A simple girl in a complex world
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Wireless seems such a painless and proper choice when you're looking at my house - two stories, a split-level ranch. But, soon after we bought the house, we took on (read: Brian wired, and Heather tried to help) the CAT5ing of the Noggle home.
I learned some new words that weekend. One of the ones I can repeat is PVC pipe.
Brian has always decried all things wireless (except stereos) because of the security risks they pose. It's nice to see a detailed article about this. Paranoia justified.
Friday, July 11, 2003
So says the one-page glossy sent to me from Traditional Values Coalition. Actually, it was sent to my address but listed a person named "King" as its intended recipient. Not me.
No website on the mailing, but, being the deviously clever human I am with Google access and a bit of deductive reasoning, I soon found it.
The subject of the mailing? Stop Todd Akin from voting for H.R. 2427. (Your mission, should you choose to accept it...).
The sideshows? Baby chewing on toy looking like, well, a baby; young woman eyeing a pack of pills as though she has a difficult decision to make. Baby in white light. Woman in brown light. Caption? "If H.R. 2427 becomes law, RU-486, the "abortion pill," may become as easy to get as aspirin.
Ooh, not shocking. This is a religious right (read faaaaaaaaaaaar right) organization that has the audacity to quote Jerry Falwell on its mailing as an expert about prescription drugs? I think that's like a walrus endorsing Frosted Flakes, no? Oh, goody, and my friend Tommy Thompson, the most rational human in the government health sector. His argument?
The bill is not exceptionally interesting, as bills go. I read it all.
The far right scares me about as much as the far left. Both seem far too interested in saving Americans from themselves, vast conspiracies for or against [insert cause here] and achieving their agendas through means other than reason. And I just don't buy in.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
...to find something about which to spew this evening.
Price broke into tears and left the church. Her boyfriend, Doug Williams, committed suicide after shooting 14 co-workers, killing five, at the Lockheed Martin aircraft parts plant Tuesday.
1) Suddenly left an employee ethics course and returned armed with weapons.
2) Opened fire on a room of unarmed people.
3) Left this room, his homicidal binge apparently unsatisfied, and proceeded to shoot others unfortunate enough to be in his proximity.
4) Took his own life.
(Facts from another CNN story).
These are actions, Shirley Price, and this man was THE cause of victimhood, his final acts in life an eruption of evil from which any shadow of good he might possibly have attained will never emerge. And he, a grown man, chose this. So chosen.
His circle of hell? He's making a spot for Chante Mallard down in Circle 7, Round 1. More boiling blood. I realize he could reside in Round 2 for the suicide, but encased in a tree is not nearly as unpleasant.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Yes, here it is, just as requested.
Please visit IMAO today. It's Frank J's one-year anniversary of posting. I can only hope to be a quarter as popular as he on my one-year...not that I know when it is...
I'm one of those freakazoids who watches everything she eats. No, really, you say? Shocker. Everyone's aware of the silly Oreo lawsuit about trans fatty acids. Trans fatty acids are in EVERYTHING - and I've been looking...for about a year.
Goodbye went the Wheat Thins (replaced with Kashi TLC.)
But I just can't give up the microwave popcorn...not just yet. Yes, I see it in the ingredient list - partially hydrogenated soybean oil. I figure, it's a treat, right? Soon, though, we will know how MUCH trans fatty acids grace my favorite once-in-a-while snack. And then I will decide whether to trade it in for a more harmless cousin. Here's why.
I like labels. They raise some awareness with people who are starting to watch what they eat, and every bit helps. With this solution, we shift no blame to the food producers; we merely ask them to state the facts, and then we make our decisions, as it should be.
Less overt than chocolate-covered ants, these food additives might surprise you.
Makes me want to abandon my lunch of Lean Cuisine pizza for something a lot less processed. I'm glad Fortune didn't do an article about the bacteria lounging on our food; we might pay attention to how hard our immune systems really do work every day.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Wow, how's that for an intro? I got the aforementioned hit yesterday afternoon at about 3:40 CST. Sorry I took so long to put up something relevant.
First, we have KFC's Animal (read: chicken - because mashed potatoes and biscuits aren't fauna) Welfare Policy.
Then, we have PETA and its lawsuit and a website dubbed KFC Cruelty.
And, because it wasn't interesting enough as it was, we have PETA nudging Jason Alexander out of his spokesperson role.
I bet all these things were what you were looking for, dude.
Now, what's the deal here? (Jason, you can go home now. Thanks. We're done discussing you). PETA, please sit in the corner and don't speak until addressed.
Let us drill down into KFC's website to the Poultry Welfare Guidelines (An Overview). This is obviously marketingspeak, as the "welfare" of the animal when it is delivered to KFC is, well, moot. But, the bit where it says it audits its suppliers, okay, I'll take heed now and pay attention to the presentation (below).
Supplier must have a documented program for animal welfare including a designated program leader, formal employee training, and a system of regular self-audits and recordkeeping. Corrective action for violations must be clearly stated and effective.
Birds arriving at the plant must be clean and in good health. If audit reveals dirty or sick birds, corrective action at the grow-out house must be taken.
KFC prohibits its suppliers from using growth-promoting substances, and requires its suppliers to raise birds in clean chicken houses with appropriate space and proper ventilation.
KFC prohibits suppliers from de-beaking any poultry that will be sold in our restaurants.
Birds arriving at the plant must be free of injury. KFC requires suppliers to implement an incentive program that rewards catching crews for minimizing injury if audit reveals that birds are being injured during the catching process.
Transport crates must be in good repair - i.e. no crate damage that would allow injury to birds or allow crates to accidentally open. Transport crates must not be over-filled and enough space must be provided to allow all birds to lie down.
Birds held in storage sheds must be provided adequate ventilation and climate control (fans/curtains).
Stunning equipment must be maintained to ensure all birds are unconscious prior to slaughter, and the time between stunning and slaughter must be limited to ensure that no bird regains consciousness prior to slaughter.
7. Humane Slaughter
State of the art slaughter equipment must be properly maintained to ensure all birds are slaughtered quickly and without pain.
(From KFC Cruelty site
- A fisk of a fisk)
Animal Treatment: Yum! Brands believes treating animals with care and respect is a key part of our quality assurance efforts. This means animals should be free from mistreatment at all times—from how they are raised and cared for to how they’re transported and processed. Our goal is to ensure an environment that’s free from cruelty, abuse and neglect.
We challenge anyone to review the treatment of chickens that PETA is addressing, none of which can be denied by KFC, and suggest that KFC is not cruel to chickens. From hatching to slaughter, KFC’s chickens endure lives of unmitigated misery.
The science is totally clear on all the issues that PETA has raised; not only is Yum! ignoring the latest research on gas killing of chickens, broiler breeders, and the other issues that we raise, it has also done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of any other animals who are killed for its restaurants (e.g., fish for Long John Silver, or cattle, pigs, and dairy cows for Taco Bell, A&W, and Pizza Hut). As the most glaring example from among many, the latest research is clear on gestation crates, which were recently banned by voter initiative in Florida because of their excessive cruelty, yet Yum! does nothing about them.
Okay. Hello? Weren't we talking about KFC and its suppliers? I'm certain we were. (Checking website name...yep!). And those "many examples" of which you spoke - show me. Defend, justify, and explain.
We challenge Yum! to name one—just one—procedure or guideline that it has implemented for the humane treatment of animals on farms or during transport. Animals spend the majority of their lives on farms, yet Yum! has not done a single thing to address the treatment of animals in that area. Yum!’s supposed “guidelines” address only the slaughterhouse, and even there they are woefully inadequate. The birds are dumped from crates, often breaking limbs, and their injured legs are snapped painfully into metal shackles. Animal welfare experts are in agreement that chickens are often conscious throughout the slaughter process, resulting in the tremendous suffering of millions from being shocked by machinery, having their throats cut, and being scalded alive. Yet Yum!’s guidelines protect birds from none of these abuses, and Yum! refuses to adopt the gas killing of birds, which would eliminate them all.
If Yum! has “specific and quantifiable” guidelines, then why has no one ever seen them? This is Yum!’s most clearly duplicitous claim. Without written copies of these guidelines available to the public, how can Yum! expect anyone to believe that they exist? And again, what supplier has ever been sanctioned for violations?
It is true that KFC has hired some people that PETA suggested, specifically Dr. Temple Grandin, Dr. Joy Mench, and Dr. Ian Duncan, as well as farmed-animal expert Adele Douglass, for its animal welfare panel. But even as Dr. Mench writes papers on the suffering of broiler breeders, KFC does nothing; even as Dr. Duncan discusses the inherent abuse of present slaughter methods, KFC does nothing, and so on. In two years, the panel has held three conference calls—not because the animal welfare panelists are unwilling to improve bird welfare, but more likely because KFC and the industry panelists are not willing.
Ellis Brunton and. Jim Ayres work for the exploiters, not the reformers. One naysayer on any committee can slow or totally stifle progress. The inclusion on the panel of representatives of the chicken-killing industry—the very industry that has claimed, always, that no reform is required—shows that KFC’s efforts are not likely to move quickly or effectively. This has been borne out by 21 months of work resulting in less progress for chickens than has been achieved by McDonald’s, Burger King, or Wendy’s and no progress on decreasing suffering for any other animal.
As discussed above, the science is totally clear on all the issues that PETA has raised; not only is Yum! ignoring the latest research on gas killing of chickens, broiler breeders, and the other issues that we have addressed, it has also done nothing to improve the lives of fish for Long John Silver or cattle, pigs, and dairy cows for Taco Bell, A&W, and Pizza Hut. As the most glaring example, the latest research is clear on gestation crates, which were recently banned by voter initiative in Florida because of their excessive cruelty, yet Yum! does nothing about them. The company is ignoring, rather than aligning its practices with, the latest research and thinking in the field of animal welfare.
It's a lot of blah blah blah from here.
I'm certain PETA has some valid claims - after all, in the scheme of things, mass produced dinner animals probably have short, rotten, painful lives. It's too bad PETA can't synthesize the reality from the rhetoric into a stronger argument that rational America could digest and perhaps rally behind.
Incidentally, and off topic, I took a graduate class in Persuasive Attack and Defense. What we have here is PETA issuing a kategoria, an attack. Theoretically, if this attack actually damages KFC's reputation (in the company's eyes), what will take place next is the Image Restoration stage, strategies of which include denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification (asking for forgiveness), or any mixture of these. KFC can also attack its accuser, shift the blame, focus on other issues, or redefine the attack. Glad I kept Dr. Benoit's book, Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies for handy reference in times like these. (And, of course, I'm horribly oversimplifying).
How much would you pay to avoid a common cold? I pondered this question this evening, as I am currently fighting the latest variety of summer cold to enslave the office (four of us ill that I know of).
I get about two a year. I think I'd drop $500 at the onset to make it go away. I figure that's $100 or less a day, and, well, most likely very much worth it. Colds always hit me hard and affect my mood (even though I recognize this - sad, eh?). This cold will mean a few days off of training and possibly, unless I feel better instead of worse the next few days, some time off work.
How much would you pay?
Monday, July 07, 2003
Since I'm getting a lot of hits from my husband's post on IMAO about dating, I thought I'd share this with the curious.
This is how I found him.
I liked the poem, and, since I posted quite a bit on rec.arts.poems back in the day, I ran across this poem a few days after it was posted. (The day I found it happened to be Brian's 25th birthday). I saw the email@example.com (now defunct, btw - so go ahead and spam it), and I sent him an e-mail asking about reading poetry in St. Louis, something in which I was interested at the time. I signed it hli, my initials at the time. The e-mail address from which it originated was firstname.lastname@example.org, so it was hardly a pick-up e-mail, not divulging my gender.
And he wrote back! It was a nice, witty, lengthy piece answering exactly what I asked. And I wrote back a thank you, and, well, you get the picture.
He printed and saved all of these e-mails.
We were friends. And then we were more, and then we married on May 22, 1999.
So, there it is. Not Internet dating on purpose, but certainly a good story with a happy ending. We lived in our separate cities for just over a year after beginning dating, and eventually we decided it'd be best for me to move from Columbia, MO to St. Louis because the job opportunities were much greater. During that year in separate cities, though, Brian was working in O'Fallon, MO as a printer, and this was on the way to Columbia. So, on Wednesdays, he'd pop into town and we'd spend some time together. I fixed him lunch for the next day and made rhubarb pies (my favorite - so selfish) and left napkins with little love notes in his lunch.
He saved these.
Anecdotal: I have a spouse who can beat me at Scrabble pretty handily. (We keep all of our scores...how...geeky!). I believe his high score is over 500, and mine a paltry 470 or some such (not the same game). If ever I need to restore my self-esteem from a Scrabble beating, well, there's always Boggle.
Where he doesn't stand a chance. Buhahahahah.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
CNN has a report released on July 1 that explains about cancer what we humans already know deep down if we've ever paid attention to health reports.
It enumerates many risk factors.
Fair, though. This harshness is coming from the woman whose cancer was so rare she became a teaching tool for the local university hospital.
But it ain't gonna come back, and neither is any other kind. I kicked it so hard it ran shrieking, as I say, back to its mama and weeping in horror.
Well, actually, no, because we're not in Florida, but, still, considering my near 44 miles logged today in a group of seven (six of whom cycle much faster than newbie I), it hits close to home.
I'm going to try to forget I read this.