Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Digest Number 4027
[email protected]
http://www.militantbreastfeedingcult.com/index_a.html
A wonderful and truly humorous site in response.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A wonderful and truly humorous site in response.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Shyrley
I don't know if anyone listens to Clear Channel Radio but there is acall
to boycott them and their advertisers.
Clear Channel radio station promotes driving into cyclists as fun
author: bikerx
Clear Channel Communications radio station, G105 promotes driving into
cyclists as fun. (9/22-23/03).
The Bob and Madison morning show on G105 out of Raleigh was going on for
awhile about how fun it is to run cyclists off of the roads, and how we
don't deserve to be there.
One woman called in and said her Dad hit a cyclist on purpose on his way
to church one morning (very Christian of him) when she was 12 or
something. She said he just hated bikes being on the road. The intern
said there is an old man that lives in her neighborhood that shoots a
pellet gun at a group of 30 or so that ride by their house.she said. He
tries to hit their tires to make them crash.
The host even joked of riding a motorcycle down said-proposed bike path
just to piss off bike riders.
The hosts egged-on the listeners in support of physically hurting
cyclists as a way of telling us they don't want us on the road.
The ending shot was Bob, the host, talking about carrying a bunch of
empty YooHoo bottles to pelt offending cyclists with. Once again, more
calls rained in from people who agreed with him, and said that they
would do the same. Clear Channel stations across the nation are
broadcasting almost criminal "kill bicyclists" verbiage by shock jocks.
The recent attacks occured on G105 in the NC Triangle market two days in
a row (9/22-23/03). This follows similar comments by shows in Houston
and Cleveland. Perhaps it is time to let Clear Channel know that these
actions will not be tolerated by the cycling community. I would suggest
contacting current advertisers, both local and national, until Clear
Channel adresses this problem. Some of the advertisers with G105 include
Toyota, US Cellular, Con Agra Foods, Applebees, and Kroger.
This info was gathered from numerous posts on cycling forums and first
hand accounts of the broadcast. TMTB.com urges you to contact the
advertizers on the show, g105 and Clear Channel to politely voice your
opinion on the subject. They follow the money. If enough people write in
and let them know they are going to stop listening, stop going to the
companies that advertise; they might get the message.
G105
WDCG -FM Raleigh/Durham/
Chapel Hill
Music For All People
3100 Smoketree Court,
7th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Business Hours: M-F, 9:00am - 5:00pm
Main Phone: (919) 878-1500
Request/Contest Phone: (919) 860-1051
Studio Fax: (919) 876-8578
Clear Channel
pr@... <mailto:pr@...>
Investor Relations
randypalmer@... <mailto:randypalmer@...>
Lowry Mays
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
LLowryMays@... <mailto:LLowryMays@...>
Mark Mays
President and Chief Operating Officer
MarkPMays@... <mailto:MarkPMays@...>
to boycott them and their advertisers.
Clear Channel radio station promotes driving into cyclists as fun
author: bikerx
Clear Channel Communications radio station, G105 promotes driving into
cyclists as fun. (9/22-23/03).
The Bob and Madison morning show on G105 out of Raleigh was going on for
awhile about how fun it is to run cyclists off of the roads, and how we
don't deserve to be there.
One woman called in and said her Dad hit a cyclist on purpose on his way
to church one morning (very Christian of him) when she was 12 or
something. She said he just hated bikes being on the road. The intern
said there is an old man that lives in her neighborhood that shoots a
pellet gun at a group of 30 or so that ride by their house.she said. He
tries to hit their tires to make them crash.
The host even joked of riding a motorcycle down said-proposed bike path
just to piss off bike riders.
The hosts egged-on the listeners in support of physically hurting
cyclists as a way of telling us they don't want us on the road.
The ending shot was Bob, the host, talking about carrying a bunch of
empty YooHoo bottles to pelt offending cyclists with. Once again, more
calls rained in from people who agreed with him, and said that they
would do the same. Clear Channel stations across the nation are
broadcasting almost criminal "kill bicyclists" verbiage by shock jocks.
The recent attacks occured on G105 in the NC Triangle market two days in
a row (9/22-23/03). This follows similar comments by shows in Houston
and Cleveland. Perhaps it is time to let Clear Channel know that these
actions will not be tolerated by the cycling community. I would suggest
contacting current advertisers, both local and national, until Clear
Channel adresses this problem. Some of the advertisers with G105 include
Toyota, US Cellular, Con Agra Foods, Applebees, and Kroger.
This info was gathered from numerous posts on cycling forums and first
hand accounts of the broadcast. TMTB.com urges you to contact the
advertizers on the show, g105 and Clear Channel to politely voice your
opinion on the subject. They follow the money. If enough people write in
and let them know they are going to stop listening, stop going to the
companies that advertise; they might get the message.
G105
WDCG -FM Raleigh/Durham/
Chapel Hill
Music For All People
3100 Smoketree Court,
7th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Business Hours: M-F, 9:00am - 5:00pm
Main Phone: (919) 878-1500
Request/Contest Phone: (919) 860-1051
Studio Fax: (919) 876-8578
Clear Channel
pr@... <mailto:pr@...>
Investor Relations
randypalmer@... <mailto:randypalmer@...>
Lowry Mays
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
LLowryMays@... <mailto:LLowryMays@...>
Mark Mays
President and Chief Operating Officer
MarkPMays@... <mailto:MarkPMays@...>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Shyrley
Killing them in order to save them: Bush may rewrite rules on endangered
animals
Posted on Saturday, October 11 @ 09:59:27 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Shankar Vedantam, Seattle Times
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes
to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet
industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction
in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials with the
Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, would
both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and
trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for
conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would,
for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the
endangered straight-horned markhor, a wild goat, in Pakistan; license
the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from
Argentina; permit capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S.
circuses and zoos; and partially resume international trade in African
ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.
Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few animals
is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and say the
policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal
exploitation.
"It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is
in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research
associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group
for endangered species.
The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species
Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and
Democratic administrations since President Nixon signed the act in 1973.
The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of
which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.
Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at Fish
and Wildlife, said there has been a growing realization that the
Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect
dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry
to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild would
pay for conservation programs for remaining animals, he said.
U.S. officials note that such trade is open to hunters, pet importers
and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by
poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit
from the revenue.
Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are
leading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement
rarely used provisions in the law.
"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
written," said David Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department
of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the
beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of
ulterior motive."
Animal-welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying
that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge
of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates
also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to
flourish.
"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the
incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The
minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping
and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."
The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers,
these species have emotional and symbolic value, and never should be
captured or killed.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
managing their natural resources."
Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable-use" programs
-- under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to save the
rest -- have been countries that are home to various endangered species.
Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years to convince
the United States that animals no longer are in limited supply, or that
capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.
That could change after Friday, the end of the public-comment period on
one proposed change.
John Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that
state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve
rare animals. Monson applied for a permit in 1999 to shoot and import a
straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.
Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal
capacity.
Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000
election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445
printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has
made a variety of personal contributions, including $1,000 to the Bush
for President campaign.
Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other
special-interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy. "The
approach of this administration is it is all right to kill endangered or
threatened species or capture them from the wild so long as somebody
says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.
Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
which he said evolved through previous administrations.
Still, the application of "sustainable use" never has been so broad. The
United States in November reversed its long-held position and voted to
allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in ivory.
Stansell said the sales, which have not begun, will support elephant
conservation.
But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the
World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal
poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added. "To me,
the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush
administration pattern."
Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only
after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs.
"There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries to
conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying 'no,
no, no,' " he said.
Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company
Reprinted from The Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
animals
Posted on Saturday, October 11 @ 09:59:27 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Shankar Vedantam, Seattle Times
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes
to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet
industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction
in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials with the
Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, would
both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and
trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for
conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would,
for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the
endangered straight-horned markhor, a wild goat, in Pakistan; license
the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from
Argentina; permit capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S.
circuses and zoos; and partially resume international trade in African
ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.
Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few animals
is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and say the
policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal
exploitation.
"It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is
in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research
associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group
for endangered species.
The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species
Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and
Democratic administrations since President Nixon signed the act in 1973.
The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of
which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.
Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at Fish
and Wildlife, said there has been a growing realization that the
Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect
dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry
to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild would
pay for conservation programs for remaining animals, he said.
U.S. officials note that such trade is open to hunters, pet importers
and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by
poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit
from the revenue.
Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are
leading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement
rarely used provisions in the law.
"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
written," said David Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department
of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the
beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of
ulterior motive."
Animal-welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying
that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge
of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates
also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to
flourish.
"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the
incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The
minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping
and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."
The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers,
these species have emotional and symbolic value, and never should be
captured or killed.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
managing their natural resources."
Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable-use" programs
-- under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to save the
rest -- have been countries that are home to various endangered species.
Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years to convince
the United States that animals no longer are in limited supply, or that
capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.
That could change after Friday, the end of the public-comment period on
one proposed change.
John Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that
state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve
rare animals. Monson applied for a permit in 1999 to shoot and import a
straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.
Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal
capacity.
Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000
election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445
printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has
made a variety of personal contributions, including $1,000 to the Bush
for President campaign.
Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other
special-interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy. "The
approach of this administration is it is all right to kill endangered or
threatened species or capture them from the wild so long as somebody
says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.
Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
which he said evolved through previous administrations.
Still, the application of "sustainable use" never has been so broad. The
United States in November reversed its long-held position and voted to
allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in ivory.
Stansell said the sales, which have not begun, will support elephant
conservation.
But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the
World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal
poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added. "To me,
the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush
administration pattern."
Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only
after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs.
"There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries to
conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying 'no,
no, no,' " he said.
Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company
Reprinted from The Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[email protected]
-=-Is the world going insane???-=-
Always was, the details of the nature of the insanity vary as time goes on.
Always was, the details of the nature of the insanity vary as time goes on.
joylyn
No, just the shrub.
And not going, is.
Joylyn
Shyrley wrote:
And not going, is.
Joylyn
Shyrley wrote:
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Killing them in order to save them: Bush may rewrite rules on endangered
> animals
> Posted on Saturday, October 11 @ 09:59:27 EDT
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By Shankar Vedantam, Seattle Times
> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes
> to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet
> industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction
> in other countries.
>
> Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials with the
> Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, would
> both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and
> trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for
> conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.
>
> This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would,
> for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the
> endangered straight-horned markhor, a wild goat, in Pakistan; license
> the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from
> Argentina; permit capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S.
> circuses and zoos; and partially resume international trade in African
> ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.
>
>
>
> Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few animals
> is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and say the
> policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal
> exploitation.
>
> "It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is
> in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research
> associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group
> for endangered species.
>
> The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species
> Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and
> Democratic administrations since President Nixon signed the act in 1973.
> The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of
> which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.
>
> Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at Fish
> and Wildlife, said there has been a growing realization that the
> Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect
> dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry
> to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild would
> pay for conservation programs for remaining animals, he said.
>
> U.S. officials note that such trade is open to hunters, pet importers
> and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by
> poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit
> from the revenue.
>
> Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are
> leading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement
> rarely used provisions in the law.
>
> "This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
> written," said David Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department
> of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the
> beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of
> ulterior motive."
>
> Animal-welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying
> that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge
> of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates
> also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to
> flourish.
>
> "As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the
> incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The
> minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping
> and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."
>
> The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers,
> these species have emotional and symbolic value, and never should be
> captured or killed.
>
> The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
> species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
> foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
> recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
> managing their natural resources."
>
> Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable-use" programs
> -- under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to save the
> rest -- have been countries that are home to various endangered species.
> Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years to convince
> the United States that animals no longer are in limited supply, or that
> capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to
> extinction.
>
> That could change after Friday, the end of the public-comment period on
> one proposed change.
>
> John Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that
> state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve
> rare animals. Monson applied for a permit in 1999 to shoot and import a
> straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.
>
> Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
> hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal
> capacity.
>
> Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000
> election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445
> printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has
> made a variety of personal contributions, including $1,000 to the Bush
> for President campaign.
>
> Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
> Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other
> special-interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy. "The
> approach of this administration is it is all right to kill endangered or
> threatened species or capture them from the wild so long as somebody
> says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.
>
> Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
> which he said evolved through previous administrations.
>
> Still, the application of "sustainable use" never has been so broad. The
> United States in November reversed its long-held position and voted to
> allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in ivory.
> Stansell said the sales, which have not begun, will support elephant
> conservation.
>
> But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
> Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the
> World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal
> poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added. "To me,
> the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush
> administration pattern."
>
> Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only
> after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs.
> "There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries to
> conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying 'no,
> no, no,' " he said.
>
> Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company
>
> Reprinted from The Seattle Times:
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
> nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html
> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001763582_animals110.html>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.