Recent comments

  • Reply to: You Don't Know Where that Meat Has Been   14 years 8 months ago
    a colleague i met while working on an economic development project in macedonia was a retired meat packing executive... he shared with me what i thought was a wonderful idea for keeping track of the origin of any meat, poultry, or fish product... actually it would allow tracking of any formerly live species used for human consumption... it's so simple and elegant, you would think it would already be in use... given the state of today's dna technology, every live species food product would have a dna sample taken and recorded in a database that specified all the necessary elements necessary for tracking... in the event that a product was found to be tainted or responsible for causing any illness, the dna of that product could be then used to make a match with the dna sample in the database... as simple and effective as it sounds, my friend recounted numerous instances of angry rejection when he posed it to feed-lot operators, industry association representatives, and fellow executives in the meat-packing industry who, as he told it, were adamantly opposed to "traceability..." when i asked why, he laughed... "c'mon," he said... "why in the world would they want to sign on to something that would make it easy to determine where meat came from...?" "avoidance of liability?" i suggested... "damn right!" he said... and there ya have it...
  • Reply to: You Don't Know Where that Meat Has Been   14 years 8 months ago
    Can't help but wonder how many joined The Meat Promotion Coalition for the t-shirt alone...
  • Reply to: The War of the Words   14 years 8 months ago

    In various places, the practice of FGM can range from complete mutilation all the way down to the mere removal of the clitoral hood. So if you think it's okay to "trim" little boys by removing their foreskins, you should have no objection to "trimming" little girls for religious or cultural reasons by removing their clitoral hoods, right? That's the female equivalent of male circumcision, isn't it? Yet even that minimal operation is forbidden by law in the U.S. -- rightly, IMO, and so it should be for male circumcision as well.

    In both cases, a superstitious culture is asserting its power over the individual by carving its signature on the genitals of a child who is powerless to resist. How can you say there's no equivalence?

    I don't question that the burden of mutilation has fallen far more heavily on women. But --

    "...[T]he fact remains that the two are not, by any sane measure, equivalent."

    -- that oft-parroted statement is worthier of a Rush Limbaugh-stereotype feminazi than of someone truly concerned for the human rights of all. I'm tired of hearing it, and I don't let it pass unchallenged. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  • Reply to: California Unions Sue to Terminate Arnold's Fake News   14 years 8 months ago
    Isn't just like the Republicans to become what they accuse the other party of doing. I wonder if its political envy. The want to do what the other guys are doing only bigger an better. Scharznegger has become the most vile human being with his frozen smile he is going about setting up secret places for money to be saved and spent on destroying the working class of California. He march back to California will be like Shermans march in the South. Burn baby Burn. Our kingdom for a pac to donate funds to fight him...
  • Reply to: The War of the Words   14 years 8 months ago
    Call it what you like, but the fact remains that the two are not, by any sane measure, equivalent. Girls are savagely mutilated for the sole purpose of crippling their bodies' natural sexual function. Boys are trimmed for a variety of reasons, but none of them are intended to destroy sexual faculty. This is a profound distinction, which no list of statistics can hope to reconcile.