The Brainless Chicken

Here’s a sequel to the shmeat post from the other day. Evidently scientists are developing chickens without brains so when they’re grown for food, they’ll be entirely clueless about what’s happening to them.

I have no idea how to feel about this. While my food choices are based partly on health and partly on concern for the well-being of agricultural animals, it’s likely I would actually eat this kind of chicken. I’ve always said that I would eat more animal products if they were humanely raised and their deaths were painless. Plus, I eat chicken anyway, even though I don’t eat any pork or beef. So maybe.

But it’s really too early to know what kind of chemicals they’d pump into a brainless chicken to keep it alive. The photo on Sullivan’s site shows a chicken rigged up to tubes and suspended by a metallic rig, so it’s very likely it’s being injected with some kind of hormones or other awfulness. Ultimately, I think I’d rather eat an organic, humanely raised chicken over this Frankenchicken product.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Food and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Which came first, the brainless chicken or the brainless egg?

    [EDIT: I just realized this story contains all manner of wonderful misuses for brainless politicians.]

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    It’s not quite alive and it’s not quite dead….Zombie Chicken?

    • Corebela

      I once read 10 ways a zombie apocalypse could happen and learned all you need is a brain stem to be a zombie. Hasn’t happened with humans! But a chicken had it’s head cut off once and lived for a long time because it still had the brain stem from the way the head was cut off without bleeding to death. Really creepy. Was fed with a dropper…

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Ewwwwww, that is seriously effed up!

  • http://twitter.com/ZimJay Zimfara Janus

    Chickens do very well w/out a head!
    See Mike:
    https://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=mike%20the%20headless%20chicken

    A ton of GOP political metaphors right there.

    • Corebela

      Oh beat me to it.

    • http://twitter.com/bubblegenius Bubble Genius

      Goddamnit, I forgot about this festival! I am going to make an effort to be there next year.

  • http://52novels.com/ Rob in Denver

    “Do you know what they do to chickens?”
    “No, but it’s delicious.”
    ~Jim Gaffigan

  • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

    Okay this is a lot of fucked up. If you watch the human energy farm in The Matrix and think “yeah, that would suck,” then we probably shouldn’t be doing it to our food.

    • GlassBull

      If the computers had used organically raised, free-range humans for energy instead, would that have been okey dokey?

      • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

        Touche!

  • deazl666

    Free range is good enough for me. That being said, I suppose this sort of technology would be helpful if we ever run out of food.

  • Miranda

    Anyone remember that movie “Day Of The Animals”?? Payback’s gonna be a real beyotch on us.

  • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

    Ok this is totally unrelated to brainless chicken. I just read your Ron Paul “What does he stand for?” article and wanted to give you a piece of my mind. Have you not done historical research? Do you not pay attention to the country in general? I’m going to try to help you out here because you seriously bugged me with your article.

    First. Cutting some of those departments from the bureaucracy that we call government may indeed result in a lot of people having no job. But you know what? That would also mean that the government spending might go down! And you’ll never guess what that would lead to. Lower taxes. So let’s give you the summary of what that would cause. People have lower taxes; they spend more; businesses get back more money; and they can hire people! Woohoo. Go working capitalism, unhindered by government!! :)

    Of course the 2nd amendment means unfettered rights to own a gun. Do you seriously think the Founding Fathers were thinking of automatic weapons when they wrote it? So what now you want to change the constitution to “fit the times”?

    Ok I’m only writing one sentence for this next issue. Abortion is murder.

    States rights are a good thing numpty. They keep the federal government in check. I don’t know if you’ve had a basic study of our government, but it was supposed to have checks and balances. The federal government isn’t supposed to be the “rule all, end of ” government that it is today. And of course each state needs to decide what to do for themselves. The country is big. Different laws affect different people in different ways.

    He’s against universal healthcare! Way to pay attention to the world Ron Paul! Do you not realize what happens in countries with national healthcare?? People don’t get treated. That’s right. People have to wait for ages, or not get treated at all, because the system doesn’t have adequate funding. So if you end up needing a heart transplant, and we have national healthcare, I would put all your earthly and heavenly stuff together because you won’t be with us long.

    And wow you know he’s for limited government and yet you say that by opposing the Civil Rights Act and the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, he’s racist. What kind of moron are you? These acts give way too much control over stuff. Let’s decide how the Supreme Court handles discrimination cases. Did you not pay attention to what I said about checks and balances? No. Ok moving on. On to the Voting Rights Act. This is a quote from Wikipedia (not exactly the best source, but bear with me.): The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration. That’s dangerous. That’s extremely dangerous. Do you know why? Can you take a guess? No? Ok. It’s dangerous because we’re voting for the guys who have extensive oversight. I don’t know what they could be doing. Rigging votes perhaps? No, I don’t want them anywhere near my voting, thank you very much.

    Ok next time you decide to write an article, can you please do research? Can you please step out of your liberal mind and perhaps consider that using common sense and logic might be better than just pushing your agenda? Thanks.

    • gescove

      Someone’s been drinking WAY too much kool-aid. Sorry, there is no hope for you. You’ve overdosed. The diagnosis is terminal brain damage.

      • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

        Sorry not being a liberal moron means I’m brain-damaged. Does that mean it’s backwards day?

        • gescove

          QED

          • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

            Ok look I don’t care that you’re obviously a liberal. But calling me brain-damaged does nothing for you. How about you try debating. Tell me what exactly you disagree with and why. If you have logical well thought out counter-statements, I will consider retracting my “moron” statement.

          • Brutlyhonest

            You want “logical well thought out counter-statements” to your recited talking points? That’s rich.

          • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

            What about what I said is not logical and well thought out?

          • JMAshby

            What you don’t realize is that your talking-points have been debunked here hundreds of times before because every couple weeks a crusader like yourself comes along preaching to us liberal heathens.

            Frankly, you’re boring.

            Also – do some research? LOL You should just go away before you wake up MrBrink or CousinAvi

          • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

            I really was not trying to preach. I just had to get it out of my system. And forgive me but politics are boring anyway; I’m not going to make it worse. :)

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Calling mrbrink, calling avi, psst…..deranged moron on the loose.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Nicola, you seriously have no idea what you’re talking about. Your understanding of the Constitution, Checks and Balances is that of an elementary school child.

            1. Trimming Govt – we’re all for getting rid of wasteful government. We disagree that the EPA, Dept of Education, etc are wasteful. The wholesale destruction of those agencies would not only cause people to lose jobs, but also lose their lives. For example, the EPA…get rid of that and the only recourse a private citizen has is to sue. That is a recipe for disaster since our court system is already overwhelmed (and that’s just one of many, many reasons….I don’t want to get into them all).

            2. 2nd Amendment – I am a liberal, I own a weapon and I believe we do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. I do NOT believe it means we can have any “arms” we want. BTW, there is not a single right in the Constitution that is completely unfettered. NONE. Why wingtards and libertarians have decided to make the 2nd Amendment special from ALL the other rights, I have no idea.

            3. Not giving a woman an abortion to save her life is also murder. There is no simple answer to the problem of abortion. However, government intrusion into what is a complicated and heartbreaking medical decision is NOT supportive of Liberty in any way, shape or form. Libertarians and wingtards are complete hypocrites on this point.

            4. Checks and Balances created by the Forefathers was between the three branches of government, NOT the states v. the Feds. The state governments are supposed to handle those things not given to the Federal Govt. How are those powers given to the Fed govt? Via the Constitution, via Fed Legislation, and via Case Law. The balance is STILL between the the three branches then, isn’t it? This model is repeated on the state level. To say the States rights are a buffer against Federal intrusion is simplistic and wrong. Furthermore, states have traditionally been much, much worse at treating it’s own citizens than the federal govt. If we had the states with as much power as Paul wants, desegregation in the South would never have happened (among many other important things that have come about because the Fed Govt forced the states to do the right thing). Paul thinks that Federal Govt intrusion is bad but is okey-dokey with state intrusion. Again, hypocrisy in the extreme. A fascist govt is a fascist govt whether it is 1,000 miles away or whether it is next door.

            5. Voting Rights and Federal Oversight – Federal Oversight does not mean control…it means that they make sure the states play by the rules that all the states agreed to. There is not a single piece of evidence that voter fraud is real. Yes someone registered Mickey Mouse somewhere but Mickey Mouse didn’t vote, did he? If Mickey had voted that would be Voter Fraud…but he didn’t. There is not a lick of evidence for this. Also, re: Paul is not supporting Civil Rights legislation…what is the difference between someone who whips a black man versus someone who watches a black man being whipped? Nothing, ethically speaking. By saying the Civil Right legislation should never have passed, Paul is saying he’d stand there and watch. Not very Christian of him.

            I could go on and on but I think that’s more than enough logic for you for now.

    • Carol Jones

      Oy what a load.

      Okay, I’ll just address two points.

      One, if you cut government agencies you do more than potentially make government spending go down. (Noting that you completely ignored the economic impact of throwing thousands of people out of work). When you eliminate agencies, you also cut services to the people of the United States, services that millions of Americans rely on. Cutting agencies also has the potential to raise government costs in other areas as we deal with the problems the eliminated agencies used to handle. These agencies exist for a reason; they were necessary to solve some problem. Show those problems don’t exist and we’ll talk about eliminating the agencies.

      Two, do you have any real understanding of why the Civil and Voting Rights acts were passed? Are you aware that millions of Americans were being denied fundamental rights because of the color of their skin, their religion, their sex or other unchangeable characteristic? These laws didn’t come into being to mess with the states. They came into being because the states were discriminating against American citizens. Once again, show those problems no longer exist and we’ll talk about eliminating the laws.

      • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

        Thank for a clear and intelligent response. I want to start off with the second issue you addressed. I would like to admit that my research on those two acts was only basic, and as I do further study, I would gladly like to come back and correct myself. I would not however, like to take other people’s word on it.

        Secondly. I realize those agencies have a purpose, but only because the government wants control over those areas. People have become dependent on the government making decisions and regulating this and that. If we take that away from them, they can start making decisions. After all it is “For the people, by the people”, is it not? I’ve looked and most of the areas the multiple departments cover aren’t even covered in the Constitution. The government does not have the Constitutional right to regulate so much. So there’s no reason for anyone to waste the money on it.

        And I’m sorry that the lose of jobs seemed to be ignored. This is where I believed I covered it: People have lower taxes; they spend more; businesses get back more money; and they can hire people! People are losing jobs because businesses can no longer afford to keep them. If they have more money going in, they need more employees. Eventually everyone with a work ethic would have a job. But that could be an underlying problem. A lot of people like being in control and regulating stuff, but not necessarily do the work.

        • Ipecac

          You said:

          “I realize those agencies have a purpose, but only because the government wants control over those areas. People have become dependent on the government making decisions and regulating this and that. If we take that away from them, they can start making decisions. After all it is “For the people, by the people”, is it not?”

          If the coal plant in my town is spewing pollutants into the air, I cannot “make decisions” and somehow stop them. If the factory upriver is dumping toxic waste into the water, I, as an individual, have no power to stop them. That’s why the EPA was created. It was created by us to give us, the people, the power to stop these abuses by powerful interests.

          The government is “for the people, by the people”.

          You would take away our collective tool that has the power to enforce good behavior for the good of all, and reduce us all to powerless individuals at the mercy of bad actors.

          • MrDHalen

            You just expose the wall every Libertarian hits, but refuses to acknowledge.

            Que the blank stare, then they repeat some talking point you already beat down an hour ago.

        • delosgatos

          You said: “I want to start off with the second issue you addressed. I would like to admit that my research on those two acts was only basic, and as I do further study, I would gladly like to come back and correct myself. I would not however, like to take other people’s word on it. ”

          Might I suggest:

          If your knowledge of US history is so shallow that you haven’t become aware of the history of discrimination, Jim Crow laws or the battles of the civil rights movement, you have no reason to expect anyone to take your opinions on the proper role of government any more seriously than we would take a four year old’s views on late 19th century French impressionism.

          As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the various roles our government plays have been initiated and developed to deal with practical, real world problems. If you are ignorant of the history of those problems, you are unprepared to expect to be taken seriously in this discussion.

          Spouting sophomoric platitudes from the Libertarian manifesto is no substitute for doing your homework.

    • mrbrink

      Taxes are at their lowest point in modern history. No point for you.

      Spending has been cut, government is shrinking. No point for you.

      Corporations are hoarding trillions in record profits. The DOW is doing well. Unemployment is shrinking. Government isn’t an impediment to corporate profits. So no point for you.

      The 2nd amendment wasn’t written for the criminally insane. I can’t carry a bazooka. No point for you.

      Abortion isn’t any of your business. Stay out of the reproductive rights. The state forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth or be charged with murder is sick and tyrannical. No point for you.

      “States’ rights” arguments are also used as weapon against civil rights and separation of church and state, or used against the power of the federal government to recognize and protect our rights beyond states’ rights authority. Those lunch counters didn’t free themselves. States’ rights were also used as the reason to keep public schools segregated. Teaching creationism in public schools is a states’ rights claim. The constitution recognizes and protects the rights of the people, not the rights of the Tea Party’s passing authority. They used states’ rights argument to argue for slavery. No point for you.

      Most countries with universal healthcare have regulated, supplemental insurance to cover the things you might wait for. Healthcare insurance wouldn’t suddenly become obsolete with Medicare for all. No point for you.

      The Voting Rights act is America. It is American democracy. Fuck you for throwing in with out-of-the-closet racists and anti-democratic authoritarians. No point for you, shmeathead.

      This took me like 5 minutes.

      • Brutlyhonest

        Win, as usual, mrbrink.

        • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

          A win would be making me believe that I am wrong and should change my complete way of thinking. All he did was write what he believed to be true.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            You are incapable due to iq impairment, evidently.

          • JMAshby

            But let’s face it, nothing anyone says will change your mind. So what are you doing here? Pissing into the wind.

          • mrbrink

            Your beliefs are irrelevant, but typical of right wing ideologues who hold these beliefs to be self-evident.

            We’re here talking about and defending established law of the land. The record of fact in the context of history, not what you think it should be, or believe should be repealed or overthrown because you have a loose understanding of the proper role of the federal government to recognize and protect the rights of the people caught in “states’ rights” cross hairs.

            Voting rights, civil rights, reproductive rights– law of the land.

            You’re talking about taking away these rights and calling it liberty. You must recognize this for what it is. Bullshit. You have to understand the difference between a belief, and an established fact.

            Taxes are lower than at any point in modern history– This is a fact. “Trimming government,” criminalizing abortion, overturning voting and civil rights– these are beliefs. Belief in an alternative reality, an unlawful reality, less democratic reality, is why you should reconsider your faulty perspective.

      • gescove

        Thank you mrbrink. Game, set, match. But as you can see from @nicola’s reply, it’s a hopeless waste of keystrokes.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Exactly, she says she wants logic, but when given to her she ignores it and focuses on how the info is presented, even though she herself was not exactly polite. Typical con troll behavior.

          • delosgatos

            I think the other part of the problem is that she seems happily ignorant and blithely content to remain that way. Her grasp of historical facts seems tenuous at best. When she writes “All he did was write what he believed to be true”, apparently without doing a lick of work to check that yes, these are verifiable facts (and that’s why he believes them to be true), she reveals the shallowness of her knowledge. All the logic in the world won’t help if you start from false statements.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Broadly, what this does (like most boilerplate recitations of libertarian views/ideas/beliefs/&c) is take a great deal for granted that the law doesn’t, because it can’t, and because history demonstrated that it can’t. Again, broadly speaking, apart from the assertions that just simply aren’t true (e.g., that no one in a country with universal health care ever actually receives medical treatment) or that misstate the meaning of words and phrases (e.g., “checks and balances” refers to the three branches of government, not federalism), this is based on the idea that people will just naturally do the right thing and good things will just naturally happen, if we simply eliminated laws, law enforcement, and whatever other “external” mechanisms exist in society to regulate and incentivize human behaviour.

      I was a high school English teacher before I became an attorney. Two aspects of that experience are instructive here.

      First, my favorite novel is William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, which if you haven’t read it is an allegory of human nature, of “mankind’s essential illness” emerging amongst a homogeneous group of British schoolboys stranded on an uninhabited island. It shows, ultimately, that in the absence of things like law, government, structure, &c., mankind’s unbridled and uninhibited id will eventually overwhelm reason and justice and drive us to self-destruction. Golding was careful to create a petri-dish environment where the characters began the story with no conflicts among them, no shared history, and plentiful natural resources; i.e., nothing to fight about and nothing to fight over. And they still ended up in what amounted to a self-destructive war.

      Lord of the Flies is instructive in that it presents us with a scenario where there’s really no reason for anyone on that island to hate, or seek to abuse or exploit, let alone kill, anyone else; where prioritizing survival and rescue is obviously in everyone’s best interests, but it doesn’t work out that way; not because of any kind of external influence exerting its power or authority over the boys, but because the very lack thereof allows their essential nature to emerge.

      The second is something I learned very, very early on in my teaching career. When I first started teaching, I assumed (as a lot of non-teachers probably do) that the possibility/threat of failing my class and having to repeat the grade or go to summer school was, in and of itself and by itself, enough to motivate students to come to class, do their work, and behave properly. I learned very quickly that that was not the case. Unfortunately for teachers, passing their classes (or high grades) is far from the only motivating factor for schoolkids in terms of whether they do their work, how they behave in the classroom, and the attention they pay to their requirements and studies. It is not enough for a teacher to simply assign work, expect the students to do it, and impose consequences when they don’t. I could do that, and I did, but I had to do more.

      Unfortunately, history has shown time and again that there is no one thing that can always be counted on to motivate human beings to do what is in their own, let alone in society’s, best interest. We learned a long time ago that it is harmful and foolish to just assume that people will do what is right, and then wait until after some egregious and irremediable harm has been inflicted before we do anything about it.

      Just as one example, review the history and development of products-liability law. We once had a caveat-emptor regime that put the burden on consumers to avoid being maimed, poisoned or killed by commercial products. Gradually, over time, the law evolved to shift the burden to manufacturers to make their products safe before they enter the stream of commerce. Read the cases along the line and you’ll see how and why that happened.

      There are things libertarians take for granted that society and the law can’t, and don’t, with good reason.

      • joseph2004

        I guess the only question that remains is, Who watches the watchman? We haven’t worked that one out yet.

        Also, on law, I’d be interested in your lawyer’s take on civil rights law and how we went from a system in which the burden of proof was on the accuser, to one of putting the onus on the accused to prove the allegations false.

        • GrafZeppelin127

          The burden of proof is still on the accuser. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, except in strict-liability contexts like traffic and parking tickets.

          As for “who watches the watchman,” what “watchman” are you referring to? We have separation of powers and an independent judiciary; three branches of government checking-and-balancing each other in a perpetual cosmic game of rock-paper-scissors. And only one of the branches consists of a single individual (which it really doesn’t anyway). The “watchmen,” whoever and whatever they are, watch each other, and the rest of us watch them every two/four years at the ballot box.

          • joseph2004

            I got a lot of flack here some short time ago for suggesting that the voter, if only he/she would step up as that missing “watchman,” could go a long way in blunting the impact of, say, big moneyed interests in our elections or in getting members of congress to live under the same rules they set for the rest of us (eg. the insider trading issue).
            Without the voter actually taking on the role, can we count on our elected officials to do the right thing? Likely not.

            As for the burden of proof, in civil rights actions against banks (I know, they’re in disrepute at the moment), where banks are subject to accusations of “racism” for “underserving” minority neighborhoods, the burden has been on the banks to prove that they are not intentionally discriminating rather than the accuser of providing a convincing case against the bank. That from some banker friends. A discussion for another time.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Burden shifts do not occur unless and until the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case that the conduct and the discriminatory effect actually took place. Once the conduct and the discriminatory effect are established, then the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate non-discriminatory, non-pretextual intent.

            Civil Rights Claims under § 1983

            I’ll grant that voters have to do more than vote. And that the purchase of elections, and by extension the purchase of law and public policy, is the most important thing wrong with our system. Capitalism nullifies democracy. But I’ll take this categorical mistrust of elected officials a lot more seriously when I hear the same arguments being made by those who are making them now during a Republican administration. Not until then.

    • http://twitter.com/bubblegenius Bubble Genius

      “Ok this is totally unrelated to brainless chicken.”

      I beg to differ.

      • MrDHalen

        I nominate this as the comment of the year so far!!!

        Now if you will excuse me, I have to clean the water I was drinking off my screen.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          i was drinking coffee. messy. :)

      • D_C_Wilson

        Bubble Genius wins the internet.

    • http://twitter.com/bubblegenius Bubble Genius

      P.S. My favorite of your statements? “These acts give way too much control over stuff.” I hate when the government controls my stuff.

    • muselet

      Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll …

      –alopecia

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Speaking of brainless….check out the Paulette (TM) here to troll….I mean trying to school us…using “logic”. This country is in extreme trouble because Civics and History have been either been completely neglected or hijacked by local wingtards and this Paulette is prime example of that.

    • http://justathoughtaboutnothing.wordpress.com/ Nicola Black

      I would like to know why people such as yourselves bash conservatives so much. What made you believe that being a liberal is “right” and being a conservative is “wrong”? Should we not just want what is best for the country. Do our duty, do research, and try to make our country great?

      And yes my curriculum was written solely by Christian conservatives, who you like to call “wingtards.” Insulting people is not going to help you get your way.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        “Insulting people is not going to help you get your way.”

        Neither does logic, apparently as you didn’t address all the items I posted above. I bash conservatives who don’t argue well. If you came here and made some logical points with any kind of moderation I would have engaged you in similar fashion. However, your initial post was very condescending to Bob and to the rest of us who agree with him (on most things but certainly not all). You can’t walk into a room and punch someone and then complain when they punch you back. Liberals are done taking abuse from conservatives. As for wanting what’s best for our country, we absolutely do…that’s why we’re online fighting ignorance such as what you displayed. I’m willing to die for this country fighting for what this country stands for and it DOES NOT stand for what Paul advocates–this country is not JUST about Liberty, its also about Obligation…two sides of the same coin. Too many kids are raised like you, told you have rights, but NEVER told that you have an obligation to the society that allows you to enjoy those rights. That’s the core problem with Libertarianism and Paul’s viewpoint, you want to live in society and benefit from it, but you don’t REALLY want to be a part of it through shared FAIR contribution/shared FAIR sacrifice–two faces of the same coin.

      • Christine Mitchell

        We bash conservatives so much because they are such hypocrites. They rail against entitlements while they themselves are entitled to the most liberal tax codes, best health insurance at the taxpayers expense, best retirement program at the taxpayers expense, in history.

        They rail against government intruding on religion, then they use religion to intrude on civil government. This is not a theocracy nor is it a Christian nation. It’s just a nation ruled by law. Practice your religion between you and your God and leave everyone else alone as long as they aren’t breaking the law of the land.

        Conservatives judge everyone else except themselves. They have become inextricably entwined with fundamental Christianity to their won detriment. They do NOT love their neighbor, they hate their neighbor if their neighbor is poor, or has dark skin, or has a different sexual orientation, or a mess of other criteria for judging someone OK. They are not compassionate, they are hateful under a guise of Christianity.

        My guess is that if Jesus was here today, he would not be a conservative, nor a liberal, nor a libertarian…he would just humbly and quietly teach about God to people that came to listen. Go though and do likewise.

        • stacib23

          They also conveniently forget little old number 9 of the 10 commandments regarding bearing false witness.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I went to her blog and she actually says that she thinks maybe she doesn’t know what she’s talking about….I think she is really young and misinformed….so I’ll back off on her.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Actually, I have to give her credit for this:

            Ok so posting a comment on a liberal blog wasn’t the brightest idea, but it did teach me something. And being told I don’t know what I’m talking about made me think. Maybe I don’t. Maybe I don’t have all the info.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Yeah that’s what saw too…good for her

          • Ipecac

            This is fairly fascinating. I went to her blog and posted some suggested articles for her to educate herself about Ron Paul and such. She has decided to read one written by Bob and has posted a response. I haven’t gotten through it yet, but it’s painful.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    “Ultimately, I think I’d rather eat an organic, humanely raised chicken over this Frankenchicken product.”

    Same here.

    For the past few years I’ve made a strong effort to buy free range chicken, and when I can get it, pork and beef raised under humane conditions (i.e., meat not produced by major producers such as Tyson/huge factory farms).

    Does this really make a difference? I don’t know, but it makes me feel better.

    • Draxiar

      Nicole473, it does make a difference.

      My wife and I watched this the other night and it was really quite revealing. I recommend it to anyone that cares about where their food comes from.

      “Food, Inc.”

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

      • Dan_in_DE

        I thought it was also in Food Inc, but in any case, I saw a reportage a while back on the way that chickens are certified as ‘free-range’ and it was absurd. They build a tiny little screened in ‘flight area’ into corner of one of the same typical chicken houses that you’ve see in the aforementioned documentary, and what do you know – they’re converted to free-range birds! I guess the potential is there for any particular chicken to get a nose full of fresh air once or twice in its miserable life. But if that’s the way the regulations really are, then no – unfortunately, it doesn’t matter.

        But if I may empoly the employ the magic word ; ) to be honest, I’m not up on the situation, so you should really go do some research.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Too bad we don’t have European style markets with farmers offering fresh meat as well as all the other stuff.

          The best place to get good, humanely raised meat is, unfortunately, at the most expensive small markets in any particular area.

  • i_a_c

    RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

    There. Got that out of my system. I was wondering why a post about food got 38 comments.

  • mosesish2

    ssince it seems we are what we eat…Does america really need to become more stupid’ we have a brainless governing situation already. (brainless chickens!