Carrie Underwood asks BEEF spokesman for recreational sex.
I watched the last fifteen minutes of the Academy of Country Music Awards when Carrie Underwood won the entertainer of the year award. With the other nominees being George Straight, Kenny Chesney, Brad Paisley and Keith Urban Internet, social networking would be the only explanation for Underwood to win the honor. There should be a lesson in that for all of us.
For just a bit of background, Matthew McConaughey the Texas-born actor presented Underwood with the big award, but before his official duties he entertained the audience with a story on how he and his brother once took a road trip thru Texas to see Dwight Yoakam perform. While there the brothers tried to "pick up" a few ladies by telling them that they made a livin' exclusively custom-making George Strait's boots.
"We're like, 'Oh yeah. Say, as I a matter of fact, out in the parking lot, in the trunk of our white Corvette, we have the next year's new edition white ostrich quill George Strait signed series that he's gonna wear on tour next year.' And they got pretty excited about that and said, 'Well, can we see? Can we see? Can we see?'" McConaughey told the audience. "And we obliged ... Point of the story is, we got lucky that night. Thank you, George."
Well, upon being presented the award Underwood appeared to be speechless. Then she turned to McConaughey and said, “Matthew, I want to see those boots”.
First, she endorsed the boots made from what she knew was a dead animal product. McConaughey has also been the Beef industry spokesman for the past year. So Underwood claims to desperately be opposed to the consumption of beef and the use of animals to make clothes but she certainly didn’t mind showing her sexual desire to be with the spokesman of the beef industry in front of millions of TV viewers.
Carrie Underwood does not represent the “Country” segment of our population and I believe that in that trying moment, she revealed her true colors. Call you local radio station and tell them Carrie Underwood does not represent country and she conducts fundraising efforts for the Human Society of the United States who wants to abolish animal agriculture and end hunting. Get Underwood off of “Country” radio stations.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States rancher from Central Nebraska. He is also host of the national radio program called Loos Tales and founder of the non-profit Faces Of Agriculture. Trent travels the country featuring the neat people and places in Rural America that truly make it what it is. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or www.LoosTales.com
Subscribe To Loos Tales Daily information
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Received email April 7, 2009
Trent:
I attended your presentation in New Hampton, Iowa two or three weeks ago.
Although I've worked in rural school districts virtually all of my
professional life (going on about 40 years) I had never heard of you
before I received an invitation to attend the meeting which was held at
the Pinicon Restaurant. Since I am seeking to become more informed on
agricultural issues as a newly elected member of the Chickasaw County
Board of Supervisors, I was led to believe that you would provide a useful
perspective on agriculture in America.
I must say, first of all, that I was quite surprised at the presentation.
I expected to hear an "informational" kind of speech, one that identified
the important and urgent agricultural issues of the day from the
perspective of one who travels a great deal and who, himself, learns much
from the people with whom he visits and to whom he listens. In fact, as
you were introduced, I took out of some paper and my pen and I was
prepared to write notes about the points you would make.
As your presentation continued it was clear that you were (or are) an
entertainer, much like Rush Limbaugh (sp?) and many other "media
personalities." That said, as you might suspect, I was disappointed.
Intertwined with your "entertainment" comments, I thought you made several
wonderful points on which one should reflect. I recall that you talked
about the need for American agriculture to have a spokeperson. (I sensed
[and feared] that you wanted to be that spokesperson.) You also talked
about the need for farmers to learn how to communicate with the vast
majority of Americans who really don't understand the food system in this
country (or in the world). Somehow, the language farmers speak needs to
be transformed so that ordinary people can understand what is being said.
I am still not sure what to make of you. Following the presentation, and
still seeking to understand your motives, I googled you and I watched
several youtube videos that you had made--there were several interviews
with Iowa State University faculty members--that I watched. Thus, I am
becoming aware that although there's this entertainment "side" of Trent
Loos, there's also another side that seeks to inform viewers about
agricultural topics.
All of this said, the most troubling part of your presentation to me--and
it occurred near the beginning of your "comments"--had to do with global
climate change. If I understand you correctly, you deny that humans are
influencing the climate system of the world through various emissions,
especially CO2. My view is different. Because of the process that was
used to construct the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, I
agree with the conclusions expressed by that grouping of world climate
scientists. This view was recently reinforced by a presentation I watched
on television by James Hansen--and it is Hansen's speech which was made on
December 17, 2008 that I would invite you to watch. To get to that
speech, I googled "James Hansen+December 17, 2008" and several webpages
come up. Hansen spoke at University of California at Berkeley on December
17 and his speech, you will find, is now on Youtube. Although the speech
was listed as lasting about one hour, twenty-five minutes or so, at least
some of that time was devoted to questions from the audience. In the
speech, Hansen seems to address some of the issues you raised, if I recall
correctly. I urge you to view the speech and to reflect on your current
position with respect to climate change.
By the way, I do agree with you that somehow, American agriculture does
need a "face." There is a need for spokespeople. One of the immense
challenges to American agriculture is that there are many
dimensions--there's a wide range of interests. My hope would be that any
spokesperson would provide detail about his/her "interest" in
agriculture--whether one was closer to a "corporate" position or whether
one was at the other end of the continuum--whether one was supportive of
maintaining as much as possible, the family farmer, and, perhaps "family
values." And, obviously, even this is a gross oversimplification.
I agree also that Americans (and others) need to understand much better
the "food system." Because I have lived in Iowa, I believe I have a more
"developed" view than some Americans but even then, I know that I am very
ignorant of important parts of the system. I know that I do not have a
sophisticated view of the overall "structure of agriculture" in this
country (nor in the world). There is a desperate need for much
ag-education.
There are many other points about which I could try to make an intelligent
comment. However, my main concern at this point is that you re-consider
your view about global climate change. It's hard for me to imagine that
one who seeks to be a spokesperson, or who, de facto, IS a spokesperson,
would have the view that you currently appear to hold about global climate
change. Again--I believe the conclusions of the IPCC group. I believe
James Hansen. His speech was nuanced. There's obviously much that is not
known. But his explanation of the "science" seemed sufficiently strong
enough to be credible. I recognize that if one accepts the notion that
global climate change is real and that humans have a role in causing an
acceleration of the change, then one needs to examine his/her own behavior
and the various "systems" that are currently in operation that influence
the rates of emissions that could cause life on earth as we know it be
dramatically different within the lifetimes of our grandchildren. That's
a scary proposition, but one that needs to be explored.
Best wishes,
John Andersen
Thanks John I appreciate your comments. I would encourage you all to read Ready for a little Global Warming
Trent:
I attended your presentation in New Hampton, Iowa two or three weeks ago.
Although I've worked in rural school districts virtually all of my
professional life (going on about 40 years) I had never heard of you
before I received an invitation to attend the meeting which was held at
the Pinicon Restaurant. Since I am seeking to become more informed on
agricultural issues as a newly elected member of the Chickasaw County
Board of Supervisors, I was led to believe that you would provide a useful
perspective on agriculture in America.
I must say, first of all, that I was quite surprised at the presentation.
I expected to hear an "informational" kind of speech, one that identified
the important and urgent agricultural issues of the day from the
perspective of one who travels a great deal and who, himself, learns much
from the people with whom he visits and to whom he listens. In fact, as
you were introduced, I took out of some paper and my pen and I was
prepared to write notes about the points you would make.
As your presentation continued it was clear that you were (or are) an
entertainer, much like Rush Limbaugh (sp?) and many other "media
personalities." That said, as you might suspect, I was disappointed.
Intertwined with your "entertainment" comments, I thought you made several
wonderful points on which one should reflect. I recall that you talked
about the need for American agriculture to have a spokeperson. (I sensed
[and feared] that you wanted to be that spokesperson.) You also talked
about the need for farmers to learn how to communicate with the vast
majority of Americans who really don't understand the food system in this
country (or in the world). Somehow, the language farmers speak needs to
be transformed so that ordinary people can understand what is being said.
I am still not sure what to make of you. Following the presentation, and
still seeking to understand your motives, I googled you and I watched
several youtube videos that you had made--there were several interviews
with Iowa State University faculty members--that I watched. Thus, I am
becoming aware that although there's this entertainment "side" of Trent
Loos, there's also another side that seeks to inform viewers about
agricultural topics.
All of this said, the most troubling part of your presentation to me--and
it occurred near the beginning of your "comments"--had to do with global
climate change. If I understand you correctly, you deny that humans are
influencing the climate system of the world through various emissions,
especially CO2. My view is different. Because of the process that was
used to construct the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, I
agree with the conclusions expressed by that grouping of world climate
scientists. This view was recently reinforced by a presentation I watched
on television by James Hansen--and it is Hansen's speech which was made on
December 17, 2008 that I would invite you to watch. To get to that
speech, I googled "James Hansen+December 17, 2008" and several webpages
come up. Hansen spoke at University of California at Berkeley on December
17 and his speech, you will find, is now on Youtube. Although the speech
was listed as lasting about one hour, twenty-five minutes or so, at least
some of that time was devoted to questions from the audience. In the
speech, Hansen seems to address some of the issues you raised, if I recall
correctly. I urge you to view the speech and to reflect on your current
position with respect to climate change.
By the way, I do agree with you that somehow, American agriculture does
need a "face." There is a need for spokespeople. One of the immense
challenges to American agriculture is that there are many
dimensions--there's a wide range of interests. My hope would be that any
spokesperson would provide detail about his/her "interest" in
agriculture--whether one was closer to a "corporate" position or whether
one was at the other end of the continuum--whether one was supportive of
maintaining as much as possible, the family farmer, and, perhaps "family
values." And, obviously, even this is a gross oversimplification.
I agree also that Americans (and others) need to understand much better
the "food system." Because I have lived in Iowa, I believe I have a more
"developed" view than some Americans but even then, I know that I am very
ignorant of important parts of the system. I know that I do not have a
sophisticated view of the overall "structure of agriculture" in this
country (nor in the world). There is a desperate need for much
ag-education.
There are many other points about which I could try to make an intelligent
comment. However, my main concern at this point is that you re-consider
your view about global climate change. It's hard for me to imagine that
one who seeks to be a spokesperson, or who, de facto, IS a spokesperson,
would have the view that you currently appear to hold about global climate
change. Again--I believe the conclusions of the IPCC group. I believe
James Hansen. His speech was nuanced. There's obviously much that is not
known. But his explanation of the "science" seemed sufficiently strong
enough to be credible. I recognize that if one accepts the notion that
global climate change is real and that humans have a role in causing an
acceleration of the change, then one needs to examine his/her own behavior
and the various "systems" that are currently in operation that influence
the rates of emissions that could cause life on earth as we know it be
dramatically different within the lifetimes of our grandchildren. That's
a scary proposition, but one that needs to be explored.
Best wishes,
John Andersen
Thanks John I appreciate your comments. I would encourage you all to read Ready for a little Global Warming
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Agricultural youth in our nations Universities tremendously inspirational...Here is my point, great job Drew.....Trent
LETTER: Meat and dairy just as beneficial as any other diet
I grew up on a ranch in the middle of North Dakota, where my family raises beef cattle. I am now a second-year veterinary student at Iowa State, and I plan on practicing food animal medicine. I read Sophie Prell’s March 31 article on vegetarianism, and I can’t disagree more with most of what she wrote.
I have no problem with people who don’t eat meat because they don’t like the taste. I do have a problem when people defend their choice by saying that animals are treated poorly.
Anyone who has spent time on an animal operation knows how much producers care about their animals. It’s in their best interest to have healthy, happy animals that will maximize production. Most producers spend more time with their animals than they do with their families.
We also need to look at what would happen if we banned eating meat, which is what groups like PETA would like to accomplish. Food production animals are provided food, water and protection and wouldn’t be able to survive in the wild today. To the people who say cattle and pigs should be set free to roam, because they were once wild? I hope you won’t mind giving up your dogs and cats, because they were wild too.
As for the ISU Vegan Club’s 10 reasons to “go veg,” there are several incorrect statements that I would like to address.
1.“Meat is almost always contaminated with E. coli.”
E. coli is a bacteria that lives in the intestines of animals. If meat gets contaminated it is during slaughter, just like fruits and veggies that get contaminated with salmonella during harvest. The bacteria is killed if meat is prepared correctly, and according to the CDC only 23 people out of every 100,000 in the US get infected with E. coli each year from all sources.
2. “Animals you eat are often fed the remains of mad cow-infected animals.”
“Mad cow disease” is the cattle form of a group of relatively new diseases caused by abnormal proteins, called prions. The outbreak in Britain in the 1990s was caused by contaminated meat and bone that was ground up and fed to cattle. In response to the outbreak, the United States banned the feeding of animal by-products to cattle in 1997. Cattle by-products can be fed to pigs, but there is no evidence that “Mad cow” can be transmitted to pigs. The United States has only had 3 cases of “Mad cow disease,” and one of those animals was imported from Canada. Only 3 people in the US have ever gotten the human form of the disease, and 2 of the 3 acquired it while living in Britain. Cattle are randomly tested during the slaughter process. The abnormal protein is only in the brain and spinal cord tissue, which are both removed during slaughter.
3. “Slaughterhouses send animals through the line still alive.”
It’s true that animals are alive before they are slaughtered. Animals are restrained, then stunned. This renders them unconscious so they don’t feel pain or exhibit reflexes. The animal has to be deemed unconscious before the slaughter process can continue. The animal is then bled out quickly, well before they regain consciousness. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has many regulations for the slaughter of animals. FSIS personnel must be present at all times if the facility is operating, and these personnel perform animal-by-animal inspection of all carcasses and ensure proper sanitation is being maintained.
4. “More than half of all water used in the US goes to the meat industry.”
The US Geological Society’s Summary of Water Use in 2000 stated that combined water use for livestock, aquaculture, and mining accounted for 3 percent of all water use, while irrigation for crops accounted for 34 percent. Even if all crops grown with irrigation water were fed to animals, those numbers combined wouldn’t account for more than half of the United State’s water use.
5. “Chickens have their beaks burned off.”
Shortly after a chick hatches the sharp point on its beak is blunted. This is done to decrease injury by pecking other chickens, similar to why we dehorn cattle. It is for the chicken’s protection. Stress levels are comparable to cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn.
6. “Huge amounts of grain are used to feed animals that could be used to feed humans.”
I can’t argue this one much; food that isn’t eaten by one animal can be eaten by another. But, any industries use grains to produce a product. Ethanol production in 2007 used 14 percent of our corn crop, and that number is expected to climb to 30 percent by 2010. When we take into account the fuel used to plant, harvest, and transport the corn used for ethanol, one gallon of fossil fuel is used to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. At least animal production creates food that humans can eat.
7. “Vegan diets lower your risk for diseases.”
A low fat and cholesterol diet lowers our risk for certain diseases. A vegan diet is also not without risk. People eating a strict vegan diet are also more likely to get osteoporosis, rickets, and even anemia. Animal products are high in calcium, vitamin D, B vitamins, iron, and protein that would be deficient in an all vegan diet. Total calorie intake can also pose a problem. Children who follow a vegan diet have also had slower growth than those that eat animal products, and vegan women who are pregnant need to take iron and vitamin supplements. Poorly planned vegan diets can result in infant malnutrition and fatalities.
The inaccuracy of these “facts” shows that our own Vegetarian/Vegan Club is no better than PETA or the Humane Society. They all conjure up numbers and stories at their own discretion and portray them as fact. I hope people can think for themselves and see that meat and dairy products, when part of a complete diet, can be just as healthy and beneficial as any other diet.
Drew Magstadt
Sophomore
Veterinary Medicine
LETTER: Meat and dairy just as beneficial as any other diet
I grew up on a ranch in the middle of North Dakota, where my family raises beef cattle. I am now a second-year veterinary student at Iowa State, and I plan on practicing food animal medicine. I read Sophie Prell’s March 31 article on vegetarianism, and I can’t disagree more with most of what she wrote.
I have no problem with people who don’t eat meat because they don’t like the taste. I do have a problem when people defend their choice by saying that animals are treated poorly.
Anyone who has spent time on an animal operation knows how much producers care about their animals. It’s in their best interest to have healthy, happy animals that will maximize production. Most producers spend more time with their animals than they do with their families.
We also need to look at what would happen if we banned eating meat, which is what groups like PETA would like to accomplish. Food production animals are provided food, water and protection and wouldn’t be able to survive in the wild today. To the people who say cattle and pigs should be set free to roam, because they were once wild? I hope you won’t mind giving up your dogs and cats, because they were wild too.
As for the ISU Vegan Club’s 10 reasons to “go veg,” there are several incorrect statements that I would like to address.
1.“Meat is almost always contaminated with E. coli.”
E. coli is a bacteria that lives in the intestines of animals. If meat gets contaminated it is during slaughter, just like fruits and veggies that get contaminated with salmonella during harvest. The bacteria is killed if meat is prepared correctly, and according to the CDC only 23 people out of every 100,000 in the US get infected with E. coli each year from all sources.
2. “Animals you eat are often fed the remains of mad cow-infected animals.”
“Mad cow disease” is the cattle form of a group of relatively new diseases caused by abnormal proteins, called prions. The outbreak in Britain in the 1990s was caused by contaminated meat and bone that was ground up and fed to cattle. In response to the outbreak, the United States banned the feeding of animal by-products to cattle in 1997. Cattle by-products can be fed to pigs, but there is no evidence that “Mad cow” can be transmitted to pigs. The United States has only had 3 cases of “Mad cow disease,” and one of those animals was imported from Canada. Only 3 people in the US have ever gotten the human form of the disease, and 2 of the 3 acquired it while living in Britain. Cattle are randomly tested during the slaughter process. The abnormal protein is only in the brain and spinal cord tissue, which are both removed during slaughter.
3. “Slaughterhouses send animals through the line still alive.”
It’s true that animals are alive before they are slaughtered. Animals are restrained, then stunned. This renders them unconscious so they don’t feel pain or exhibit reflexes. The animal has to be deemed unconscious before the slaughter process can continue. The animal is then bled out quickly, well before they regain consciousness. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has many regulations for the slaughter of animals. FSIS personnel must be present at all times if the facility is operating, and these personnel perform animal-by-animal inspection of all carcasses and ensure proper sanitation is being maintained.
4. “More than half of all water used in the US goes to the meat industry.”
The US Geological Society’s Summary of Water Use in 2000 stated that combined water use for livestock, aquaculture, and mining accounted for 3 percent of all water use, while irrigation for crops accounted for 34 percent. Even if all crops grown with irrigation water were fed to animals, those numbers combined wouldn’t account for more than half of the United State’s water use.
5. “Chickens have their beaks burned off.”
Shortly after a chick hatches the sharp point on its beak is blunted. This is done to decrease injury by pecking other chickens, similar to why we dehorn cattle. It is for the chicken’s protection. Stress levels are comparable to cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn.
6. “Huge amounts of grain are used to feed animals that could be used to feed humans.”
I can’t argue this one much; food that isn’t eaten by one animal can be eaten by another. But, any industries use grains to produce a product. Ethanol production in 2007 used 14 percent of our corn crop, and that number is expected to climb to 30 percent by 2010. When we take into account the fuel used to plant, harvest, and transport the corn used for ethanol, one gallon of fossil fuel is used to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. At least animal production creates food that humans can eat.
7. “Vegan diets lower your risk for diseases.”
A low fat and cholesterol diet lowers our risk for certain diseases. A vegan diet is also not without risk. People eating a strict vegan diet are also more likely to get osteoporosis, rickets, and even anemia. Animal products are high in calcium, vitamin D, B vitamins, iron, and protein that would be deficient in an all vegan diet. Total calorie intake can also pose a problem. Children who follow a vegan diet have also had slower growth than those that eat animal products, and vegan women who are pregnant need to take iron and vitamin supplements. Poorly planned vegan diets can result in infant malnutrition and fatalities.
The inaccuracy of these “facts” shows that our own Vegetarian/Vegan Club is no better than PETA or the Humane Society. They all conjure up numbers and stories at their own discretion and portray them as fact. I hope people can think for themselves and see that meat and dairy products, when part of a complete diet, can be just as healthy and beneficial as any other diet.
Drew Magstadt
Sophomore
Veterinary Medicine
Internet Folklore love it or hate it... who couldn't love this one?
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has issued a new flavor, " Barocky Road ". Barocky Road is a blend of half Vanilla, half Chocolate, and surrounded by Nuts and Flakes. The Vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The Nuts and Flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. The cost is $100.00 per scoop. When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the Ice Cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you. Thus you are left with an empty wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any Ice Cream. Aren't you feeling stimulated?
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has issued a new flavor, " Barocky Road ". Barocky Road is a blend of half Vanilla, half Chocolate, and surrounded by Nuts and Flakes. The Vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The Nuts and Flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. The cost is $100.00 per scoop. When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the Ice Cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you. Thus you are left with an empty wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any Ice Cream. Aren't you feeling stimulated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)