« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

Horsemeat found in beef burgers on sale in UK and Ireland

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 23:21 by John Sinteur in category: ¿ʞɔnɟ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ

[Quote]:

Horse DNA has been found in some beef burgers being sold in UK and Irish supermarkets, the Republic of Ireland’s food safety authority (FSAI) has said.

The FSAI said the meat came from two processing plants in Ireland, Liffey Meats and Silvercrest Foods, and the Dalepak Hambleton plant in Yorkshire.

[..]

A total of 27 products were analysed, with 10 of them containing horse DNA and 23 containing pig DNA.

Thing is, there’s probably worse things in the burgers than a little bit of horse, of course. And no one can tell if it’s horse, of course.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. This is why I’m a vegetarian – a bit of celery in my tomato soup is not a major problem! :-)

  2. Not following your reasoning here, Spiff. If you’re a vegetarian, isn’t a bit of horse in your tomato soup more of a problem than it is for a meat eater? The whole point here is that you’re served food that isn’t what you expected it to be… happens with vegetarian food tooo. (vegetable soup made with chicken stock, a surprise addition of bacon bits, etc.)

  3. this is why i eat meat exclusively. there’s no way some dickhead is going to sneak a piece of celery into my steak.

  4. Neigh! Stop horsing around and pony up for proper meat! Well said florian!

  5. florian, many animals eat vegetables, you know? Maybe you should consider eating only carnivores.

  6. PS: much along the same lines, check this out. http://gothamist.com/2013/01/14/is_that_calamari_or_pig_rectum.php

  7. Finally we’ve got to the bottom of that particular bucket of entrails.

    Visit any Piggly Wiggly store in the South: “Our rissoles contain pigs’ arseholes, madam!”

Fresh Prince: Google Translated

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 20:37 by John Sinteur in category: Funny!


Write a comment

A Corporation Is Not a Person for Car Pool Lane Purposes, Calif. Judge Rules

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 13:09 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

“Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion,” Drago told Frieman. “And so I’m finding you guilty.”

Frieman plans to appeal the ruling.


Write a comment

Now that you killed him…

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 12:57 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

Monday morning the government filed one last motion in United States of America v. Aaron Swartz.

“Pursuant to FRCP [Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] 48(a), the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, hereby dismisses the case presently pending against Defendant Aaron Swartz. In support of this dismissal, the government states that Mr. Swartz died on January 11, 2013.”


Write a comment

JSTOR liberator

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 12:38 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

The Aaron Swartz JSTOR liberator is a tiny bit of civil disobedience, presented to you in clicktivism form. By running this bookmarklet (which you should not do if you are not comfortable potentially violating terms of service), you will visit JSTOR, a keeper of academic articles, be presented with a random paper, and will download a single paper from the site. You will have to click a terms of service agreement agreeing to not share the document you are reading, yet you will then download it and uploaded to another server. It will also ask for a message of memorial about Aaron. We will be gathering your messages of memorial and rememberance of Aaron to put up soon.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. One of the tenets of civil disobedience is to accept the consequences. Swartz wasn’t willing to do that. I’m guessing most of the “clicktivists” are, though.

  2. Um…Rob? Have you been paying attention, here? Or am I missing the irony thingy?

  3. I didn’t take that site or the post as irony, Sue, so maybe it was me who missed it. Swartz committed suicide rather than face up to the consequences of his activities, however harsh/unjust/whatever those consequences were. The linked site is asking people to engage in civil obedience. Civil disobedience is a pretty accurate description of Swartz’s activities. Are they willing to face the consequences or will they all commit suicide, too?

  4. You might think suicide is running away (or the most sincere form of self-criticism). I don’t know Mr. Swartz’s exact motives, but this one of the most effective forms of protest against injustice; cf the Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, and Buddist monks from Vietnam to Tibet/China.

    It is a lot harder to lock up or intimidate scores, or hundreds of others who follow this idea, especially as it is a form of free expression and political protest.

  5. Small correction: The instance of obedience in my previous comment should have been disobedience. Looks like you got me anyway. :)

    You may very well be right, though, Sue. I don’t know his exact motives, either. And you’re probably right about intimidation. I don’t think the government has any designs on locking up hundreds/thousands of others. They just got a big fish and decided to slam him so hard that the little fish would be scared.

    Still, Swartz poked a hornet’s nest with a stick. I wish he’d have stayed around to see it through.

  6. i think the biggest issue i have with this argument is the notion that whoever this Rob guy is gets to decide what the “rules” or “tenets” of civil disobedience are. this situation eludes your boilerplate style reasoning faculties.

  7. I didn’t decide on anything, florian. If you’re not sure what civil disobedience is, there are a number of places you can look it up. Or did you think that maybe someone just threw those two words together and not know that civil disobedience was a thing?

    You can start at Stanford University if you like:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/#FeaCivDis

    Webster has thoughts on the matter, too:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20disobedience

    “The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, sees himself as obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change.”

    Swartz didn’t hold up his end. Still saddened he chose death over the good fight.

  8. I think Sue is arguing that by committing suicide, Swartz may have doubled down on the civil disobedience. In some sense, the (perceived) injustness of the prosecution of his first act gave him a second cause to protest and (you could claim) he did so by shaming the prosecution.

    If that’s the case, he certainly hid it well, as no evidence has come from those close to him that this was the case.

  9. That’s a romantic notion, Desiato. I’d like to think that, too. At this moment, I tend to believe he committed suicide for the same reason most do; depression about what may lie ahead.

  10. @Rob: if you think that “most” suicide is from what you call depression, what does that mean? Suicide can, in my experience, equally be to punish, expose a perceived injustice, save another from hurt, express anger, frustration…true, all these can also be part of “depression”.

    I don’t think suicide is actually cowardly, which is what I understand you to mean. Regrettable, depending on circumstances. I really, really, regret Mr. Swartz’s death.

  11. @Sue – Didn’t say cowardly. Other than that, I’m not sure I’m saying anything all that much different from what you’re saying. I regret his Swartz’s, too. I espcially like where you ask me a question and then proceed to answer it better than I would have. Thanks. :)

  12. I regret Swartz’ death is what I meant to say. Sorry.

SCOTUS to review Texas holding that defendant silence can be taken as ‘substantive evidence of guilt’

Posted on January 15th, 2013 at 0:09 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

Via SCOTUSBlog we learn that, “The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide a major case on the right to remain silent — a case testing whether that right exists for an individual who has not been arrested but is interviewed by police, and was not given Miranda warnings, when that silence was used to help prove guilt at a trial. That case — Salinas v. Texas (docket 12-246) — was one of six new cases accepted for review.” Here’s a link (pdf) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision being challenged.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that, “The Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination is violated if the State is allowed to impeach the defendant’s testimony by using his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence.” But in Salinas they ruled that pre-arrest silence could be used for impeachment purposes.

[..]

The rationale of the decision below would allow for an even higher level of coercion. Suppose the officer continues, “Joe, you don’t have to answer my questions, but if you don’t, then that’s going to be used as evidence that you’re guilty. The prosecutor is going to stand in front of that jury and tell them that an innocent man would answer my questions. So you don’t need to talk to your lawyer, you need to answer my questions right now.”


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Holy. Crap. I don’t think I can say it better than a commenter on the OP did: “The fact that the State is arguing for using silence as evidence of guilt shows that prosecutors’ only goal is a conviction, rather than real justice.”

  2. What is their job performance evaluation based on? Real Justice or number of convictions? There’s your answer.