frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.

Check out my old  Voice of the People page.

Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington

1208 POSTS

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Wednesday, 23 November 2005 at 19h 0m 21s

Two interesting facts

Why do we need tax reform? According to Senator Byron Dorgan:

There is a 5 story white building in the Cayman islands where 12,000 American corporations keep the records of their headquarters so they don't have to pay taxes on their income. They use the 5 story building as post-office box to re-route their profits so those profits are not taxed.

Last year 274 American corporations made 1 trillion dollars in profits -- not revenue: these are profits, what is left after all the bills are paid. Now for the kicker: ALL BUT 72 PAID NO TAXES LAST YEAR.

Byron Dorgan, Senator from North Dakota.

They want all the benefits of America, but don't want to pay for it.

Oh, but these corporations are paying workers and creating jobs, they say. Accordingly, this argument goes, they can't compete in the global economy because taxes are too high. Tax breaks are supposed to be an incentive for corporations to "invest" and "innovate" and make a lot more money.

Only that is not how it works, nor how this happens. Corporations play state governments off each other, just like they do globally with nations. Whoever offers them the best deal gets the new factory, but that factory is still going to get built incentive or not. Companies invest and innovate when they can realize a greater market share or larger profit within the foreseeable future, not because they pay less taxes. It is very true that paying less taxes will make the bottom line better, but the function of making the bottom line better is completely independent of taxation. That is my point. Turning the faucet is not connected to the flow of water. Beyond the extra-ordinary, the archaic, or the extreme, taxation is a just another cost balanced against the revenue and is just economic background noise.

Companies also innovate when they can save money. But again, they can also save money in other ways by paying less wages, or transferring assets abroad where costs are cheaper and there are no obligations of labor benefits. Innovations do not always have to be labor and/or technology driven. (This bull does not wear all clothes alike.) They can be driven by merely a desire or need to cut costs, and companies will do this without tax breaks, or regardless of tax breaks. There is no causation.

Small businesses, home-owners can all benefit from tax breaks, and the result is more spendable cash that can be used for other things. This supports the community and functioning of the local economy, which is precisely the intended result. Government is supposed to spend tax dollars for society's benefit, so that the cost of the benefit gets spread over all of the citizens and we all share the burden, thus making the overall cost cheaper. Our government functions for the people, and although every nascent rising aristocraty will always try to take control of the government for its own uses, the ideal is still the foundation of government -- which is why marauders have to clothe their actions with the words of the great ideals.

Government subsidizes industry and communities when the benefit will not occur any other way, or the initial investment is too prohibitive. This is how plumbing, railroads, interstate highways, electricity, telephones, radio, the internet, and computers all eventually became independent. Before the technology has advanced to a point where it becomes practical, the wisdom of the technology is nevertheless worthy of support. Corporations cannot lose money hoping on a big idea, when the competition is such that there is no guaranteed that a 10 year investment will ever be realized. To some extent it is true that Research and Development is a function of re-invested profits, but since no corporation can re-invest more money than there is available, the aggregation of a very large initial investment is only possible through collective action. This collective can be in the form of investors, but only government has the force of legal requirement when the desired result runs counter to the profit motive.

A corporation is also not a small business or a home-owner, where a single individual makes all the decisions and participates in all of the functions necessary to operate the business or own the house. A corporation is a large bureaucracy compartmentalized into specific functions, all of which are coordinated by multiple layers of managers and officers all the way up to the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Maintaining the files and records alone of corporate debts and assets might employ 1000 plus persons. Departments produce reports and have meetings to discuss reports and balance sheets. Stockholders vote for the Board of Directors by proxy, which means anonymously. The stock price, and to some extent the value of the corporation, is thus extremely dependent upon yearly profits, if for no other reason than the inherent herd mentality of the asset markets. The pressure to increase profits is very real, and should not be underestimated nor overlooked.

But that's just what the tax-break incentive myth does -- assumes that large corporations respond the same way as individuals. The decisions of what to do with any surplus cash are obviously not as simple as one person who gets some extra money deciding to expand his painting business and hire 2 more workers -- assuming the same boss doesn't just add a garage to his home or install a new pool in the backyard.

Tax incentives that are targeted work best when individual behaviors are subsidized, like college expenses or insurance payments, not when they are granted with the abstract assumption that investments will get sponsored. The surplus just gets added to the pile because they are not targeted or guaranteed to be spent on anything specific. Hence they are actually a waste of investment, because inevitably there will always be a sizeable percentage of the total that is not going to get spent as desired.

When you give a benefit for college expenses, the money got spent on college expenses. A lot of the so called "tax benefits" that corporations get is really just window-dressing. Corn is subsidized so that all of the products derived from corn have a cheap source of corn, which may arguably be a good thing to have. However, all of the coal producing electricity plants got tax- incentives for the last 10 years to help them modernize, but instead, they took the money and did nothing, and 20,000 got a 20 year reprieve from having to modernize by Bush in 2003. The nuclear energy industry has always been subsidized (50 years worth) and is still neither practical nor sustainable. The telephone corporation would never have hooked up the current network absent government regulation. Without forcing the corporation to perform an end result, the company would have sat on the tax- benefits money and manipulated it's market position to monopolize and make more money. And as we all know, politicians can be bought to keep passing on the tax-benefits without creating a means of enforcement.

Why give $100,000 to the "someone" as an "incentive" to make loans, when you could just give out the $100,000 directly as loans? Answer : so the "someone" can get a cut of the business, of course.

And do you think the Oil conglomerates are going to invest in Solar or alternative energy that will cost the corporation lots of market share? At some point, the corporation's drive for profits and market position diverge from the need to modernize. In the long run, the changes will force them to the wall, but the short term might be 50 years. Are we gonna ride on the backs of 2 generations of people waiting for the transition to "naturally" occur? Don't forget, bad decisions are sometimes made, human vanity does not always enable the presumed democratic competition of the economic order. Aristocracy and oligarchy and plutocracy are all ancient Greek words for a reason, because they can quite "naturally" occur.

Tuesday, 22 November 2005 at 22h 36m 47s

They knew they were lying

This is really smoking hot.

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal © National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.


One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

That is only the first 3%. Read on ...

Tuesday, 22 November 2005 at 22h 24m 3s

Jean is full of Schmidt

This comes from Thinkprogress [SOURCE] and the Washington Monthly [SOURCE]

Marine Quoted By Schmidt Says He Never Mentioned Murtha During Rep. Jean Schmidt’s (R-OH) shameful attack on Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) on the House Floor she said she was communicating a message from Marine Colonel Danny Bubp.

This is what Jean Schmidt said:

A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

Bubp denies he said that [SOURCE -- Cincinnati Enquirer]:

Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt…”There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.

And further, from the NYTimes: [SOURCE -- at bottom of page]

...a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.

While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."

One picture is the screed ... the other is for the cameras.

How about those eerie, scary blue-ish eyes looking up at ... "God" ? Receiving signals from alien invaders? Seeing a golf ball coming at her from above? I wonder how many photos had to be taken before they got her head tilted at just the right angle, with just the right pose.

She's a front. She was the candidate that had to beat Iraq vet Paul Hackett (with possible help, thanks to an 11th hour shift of 4,000 votes by the computer counting - Diebold - machines in Ohio.

The 2nd Congressional District is East of Cincinnati, along the Ohio River.

Some Excerpts from the House Rules and Manual that Jean should read:

"In the practice of the House, a member is not permitted to refer to another member by name, or to address him in the second person. The proper reference to another member is 'the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ...,' naming the member's state.

"By rule of the House, as well as by parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden, whether against the member in the member's capacity as representative or otherwise, even if the references may be relevant to the pending question. The House has censured a member for gross personalities. The chair may intervene to prevent improper references where it is evident that a particular member is being described. The chair does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a member in debate. Although accusing another member of deceit engages in personality, merely accusing another member of making a mistake does not.

"A member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of another member, which would be improper if spoken in the member's own words."

And remember, Murtha is merely conveying what will happen eventually. He is not "cutting and running" like a "coward." This insidious wench was merely trying to help the Rethuglican "team" gain political points, since in her mind this is a vituperative trench fight not a rational discussion about policy decisions. And her insistence that "we see this through" was more for the purpose of insisting that congressman Murtha said otherwise.

This is how the party "strategists" (goons??) create an opposition movement by allocating to "the opponent" an untruth, whilst the wily politician takes the truth position for themself.

These are the games they play. They don't listen to you. You are the enemy. While you are speaking, their minds are spinning trying to figure out their next counter move -- so of course they don't really hear a word you say.

Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 42m 3s

Roll out the presses, xmas shoppers are on the march

Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 43m 48s

They are foolish and have no shame

Who are these people, standing before the microphones and disparaging John Murtha's 37 years of Marine service and playing word games by accusing his bill as "cutting and running."

Then, on Friday, the Republican leadership attempts to sneak a "substitute" bill drawn up by California Republican Duncan Hunter (boo, hiss) by calling a vote on the resolution. Thankfully representative Lantos was keen enough to ask what bill was before the House, and thus forcing the House speaker to legally state the bill. [SOURCE] Had the vote occurred, Democrats could have been lured into thinking they voted for another bill. This trick has been pulled by the Republicans -- and Lyndon Baines Johnson even -- before. Thankfully, Lantos was wise to them this time.

Good thing too, because the two resolutions are very different.

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." [SOURCE]

That's the entire Hunter resolution by the way. We get "the sense." Which sense, the sense of "smell" -- cause that's what this does, it smells.

Congressman Duncan Hunter,52nd District of California
(East of San Diego)
" Believe everything they tell me to say. Trust me. The honesty and integrity will become more obvious as my hands approach one another while I am speaking. "

This is the same Duncan Hunter who earlier in the year read the menu of the Guantanamo Prisoners, so as to dispel any notions that prisoner abuse and torture were not occuring merely because he is reading a "menu" given to him purporting to come directly from spot. He recently also sponsored building a "wall" along the entire border between Mexico and the United States.

Sounds like the Berlin Wall to me, Mr. HUNTER.

Keep in mind that this is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee during this time of egregious corruption in the sub-contracting process of military procurement, and when 9 billion of 18 billion to be spent cannot be accounted for and in which was specifically written by law to be spent on Reconstruction in Iraq.

Accordingly "snake-oil" salesman Rep. Duncan Hunter R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the above resolution vote was not a stunt. "This is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question," he said, in the sourced article.

Oh really? So if it is a "legitimate question" then why try to sneak in an alternative resolution without making clear which resolution, Hunter's or Murtha's was about to be voted upon. You see how this works, eh. Those who did not pay attention, only thought the fight was about some "legitimate question," when the fight was really about the secretive tactics. This is how these Rethuglicans (damn near everyone) and a few spineless Democrats (Lieberman and Biden) play the game. They know that at least 80% of the people will not know the details or even the actual series of events, so what the TV audiences and the corporate newspapers get is the offsetting quotes -- with very little or not enough background information.

(Which is why the sourced yahoo article comes from a writer of the Associated Press - - the "associated" means some writer wrote another story and distributed it across the wire, as opposed to a writer from the staff of a particular newspaper.)

85 to 90 percent of the article is a quotation, or mentions conflicts and disagreements in lieu of a quotation without detailing either conflict or disagreement.

It's like, He said,she said, he said, oh and by the way 1+1=2, and then finally, he said. Story over.

Uh .... hello! Who cares what the @*$$!* he or she said, what the hell happened !!!!

Just look how the article describes the voting scenario. Each of the bolded parts are deliberate subjective choices of description

The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged [ie, not forced by the Murtha resolution] by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated...

...Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.

...The House action came in a week that also saw the GOP-controlled Senate defeat a Democratic push for President Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

...In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.

...Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue — the war — that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.

Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution in an attempt to drain it of significance.

Nowhere in this damn piece of $#@@**!% article are the major facts that occurred. The Republicans tried to put their own Resolution before the vote without making clear what was being voted upon. That resolution was one sentence long and only conveyed "a sense" of doing something. And the Murtha resolution was not a call for immediate withdrawal, as the Hunter resolution suggests with a "sense". But apparently, according to the ap writer "Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict."

Indeed, was that the choice according to the ubiquitous "critics" ? A choice between a "precipitous" withdrawal or "angering voters." Was that the choice?

Thank you bullshit ap hack writer for such an insightful clue about your true purpose on the ap wire. Notice that in the paragraph above I can summarize in 3 sentences what you could not even mention in the entirety of your epic whitewashing of the event.

However, the Republican's got other strings to pull, and quickly get on the trail of yet another auspicious ethics probe ... ?

From Roll Call (the House record of business each day): GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

So they go around attacking the credentials and ideas of John Murtha and then they try to sneak through a fake bill so they don't have to vote on the real "Murtha bill" ...

argh, this truly is disgusting.

Our boys are dying because they can't accept reality without first trying to milk the events for some political gain. This is not about "cutting and running." This is about redeployment. According to the Pentagon, no amount of time or addition of troops will improve the situation in Iraq. The troops will be drawn down and redeployed by the military anyway. Murtha is just saying publically what is already in the works.

But these Republicans have to take their politics to the level of sewage pipes underneath the streets. But then that is where the rats live and breed, so go figure.

Saturday, 19 November 2005 at 12h 1m 55s

Da Prez meets regular guy fo uh be-air

Ever get that down to Earth feeling?

Go here to read more ...

The Onion story behind this mythical meeting by Bush with a "regular Joe" is hilarious, and quite true, even if the actual event did not really occur. Sometimes the truth is more relevent in fiction than real life, because one's loyalties and misconceptions can be stripped free of their symbolism.

Saturday, 19 November 2005 at 11h 50m 23s

Why did they out Valerie Plame again?

Thanks  Bartcop

From _Dave in Half Moon Bay

Just to add a little detail to my claim that Plame was outed because she had prevented the BFEE from planting WMD, here's one place I saw an example by Wayne Madsen:

"According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Plame and Brewster Jennings was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of WMDs. The CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam was in possession of WMDs. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason Bush targeted Plame and her network."


Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 22h 21m 25s

The propaganda machine at work

This is from a recent ROLLING STONE article, By JAMES BAMFORD. [ SOURCE]

On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty- three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al- Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.

Oh, and that is just the beginning 5 per cent. There is a whole lot more, read on.

Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 21h 58m 1s

Proverbs, Chapter 6

Thanks to the passionate and knowledgeable Mike Malloy, I can bring you Biblical scripture from the Proverbs, Chapter 6 verses #16 - #19. [SOURCE]

There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,

And hands that shed innocent blood.

A heart that devises wicked plans,

Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,

And one who spreads strife among brothers.

By the way, I find the New American Standard Bible much better than the often cryptic and hard to decipher King James Version.

Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 20h 21m 31s

Supermarket meat may not be so fresh

The source can be found here , Capiltal Hill Blue.

Under little-noted rulings over the last three years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has allowed meat processors to use small amounts of carbon monoxide to maintain the red color in fresh meat sold in pre-assembled or "case- ready" packages.

Such packages are airtight containers assembled with the product at meat- packing plants and are not made to be reopened until they are sold to consumers. Some packages are marketed for up to 35 days, or 28 days in the case of ground beef.

Kalsec, a food-and-spice company based in Kalamazoo, Mich., is protesting the FDA action, saying the carbon-monoxide treatment is an illegal additive to fresh meat that disguises the freshness of the meat and hides spoilage.

"Color is the indicator consumers use most often to determine if meat is fresh," said Don Berdahl, Kalsec's vice president. He explained that carbon- monoxide gas reacts with the pigment of the blood in meat and gives it a deep red color that can fool shoppers.

The company also charged that the practice is not safe and can hide the growth of dangerous pathogens like botulinum, salmonella and E. coli.

Kalsec wants the FDA to either rescind its approval of the use of carbon monoxide or require meat packers to label treated product to alert consumers.

The FDA has not objected to companies using carbon monoxide as a processing aid in several cases over the last three years, ruling that the gas is in the category of "substances generally recognized as safe" and so not requiring complete regulatory review.

Of course the idea is to cut the butcher staff at the stores. My best friend has been a butcher for the last 15 years. He's told me the whole story of how the large big box market corporations have turned his profession from one of an entire staff cutting the meat fresh from the carcasses that came two or three times a week, into just him and two other shift workers opening pre-packaged, pre-cut meat in seated containers. Mexican workers in the plants at the border cost 5 to 10% what the cost of the butcher staff workers cost you see. The modern butcher has turned into a customer service representative.

So you buy the bright red meat that happens to be 28 days from being cut and packaged and then put it in the fridge for a day or more before eating it. And when you get diarrhea or feel slightly ill, did you inaccurately attribute the illness to ... the flu? This happens more often then you think.