Choking Planet • Net

E coli tainted meat is routinely reprocessed for human consumption. It seems silly that this bothers some people. E coli is a natural part of the factory meat process. Particularly with ground beef, it’s impossible to keep animal feces separate under the time constraints required to produce inexpensive meat products. Animal poop is just a normal part of commercial meatpacking. You can’t expect to get 99-cent tacos and burgers without allowing some e coli contaminated feces mixed in. That’s why the meat is cooked, to kill the bacteria present in the feces. Seriously, the nasty crap hidden in ground beef isn’t going to hurt you as long as it’s cooked completely through.

The USDA allows the reprocessing and reselling of e coli bacteria-riddled meat, provided that it’s cooked thoroughly to destroy the reproductive potential of the deadly bacteria. These steps assure that the meat, and the feces present in the meat, is rendered harmless. The reprocessed meat, now completely cooked and safe to eat, is used to make canned meat products like spaghetti, spaghetti sauces, frozen meals, precooked burger patties, school lunches, etc. Fast food businesses that rely on inexpensive cooked meat products to fill tacos, make chili, and other value-priced products, are also major purchasers of reprocessed, rejected meats.

The truth is, we can’t enjoy low-priced meat without factory farming, high-speed meat processing, and the resale of neutralized diseased meat. If you prefer to eat a burger that’s not cooked to well done, you’ll need to get some beef from a family farm, sold through a reputable butcher and grind the meat yourself. It’s going to cost you plenty. But, if you’re just looking for a cheap meal, and you’re smart enough not to be bothered by feces or e coli as long as it’s harmful qualities have been killed off, then bargain meat and meat byproducts are right for you. Just don’t look too closely at what you’re eating, or your imagination might get the best of you.

It’s a little thing. I mean seriously, compared to some things, garbage is—for the moment—a small issue for us. It may or may not have consequences that are more serious for the future DNA, but that’s going to be their problem to deal with. I don’t have kids, and I don’t care that much what kind of life other people’s grandkids will have. In fact, I don’t think most people care any more about the issue of future generations than I do, even if their own line of offspring are involved.

Despite my lack of concern for people who are younger than me, and those so young they don’t have an egg yet, I’m not pointlessly wasteful. I don’t needlessly create garbage out of some sort of personal vendetta against a cruel world. By that, I mean I bring my own bags with me when I go shopping; I honestly can’t understand why there’s anyone who doesn’t. A lack of options drives everybody, from time to time, to selfish actions to get what they need, or want, to have. But it takes a special kind of selfish act for a person not to give just a little effort to reduce their personal impact, at the times when it’s so easy to do.

No one, gifted, or with even a slice of brain, can deny that their grandkids will be better off with less garbage to deal than more. As already mentioned, and although the little darlings benefit is not really my concern, it seems nasty to intentionally destroy things for them without personal—even slight—gain of some kind. Clearly, there are definitely people who don’t see any serious long-term damage, or even pre-rapture damage from human over-consumption of earthly resources. They could very well be right. The ability of the planet to take our abuse without serious consequence might be endless. Scientists could have it wrong. After all, they were wrong about dinosaurs and evolution, right? Regardless of what any one person thinks will be the result from overstuffed landfills, or pollution from manufacturing single-use products like bags; only an idiot would think that more garbage is exactly the same as less garbage.

So, the questions, created by the persistent use of paper and plastic grocery store bags, present a puzzling reality. Either Americans are too lazy to carry empty bags with them to the grocery store. Or, Americans are too stupid to see that less—completely unnecessary garbage—is better than more—completely unnecessary garbage? Or, and this one is the most worrisome: Americans are absolutely so self-absorbed, that it’s impossible for them to care any less for anything if there isn’t any gain for them directly and personally?

Good grief, people. Start taking bags with you to the supermarket; even if just to give the appearance that you care about something beyond the three-foot radius around that four-foot circumference you call a body. Maybe other adults will see through the façade, but your kids, grandkids, or grandnieces won’t. The young ones think that adults care about them and their pathetic little futures. Why not encourage an optimistic belief in Santa Claus while it can still exist in naïve little minds? They’ll figure out the truth soon enough, that we do everything for our own comfort, but by the time they do, we’ll be dead. It’ll be their problem to explain to their own grandkids.

Campaigning politicians delude us by promising to cut financial waste; it’s a nice thought. But, rhetorically, is effectively cutting that sort of waste possible? Waste is just a part of doing business. We can all say that we’re going to eliminate waste in your own household, and even warn everyone to be nuclear-level careful, but good luck with never having another broken dish.

This fantasy of unnecessary economic waste exists because we all can see what we think is waste when we’re outside the system. We really have no idea what we’re talking about. It’s passing a road construction crew who are all standing around, and thinking to yourself: “No wonder things don’t get done, those guys should be working harder.” I’ve never paved a road. Somehow, despite my not managing it, all this standing around must somehow magically build streets, because I see them and ride on them. Probably, elves or God build them during the night.

People don’t intentionally create financial waste. Waste is just a byproduct of the things we want. It exists because we haven’t found a better way to get what we want more efficiently. It would be great if the next time you want a new car, you could just get the money for it by cutting back on your waste. But the truth is, I think you’re going to have to come up with real money if you want a new car.

So, when a politician tells you he’ll pay for tax cuts or educate the brats by eliminating waste, doubt him—doubt him very seriously. There’s seldom any noticeable drop in crime when a new sheriff comes to town. Campaign finance reform never reduces the political influence of money. The water isn’t any worse or better with the new water commissioner. But of all the political promises you’ll hear, the one that says: “Cutting waste will balance the budget,” sounds the most unlikely—if you really think about it.

Here’s a few pat answers for the modern politician faced with stupid questions from the press (and some suggestions for answers with a reality check):

Q: Have you ever smoked marijuana?
A: I tried it once, in college; I didn’t like it.
(Better Answer: You’re asking me to admit to doing something that I’ve put people in prison for, are you nuts?)

Q: To what do you attribute your successful marriage?
A: Mutual respect, wonderful kids, and faith in God.
(Better Answer: I know how to password-lock my cell phone.)

Q: What do you say to the rumors that you’re having an affair?
A: I am not having an affair.
(Better Answer: I am not having an affair at this very moment.)

Q: What’s your response to the evidence revealed about your affair?
A: I’ve already apologized to my wife and family, and ask that the people who put their faith in me and elected me to office will be able to forgive me as well.
(Better Answer: Damn, I wish I’d read my cell phone manual.)

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Yes.
(Better Answer: I’m trying to get elected, dude.)

Q: What do you consider the most important issues?
A: Better education for our children, energy independence for our grandchildren, lower taxes for all struggling Americans, and reduced unemployment in our cities.
(Better Answer: Cutting public school funding, off-shore drilling, lower taxes for my friends, and even more Wal-Mart stores.)

Q: Do you support healthcare reform?
A: I want all Americans to have the best healthcare in the world.
(Better Answer: My healthcare will always be way better than yours—always.)

Q: Is it true that you’re a smoker.
A: I started when I was young, but I’m in the process of quitting.
(Better Answer1: No. Better Answer2: Yes.)

Q: Will you resign in the face of these allegations against you?
A: I will not comment on the allegations except to say that they are politically motivated and I will fight until the end to do the job my constituents elected me to do. (Better Answer: My attorneys are working out the details with the Department of Justice right now. Once I’m sure I won’t get prison, I’ll quietly leave government for a higher paying private sector job.)

Q: You’re behind in the polls, why do you think that is?
A: I personally don’t put stock in the polls because a lot depends on how the questions are phrased. There are some polls that have us behind, and others showing us in the lead. I’d rather leave it to the voters to decide.
(Better Answer: We’re trying to uncover anything on my opponent that we can to change that.)

Q: Why are you running for office?
A: I want to give something back to this great nation of ours.
(Better Answer: The perks are amazing.)

We’re all so tired of the Cheney’s setting up their tent and giving us their little show. It never lives up to the hype and always costs much more after we get inside. Now they’d like to scrap all pretense of a trial and just go straight to the hang’uns.

The Atlantic

I’ve begun to question the benefit to government-sanctioned marriages. Not just for those who don’t want one, or those who aren’t allowed one, but even for those who fit the criteria and want it, there seems no sensible purpose to it in the modern world. A religious-sanctioned marriage makes perfect sense for those who want it. But a government-sanctioned one seems to be giving the government some sort of mystical power to bless (and often dissolve) a relationship.

I understand the original purpose, when women were chattel and men needed an heir, but surely that’s changed for most people. Even for those who still see things that way, I don’t want the government sanctioning such an unhealthy relationship in the 21st century. Again, marriage, perfectly fine; it’s just not a government thing.

Basically, from a government standpoint marriage is a shared power of attorney with shared assets and debt. Surely such a document could be made available to everyone who wants it, possibly include some simple opt-ins and opt-outs for those who’d prefer not to commingle all their assets. For the more complicated arrangements there’d still be lawyers and priests.

Leave a comment if I’ve missed anything.

Greenwash products address carbon footprint guilt, giving all the benefits of a green self-image without hampering your “in the pink pleasures.”

Similar to the notion of a self-dissolving condom, you get the peace of mind when you first decide to use it but after it desolves your real sense of pleasure isn’t dulled or hampered.

Unlike unprotected sex, with greenwash products any nasty side effects happen only after you die. It’s like your grandkids children get the disease instead of you. In a sense, greenwash products are better than risky sex, at least in personal consequences.

Savvy companies know that many humans want to do something to maintain a little piece of the planet for possible future generations. Smart companies have figured out that this desire can be dealt with verbally rather than actually. Greenwashing is the ability and practice of turning environmentally destructive products into green products with little to nothing more than a word processor and a missing or errant shame gene on the part of the manufacturer.

Consider that hybrid SUV touted to cart kids off to school, soccer practice and play dates. “Hybrid” tagged onto an SUV that gets 20 miles to the gallon sounds good for the environment—at least good enough for busy people. It’s not like it’s a Hummer or something “really” bad for the environment.

It’s useful to simply believe a national brand with “Green” in its name and a printed green philosophy doesn’t contain stuff like butyl cellosolve in its cleaning products.

Figure all products that cost more and sound green are good enough to assuage any feelings of guilt and leave it to the government to sort it all out. Or yes, no fluorocarbons though—everyone knows those are bad for the ozone layer.

Buying products or packaging labeled “Recyclable,” “Biodegradable” or “Compostable” does wonders for the eco-ego and are reward enough without having to bother with recycling or composting them. The landfills will sort it all out after you people are gone anyway.

On the plus side for roach revolution, organic material in landfills will probably break down into biogas and add to the Earth’s rapidly growing greenhouse gases. Click to read more on wikipedia.

So, the great news is that even real “earth-friendly” items like food scraps, biodegradable bags and packaging, pet poop and other “organic” garbage pose a promise for roach revolution. Is there a difference? Maybe one choice is better or worse for immediate mammalian doom. If your curious, click to read what greanlivingtips.com thinks.

We roaches think you should just avoid the whole mess and go about your human business unencumbered and as you please. Or at the extreme, buy products that make you feel good and then drop your worrying you silly people you.

Please comment, maybe with any products/services that you think of as greenwash.

Is second-hand smoke a health hazard? If you think it is, why? For most people, the belief is based in propaganda. Propaganda is the systematic method to quickly spread a point of view through the use of partial information, appeals to emotion over intellect, and creating an atmosphere where opposing dialogue has no voice. If you think that there can be no argument against the idea that second-hand smoke is a serious health danger, you prove the point. If there is no room left for debate, or consideration, it’s propaganda. It’s not just smoking, or pot, or a healthy diet. Propaganda stretches far and deep into our lives.

I can remember the ads admonishing us not to be a “Litter Bug.” (As if bugs did anything but clean away debris!) The anti-litter campaigns were propaganda. They didn’t tell us not to consume to reduce real waste, they told us how to hide it all from our view.

I also remember the anti-pot ads that first told us that pot made people crazy. When that attempt failed, the message changed to pot leads to heroine. Okay, that failed too. Then came the notion that people who smoke pot are destined to become underachievers. Plenty of people who smoke pot buy into that one. Lots of company executives check their wage employees for dope use (including pot), while toking fairly regularly themselves. Personally, I think the age for pot smoking is between 19 and 23 years old, after you’re old enough to really decide for yourself about taking on a habit and before you can afford to buy quality whiskey and cigars. I don’t know what the latest pot propaganda is; I’m no longer their target audience.

But for me, the most irritating propaganda ever underway is this notion that America is a great country and we are all so lucky because we have full access to information and a free and open election to choose whichever leaders we want. We always have the same two choices. Way back when, the League of Women Voters was even thrown out of the debate game because the two parties didn’t want to answer questions they hadn’t prepared for, and neither saw any point in letting other parties in on the press coverage—a third party candidate might say something that sounded good to the people. So, we are free to vote for whomever we want, but unlike other democratic countries, with several national parties all with a voice, we get to choose between vanilla and French vanilla. I swear to God, I’ve never been able to tell the two apart.

But, what do you think?

I’ve always liked the idea of people making a statement with actions like the Million Man March. I imagine if the people who want options in healthcare show who they are, it could influence some action to get us a better choice than just the insurance companies. At any rate, it worth a try. I’d prefer to have a healthcare choice.

It’s so simple to recognize errors of others through the perspective of our own culture; it’s even easier when the errors occurred in the past. Most people in America today find irony in the fact that several of our freedom-loving founding fathers were also slave owners—maybe not laugh-out-loud humor, more of a head-shaking sort of thing. But, the fact remains that it’s hard to understand why they didn’t take a break from writing all those lovely words, and grant freedom to their slaves. Grant is probably not even the right word. They should’ve acknowledged the horrible thing they’d been doing, divided up their property among the slaves, and asked forgiveness. But they definitely didn’t do that.

The truth is that slaves were property; they were a part of a man’s wealth. Slaves were no different than a house, a horse, or a diamond is today. Slaves were security and wealth. Asking an estate to simply release its property without benefit, indeed with a substantial loss, would seem absolutely crazy—then, and now. Think of the example of a family of five living a four-bedroom house on the same night someone dies while sleeping in a box on the street—we wouldn’t expect the family with the home to live in something smaller just to give the beggar a few more years. The providers of the family no doubt came from families that worked hard to invest in their children’s future, and the providers themselves probably worked just as hard. So, what they own, they paid for. How they got the money is irrelevant, it’s theirs to spend, keep, or pass on. Of course, they can also give it away freely. If they choose to help others, that’s their right—but it remains their choice. The situation of others just doesn’t come into it; it is up to each individual to decide what to do with his or her property.

Which brings the topic back to slave owners. They spent their capital to purchase slaves, and without them their businesses and household couldn’t function as needed to provide a return on their investment. Judging them from our place today, reviling them for not simply giving their money away—even though it would’ve been the right thing to do—is ridiculous. It would be like someone two hundred years from now judging our priorities today.