spelt it dealt it. Hey, didn't you win some sort of beauty contest back in the day?

The best analysis of this part of the Book is in "The Harlot on the Side of the Road". A good read that includes important contextual, historical, and social framework for the story.

Arriba!

True, but who didn't act like an idiot when they were a teenager. It's just that none of us were that good-looking.

Coke is so '87

RaWR!

If Scotland weren't photoshopped, then how come 1/5th of Americans can't find it on a map? Huh Mister Smartypants?

probably not as he was hatched from an egg as a full blown adult buttmunchin' tool... I have to admit, that was funny.