American Beef

Caelda said:

With that being said, the burger I ate last night was pretty good.

Click to expand...

Goes straight to your hips.

Mehastings, where do you live?

Click to expand...

Maybe it goes to your eyes too. It tells you where she's from next to her name.

leckert said:

The fall out from WWIII will get you health nuts first, because you haven't been building up your tolerance!

Guys like Robert and me (and, please God, some women like us!!) will be around long after the cockroach has gasped his final breath. We'll walk out of the cloud of radioactive dust, scratch our gonads, and say "Hey, I wonder if they nuked all the beer and twinkies?"

So we, the belly scratching, twinkie eating, tainted meat lovers will repopulate the earth! (sorry to speak for you Robert, but I feel a connection here! )

Click to expand...

Hey leckert, I'm no health nut. Give me a Manhattan straight up and a bowl of Cheetos any day. But I'd really rather decide for myself whether to turn my brain into a sponge and wind up drooling on my chin for the rest of my days. BSE ain't too pretty none.

BTW, I think so-called 'organic' produce is no more healthy than what the rest of the world eats. Some batch of organic cider near me caused an nice outbreak of e. coli poisoning a few years ago.

The thing that bothers me about BSE is that the practice of feeding beef cattle the brains and spinal material of other cattle is still legal here. When a 'downer' cow is found, they 'remove it from the food chain' meaning they don't actually feed that particular cow to the rest. But the 'downer' cow was eating the same food as the others, which is presumably how it got sick.

So their solution is to make that one cow disappear. But what about all the others? BSE can be present for decades before it manifests itself in behavior.

Howdy Novella!

I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic, but I definitely think we have had a "can't happen to us" mentality about this.

I don't think we are at an epidemic level, yet, and I am one of those naive people who thinks that "if the Government says it's okay, then I'll eat it". I really trust our system to protect us from this sort of thing. It is disturbing to think that "they" may not be handling it properly.

It is difficult for me, sometimes, to distinguish "fact" from "agenda". There are very vocal groups on both ends of the political spectrum here that report things from within their own biased vacuum, with their only motivation being the rally of support. Many folks never stop to think "is this true?". If it comes out of the box in front of them, or if it is written somewhere, they assume it to be gospel. The most infuriating aspect is that each side believes they hold a moralistic monopoly on what is best for the country, and that to disagree with, or even question, them is stupid and immoral.

I would say that this BSE issue certainly warrants some looking into, but I would be against those who would spark the public fear and create a false sense of alarm where one may not be warranted. Even "facts" can be reported to promulgate an opinion.

leckert said:

Howdy Novella!


I would say that this BSE issue certainly warrants some looking into, but I would be against those who would spark the public fear and create a false sense of alarm where one may not be warranted. Even "facts" can be reported to promulgate an opinion.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this sentiment. I think, though, that the USDA should at least mandate the same level of testing they use in Europe and Japan, which is random sampling of the general population using the most reliable testing method. Really not a big deal, and I can only think they won't do it because the beef industry is pressuring them to do as little as possible. After all, beef sales already took a hit from the USDA dietary guidelines.

Stewart said:

Well, would you rather eat a bit of beef not knowing whether it was safe or diseased or eat something that has been certifiably proven as safe? I don't get your attitude; your government and its affiliates are playing with your life by not acknowledging something that can be strictly regulated and you support them for it.

Click to expand...

This is all overblown by media hype. The incidents are far far too low to be overly concerned about it.

novella said:

I totally agree with this sentiment. I think, though, that the USDA should at least mandate the same level of testing they use in Europe and Japan, which is random sampling of the general population using the most reliable testing method. Really not a big deal, and I can only think they won't do it because the beef industry is pressuring them to do as little as possible. After all, beef sales already took a hit from the USDA dietary guidelines.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that, but how can you justify it with other then opinion? Where are the facts? And where is the money going to come from? Want your taxes raised? Take the money away from some other research project like cancer or something?

It just isn't justified.

This is almost as bad as the jerk that wanted to run dna tests on all the dogs in the county so they could determine who was leaving their dogs dropping where they were deposited.

Did a little researching-so far, the USDA has stated that more testing needs to be done on the animal in question and that the BSE designation was "non-definitive" Evidently, some Brits are helping out with sample testing. Here's a good article about it.

Robert said:

And where is the money going to come from? Want your taxes raised? Take the money away from some other research project like cancer or something?

Click to expand...

There's a pointless war in Iraq at the moment, if you remember. The money wasted daily on that would be useful to improve education, cattle monitoring, increasing African aid, etc.

Stewart said:

There's a pointless war in Iraq at the moment, if you remember. The money wasted daily on that would be useful to improve education, cattle monitoring, increasing African aid, etc.

Click to expand...

See! Here is a wonderful example of someone presenting a biased opinion as if it were fact.

Robert said:

You keep saying that, but how can you justify it with other then opinion? Where are the facts? And where is the money going to come from? Want your taxes raised? Take the money away from some other research project like cancer or something?

It just isn't justified.

This is almost as bad as the jerk that wanted to run dna tests on all the dogs in the county so they could determine who was leaving their dogs dropping where they were deposited.

Click to expand...

Duh. You get the facts by doing adequate testing. That's the only way to get the facts. That is the point.

Stewart said:

Goes straight to your hips.

Click to expand...

I had real, full-fat cheese on it too. That went straight to my arse.

Stewart said:

Maybe it goes to your eyes too. It tells you where she's from next to her name.

Click to expand...

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out in such a gracious manner.

Stewart said:

There's a pointless war in Iraq at the moment, if you remember. The money wasted daily on that would be useful to improve education, cattle monitoring, increasing African aid, etc.

Click to expand...

And increasing aid to Africa wouldn't be pointless? Unless you do something about the corrupt governments where the monies end up, it is.

leckert said:

See! Here is a wonderful example of someone presenting a biased opinion as if it were fact.

Click to expand...

And there is its biased rebuff.

Caelda said:

Unless you do something about the corrupt governments where the monies end up, it is.

Click to expand...

That's why there was the scheme put in place that those with debts would be wiped only if they met certain criteria.

Stewart said:

There's a pointless war in Iraq at the moment, if you remember. The money wasted daily on that would be useful to improve education, cattle monitoring, increasing African aid, etc.

Click to expand...

Pointless? Lets see, before the war, terrorist had one additional country to train and hid in. Before the war, the government practiced torture in many “prisons” throughout Iraq. Before the war, there was mass murder of men, women and children; even pregnant women. Before the war, the Kurds were being slowly wiped out. Before the war, the thug government, already guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people, was working hard to get their hands on additional chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, many of which would have ended up in the hands of terrorists. You remember the terrorist don’t you Stewart? The fanatics hell-bent on killing as many innocent people as it takes to force their religion on everybody.

Stewart said:

There's a pointless war in Iraq at the moment, if you remember. The money wasted daily on that would be useful to improve education, cattle monitoring, increasing African aid, etc.

Click to expand...

Those countries would be able to feed themselves if not for the corruption. The would needs to stop pouring money into those countries until a proper government is in place.

Robert said:

You remember the terrorist don’t you Stewart? The fanatics hell-bent on killing as many innocent people as it takes to force their religion on everybody.

Click to expand...

I think I've actually heard about those. The real problem with terrorist is that they are way to modest in who they want to kill.. I say kill all humans and let's have an end to the madness that is humanity.

Humanity, the worst thing since breathing.

Robert said:

Pointless? Lets see, before the war, terrorist had one additional country to train and hid in. Before the war, the government practiced torture in many “prisons” throughout Iraq. Before the war, there was mass murder of men, women and children; even pregnant women. Before the war, the Kurds were being slowly wiped out. Before the war, the thug government, already guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people, was working hard to get their hands on additional chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, many of which would have ended up in the hands of terrorists.

Click to expand...

I still don't see what Iraq had to do with terrorism. It only became privy to such a phenomenon when our respective governments "liberated" it. Anyhow, your nation made these terrorists and despots and usually for petty reasons. You going to argue that too?

Well, it's only a matter of time before this thread gets closed, but I'd like to make a few quick points before it does.

Robert said:

Before the war, the government practiced torture in many “prisons” throughout Iraq. Before the war, there was mass murder of men, women and children; even pregnant women. Before the war, the Kurds were being slowly wiped out. Before the war, the thug government, already guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people...

Click to expand...

The Kurds were being 'slowly wiped out' before the first Gulf War and the subsequent imposition of the 'no fly zone' by America and Britain in Northern & Southern Iraq. Your remaining points are fair enough, and could be used to argue on behalf of a moral intervention.

Robert said:

was working hard to get their hands on additional chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, many of which would have ended up in the hands of terrorists.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but where is the evidence to back this up. Your use of 'additional' suggests Saddam already possessed WMD in 2003. So ok, where are they?

Robert said:

before the war, terrorist had one additional country to train and hid in.

Click to expand...

This is the real difference between us I feel. Again there is no evidence to back up what you are saying, indeed even the Bush Administration has admitted no 9/11 link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
and so has the 9/11 commission:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm
Many people would argue the exact opposite of what you claim. That a new terrorist training ground has been created, and there is far more evidence to back that up; just watch the nightly news bulletins.

Regards,

K-S

Kenny Shovel said:

Your remaining points are fair enough, and could be used to argue on behalf of a moral intervention.

Click to expand...

Indeed they could, but they have been used with the wrong tar on the terrorist brush.

Robert said:

Those countries would be able to feed themselves if not for the corruption. The would needs to stop pouring money into those countries until a proper government is in place.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between corrupt countries which receive aid (i.e. Zimbabwe) and those countries which are just so poor that thhey need aid to help them rebuild (i.e. Niger) - you are conveniently grouping them as "corrupt countries" when it is so much more complicated than that.