Chocolate Jesus

I found this blog entry about "My Sweet Lord", which is the giant piece of chocolate sculpted into Jesus. My sentiments mirror this blogger's. While it may be offensive to some, it is art and should never be removed. I don't know the artist's religious beliefs (I will be checking that out), but his message is right on (I think the blogger's interpretation is right on...with maybe a mixture of satire on the secularized celebration of Easter).

___________________________________________
That Chocolate Jesus
David Kuo
HuffingtonPost.com
Sat Mar 31, 2:07 PM ET

The public won't see that "anatomically correct sculpture" of a fully naked chocolate Jesus with arms stretched wide as if on a cross. That's a shame.

I am generally pretty laid back about such things - artists should be able to do whatever it is that artists want to do. I may object, I may be horrified, but art and art and art should be as free as art can be. As such, let this "artist" do what he wants.

If art is free to express itself, however, so to the public is free to declare judgment. And so with this piece of "art" I can freely say that I think it is absurd... but also that in some ways it is actually the perfect piece of art for holy week.

Why? Because it reminds all of those who follow Jesus of how he was mocked and ridiculed, how he was scorned and beaten, how he was humiliated... and all because of his love for us. Those are good things for his followers to remember.

Jesus' story isn't nice, it isn't neat, it isn't comfortable. It is the opposite of all of those things. In so many ways those of us who say we follow Jesus actually want a sort of "chocolate Jesus" of our own - one that is sweet, one that demands little from us, one that we can mold into our forms - perhaps politically conservative, perhaps liberal, maybe happy with just a few of our dollars given to the poor every now and again, perhaps content with those who simply say they love him and then lead lives little different from anyone else.

It is easy for some religious leaders to decry a piece of art and say - as some have (apparently with a straight face) - it is "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." (I suppose that genocide in Darfur is merely an "affront" to Christian sensibilities?) But instead of getting all amped up over this "art," Christians should be spending time facing the real and very challenging Jesus found in the Gospels and encouraging others to do the same. I know that is what I need to do.

NOTE: I stand (or, more technically, sit) corrected. My use of "art" and "artist" in quotes wasn't fair. This is art, he is an artist. I may - and do - find some of his earlier work truly absurd but this is not in that category. I still wouldn't choose it for my own collection (had I an art collection) but it has done one of the things that art should do - it has challenged us. (3/31/07)

Stop the slaughter!

That might describe what it felt like when I just saw this...

Dolphins being slaughtered in Japan. Emily mentioned it in my Pet Food blog, and I wearily wanted to see. Before I could choose to see on my own merit, I was forced to 10 minutes ago on PBS. No way I could turn it off. Terror, unexplainable sadness, and adrenaline-pumping anger...all to Matt Damon's charming narrative. Thanks Matt!



Everyone should watch. Don't be a pussy. If you can't cut the throat of the animal your meat comes from, you shouldn't eat it. The mentality that you don't want to know where it comes from and how it is made, but eat it because it tastes good, is simply moronic. Don't turn a blind eye to the animal slaughter.

Buy(Less)

Looks like there has been a website since the beginning of the Red campaign reiterating my latest blogs. Or, I guess I was unknowingly reiterating it. Check it out!

http://buylesscrap.org/


Now I sound like a broken record. They do make a good point about standards for cause-related marketing. There are currently no standards for "transparency", or, the general public knowing exactly what is going to the charity. The Red campaign has raised many questions as to how much of your money goes to the Global Fund. Everyone has to rely on what the company tells you, with no legal remifications.

**Also! You all should check out the comments on my last blog. There is quite a discussion going [even though it is basically the usual argument between Joe and me]. Feel free to participate. Go ahead, team up against me. It only makes me stronger! ARRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!

Hoggiestylists, Super Consumers, Oprah fans BEWARE

Julie mentioned Oprah as a comment in my last blog. I replied, but kept writing and writing. So now I have a new blog instead of a comment to an old one...

I just read up on Oprah a bit. Her net worth right now is $1.5 billion. That is $500,000,000 more than your number! Alright! Bonus cash!

She has given away about $250 million in her lifetime. Which is great, but considering she is the only philanthropist that has a huge TV show largely based on how much she cares, and how much we should care...it's hard to swallow. If she is living "The Way", then what is another $250 million? [Some would say "Well, it isn't like she has $1.5 bills in cash. She has to consider what is tangible and intangible, and the liquidity of certain cash and assets, etc..." Whatever. Go write your own blog.]

Does someone that really cares have to live in a $50 million house, like Oprah? Is that the result of growing up in poverty? You get filthy rich and say to yourself, "I deserve this $50 million dollar house because I worked hard at it"? That is "Rugged American Individualism". A great model for the ultra-capitalist society and a stack of Horatio Alger, Jr. books. Not a great model for the greater good. (FYI, her $50 million house wasn't even for sale. She liked it and gave the owners an offer they couldn't refuse. Now THAT is throwing your money around.)

She is also largely responsible for the success of "The Secret" (been meaning to blog on it). A book that is basically about thinking positively about having money, and the money will positively happen. (My synopsis is not open for debate.) I wonder if all those positive thinkers will give their magic money away to the needy?

Here is the Philanthro-Power Rankings:
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2005/0548_philsco.pdf

Bill Gates is a filthy-rich dude! $51 billion! But he has quietly given away 55% of his money (as quiet as you can give away that much money), while Oprah stands at 18% and can't stop talking about it. (I know, I know...Bill Gates is still left with $25 billion. He can do more as well.)

We are, of course, talking about Oprah because of how much she big-upped the Red campaign. Althought I don't want to do a hitjob on Oprah. It isn't like she is evil. But I think (Red) and her show's topics illustrate a false sense of caring. No, a false sense of activism. You could call it "suburban-white-lady-activism". They care, but they don't do much outside of buying a red shirt at Gap to let the proceeds do the work.

The whole concept of doing good by giving away money is crass. I understand that it takes money to make things happen. But feeding that model isn't going to make it go away. (One model that doesn't need to eat. Hardy har!) I always say you have to attack the root of things (cliche, my ass). Giving money and buying red iPods are only plucking leaves off the tree. It won't get you anywhere because more leaves will grow back. Real activism has to start with daily actions of regular people at the bottom, not the money of the rich.

It starts with living based on your needs, not the fat American hogstyle of buying shit you don't need because you are brainwashed into thinking you need it.
Hoggiestyle© is fed to everyone, everyday, everywhere in this country. At least half of my readers might have Hoggiestyle songs on their MySpace. Say NO to the Hoggiestyle!

You are also given prime opportunities for acting this out, since you might not buy enough on your own. So there are bullshit holidays created. Christmas and Easter are now pagan. There are sporting events that you have to watch and participate in, or else you are a loser. The Superbowl, obviously. "Get off the World of Warcraft, nerd!" (I think Domino's and the caffeine lobby might be in on the W.O.W. conspiracy!) This "March Madness" also comes to mind. How many of you really give a shit about these scholarshipped kids? They don't pay my bills. They don't cut my grass. But you'd better go buy all your beer and supplies for the Final Four, or you might get left out of the sports coolness. Remember last year?! That was such a great time! We threw chips at each other, laughed, someone threw up, and we really don't remember the second half. Then, across this great land, 1,000 people died in DUI accidents and 10 people suffocated by way of pretzel. Good times.

Once these suburban activists change their consumer mindstate, then maybe they will start doing things. "Doing is the best way of saying"

But, I remain my super-cynical self. Nothing will ever change and we are headed to a scary climax in 100+ years. It is unnerving to bring a baby into this world that I so disagree with. I am faced with the task of raising children in a world of assholes. Did I mention cynical?

I can't lay out my activist manifesto, because I don't do anything. At this point, I could call myself a hypocrite. The Nintendo Wii is awesome, but no one brainwashed me into that one.

COMMENTS FROM Hoggiestylists, Super Consumers, Oprah fans BEWARE

LET'S GO NOLES!

The Hoggiestylists, Super Consumers, Oprah fans BEWARE blog got some serious comments! I get well-commented blogs from time to time, but this is one of the best! Here they are: __________________________ Damn Wes! I was about to lambast you about owning a Wii when I read your statement about "living based on your needs, not the fat American hogstyle of buying shit you don't need because you are brainwashed into thinking you need it." Fortunately you rectified that with your last statement about the Wii. You and I had a long discussion about this as we traveled on our Spring Training tour and I defended Oprah and still do. I know, I know this isn't about attacking Oprah, hell it's not even about Oprah but the fact that she is at least using her platform to bring attention to these issues shouldn't be attacked. I don't honestly feel that Oprah gets psyched hearing about herself on the news or in the papers doing this or that. Okay maybe a tinyt bit but that's the human ego. Everyone gets that proudness when they are commended for doing something good but I don't think that's why she's doing it. I honestly feel that she does things out of genuine kindness and in an attempt to better the world and not just for a pat on the back. The people you should bitch about are all the people out there that have the means to at least give something but are sitting on their asses! If I were to have a disposable income you better believe that I would practice tithing! To what level of giving would Oprah have to strive to make it acceptable in your eyes? I know she's rich as hell but is she supposed to just give the majority of it away? If you're saying that she needs to do more than I say to you Wes, what excatly have you done in the realm of activism? What causes have you given monetary support to or taken such a stance on that you made a concerted effort to change? I know you said that giving money to a cause is like picking leaves off of a tree but it has to start somewhere doesn't it. Since Oprah lives in a $50 million house it negates the fact that she has given to charities and brought awareness to certain issues? If I worked my ass off to get where I was like Oprah you're damn right I would make sure that I took advantage of all my hard work and at least rewarded myself with things that weren't beyond my financial means such as a huge-ass house. The fact is that she is attempting to bring about change and that is all you can really ask of someone. You own a Nintendo Wii which costs $250 plus a game or two. For you to condemn Oprah for not doing more meanwhile you stated thats she has given over $250 million in her lifetime (and that is only the documented amount) IS hypocritical. You could definitely live without that Wii just like she could definitely live without that $50 million house but isn't that Wii a luxury item much like Oprah's huge-ass house? When you sell your Wii and use the money towards helping someone who can't help themselves or for the betterment of the world in some way let me know and I'll get on the horn to tell Oprah that I have an idea for one of her shows. Posted by LET'S GO NOLES! on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 2:21 AM [Remove] [Reply to this] _________________________

	Julie & Claire	I think Wes and I struggle everyday realizing that we do not do enough, or have too many things, etc. Unfortunately, it is often realized after you lose 30% of your income. No, I don't agree with the Wii purchase! However, I would have to say that caring starts with a different mindset. Here is what I (we) do to not live as materiastically. By the way it is commanded in the bible to not live "high on the hog." Now, if you don't believe in Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammed, Buddah, then you probably don't give a crap. Here goes: 1. We just recently cancelled cable. We can't afford it for one, but also, why do I really need it? I venture to say some of you can't live without your ESPN. Go read a book. 2. We cancelled Netflix a long time ago. 3. We have not bought a DVD or CD in months, I venture to say at least 6 months. 4. We did not exhange Christmas presents with each other the last 2 years. Heck, the only people we gave too were our parents and nephew. You know what? We didn't really miss the gifts. In fact, I think we missed our parents more who recently moved away. 5. We have not exchanged b-day gifts or Valentine's gifts the last 2 years. 6. We cancelled our gym membership, my ProActiv (yep, I get to live with a few more zits), and our AOL (by the way you can keep your screen name for free!) 7. We drastically cut down on eating out! Still working on that one. 8. We pray for change. I know I beat myself up EVERY DAY for not "doing" enough...not giving enough......... However, everytime I have been to church the past few years I do drop something in that offering plate. We know what is commanded of us and that is a beginning. 9. We even let our grass die so we don't have to take care of it...haha....just kidding 10. I have not bought a new pair of shoes in over a year..I have only purchased clothing because I am now pregnant and fat and "needed" the clothes, or was visiting someplace freezing cold in the winter time! I have not bought a watch, a piece of jewerly, a pair of sunglasses, etc. in I do not know how long. By not purchasing gold, diamonds, etc. you do not contribute to enslaved, or almost enslaved people in Africa who work in the mining industry. 11. We stopped eating animals except chickens (still working on this one) Right there we have attempted to decrease world hunger, treat animals better, and demand better treatment of people who work in that industry. 12. We drive paid off cars with NO intentions of purchasing a new car anytime in the near future. So, we still have a long way to go but at least it is a decent start. Yes, this was a bit defensive. No, we don't want a pat on the back for anything. Posted by Julie & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 2:46 PM [Remove] [Reply to this] _______________________

	Wes & Claire	Not to sound like a dick, but do you watch the show much? My bitch-ass watches it at least 3 times a week. It is definitely self-serving right down the little things she says. In the end, the show is about her. Posted by Wes & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 2:13 PM [Remove] [Reply to this] _______________________

	Wes & Claire	For now, I can't tackle everything in there....BUT..."Since Oprah lives in a $50 million house it negates the fact that she has given to charities and brought awareness to certain issues?" Yes, exactly. No one that cares about the poor should buy a $50 million house. Unless they plan on filling up the extra rooms with homeless people. "To what level of giving would Oprah have to strive to make it acceptable in your eyes? I know she's rich as hell but is she supposed to just give the majority of it away?" She isn't supposed to. That is my problem with it all. I can only answer that by putting myself in her shoes as if I had that much money. She obviously won't give it all away, but I am basing this on my value system. This is a very conservative figure, because you don't need this much. But $100 million is a shitload of money. She has over 10-times that. Your family would be wealthy for generations off that. I guess you just can't call her an 'activist'. She can write all the checks she wants, and talk about all the world's problems that she wants, but she doesn't have any dirt under her fingernails. Because she is basically just a rich lady with a TV show. Posted by Wes & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 1:56 PM [Remove] [Reply to this] _____________________________________

	LET'S GO NOLES!	"I guess you just can't call her an 'activist'. She can write all the checks she wants, and talk about all the world's problems that she wants, but she doesn't have any dirt under her fingernails. Because she is basically just a rich lady with a TV show." Is there any dirt under your fingernails Wes? I know she's a rich lady with a TV show but like I said before she is at least bringing awareness to a lot of things that the "suburban-white-lady-activists" you previously spoke of may not have been aware were even going on before. My point is that there are a lot of rich people out there that do absolutely NOTHING with their money. Would you be happier if Oprah just kept her money to herself and never did a show about an issue in this world? At least then she wouldn't be "pretending" to be an activist. I don't think I fully understand your gripe here. The fact that she is at least doing something however minimal you seem to think it is shouldn't be attacked. So she could do more right? We all could but the fact that she is doing something and bringing to light issues and circumstances that a lot of people would never have been aware of had they not seen her show isn't a bad thing. We could go on forever but the bottom line is that this world need's a lot of change and someone who is at least trying to help bring about that change should be commended not condemned. In the words of my boy Al Gore, "This planet has a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell!" I hear what you're saying about the "Red" program and how people's reasons for buying the items is just so they can show-off that they did something. How about we look at the big picture here. Whatever the reasons for that person making that purchase, whether it be for that "pat on the back" from others that I spoke of or if it is genuinely for the feeling that they gave something albeit a small amount. At least that money, the portion that goes to the charity, is going to try to help a problem. I know it's just a leaf off a tree but what matters is that those leaves are at least being picked. I know it doesn't squash the problem altogether but it helps someone and that is what truly matters. Posted by LET'S GO NOLES! on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 6:42 PM [Remove] [Reply to this] ______________________________

	Wes & Claire	"Is there any dirt under your fingernails Wes?" You tried that in the other comment and I chose to leave it alone. I said in the blog that I don't directly DO anything for others. Julie and I truly believe that living the way for yourself first, having the belief system in place, and doing it in your own life, is the first step (I am not talking about religion, although it does play a part in our politics). We have been on that song for a couple years now, with a steady crescendo. A good place to be with a baby on the way. The ways that we spend, or not spend, our money directly influence the world for the better. That is living it in our lives first. If everyone spent, or not spent, their money like us...the world could be a different place. Are we 100% independent of the system? Or course not. But we are sure as hell further than most. 90% of the public never even get to this step. Main reason being no one really cares to. The materialism permeates so intensely that most people can't take it to the next level. Again, they don't want to. People can't live without this, can't live without that. They choose the status quo. That is why I remain cynical, because the dollars will still flow toward damnation. As the world keeps on spinning, so goes the status quo. Once you realize it, and live it, the next step is taking it outside your own realm. That is what we have not achieved yet. But knowing is definitely half the battle. Mr. Lif sums it up nicely... "We all are being murdered by a similar process Whether you work at the candy store or slave at the office The purpose of our life is just to serve the economy They misinform our minds to paint a picture of harmony But if you listen then you know that shits out of tune Cuz the function of our life is just to work and consume Fuck reaching out to help the next, there ain't any room Just close your eyes and block your ears and march to your doom" My problem with Oprah is that she fits into the Mr. Lif model above. She feeds the consumer mindstate, regardless of her "good deeds". So while you say "at least she does this, at least she makes people aware". I feel that in the end, she does more harm than good. How often do people on her shows get free shit, which is just advertising so the TV audience can buy it? How often is she pumping up some new book from her book club, sure to be a #1 bestseller? I guess that is where the "at least" treatment comes in. The Red campaign also feeds the consumer mindstate. My point wasn't the sidewalk recognition, it is the consumerism in disguise. The jewelry and oil industries play a large part in the poverty and environmental destruction in Africa. Maybe Oprah should go after them. That would not be picking a leaf, but grabbing an axe. The child slave trade in impoverished countries is trickle-down from the big boys. But Oprah won't go there. The Gap has Africans making the (red) clothing, yet the rest of their clothes are still made in sweatshops (slavery) in the Pacific. It is all lip-service. Posted by Wes & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 11:38 PM [Remove] [Reply to this] _____________________________

	LET'S GO NOLES!	I know we could go on with this forever Wes. My point is that I don't wholeheartedly disagree with all of your opinions and points I just don't see how you can say that what Oprah does is so bad. Like I said would you rather she just be stingy with the surplus of money she does have and not put a dime of it towards making a change in the world? This blog should be about Donald Trump. What the hell has he done to try to bring about change in the world and he's rich as hell. "The child slave trade in impoverished countries is trickle-down from the big boys. But Oprah won't go there." Not true Wes! I thought you said you watched the show? :) It may not have been the name brand sweatshop run by GAP but it was child slavery nonetheless. There is a child slave trade in Ghana that I'm pretty sure you're aware of. Children, some as young as 4, are sold to fishermen who put them to work on their fishing boats. These children are woken up before it is even light out and are forced to begin fishing. The children normally only get one meal a day yet they are out fishing for 14 hours. If they are too tired to work, they are beaten by their masters until they realize that working would be better than being beaten. The conditions they work under are despicable and the fact that any child is even having to perform work like this is appalling but that's the beast that is the child slave trade and I know it makes us all sick. Well Oprah did a show about it and I happened to watch it that day. There is an organization that attempts to rescue these children and Oprah had a crew tag along with them to show the living conditions and the rescue of several of these children. I know to you this is probably just another "show idea" for Oprah but I don't see it that way. There are people who saw the show that day that had no idea that something like that was going on. I'm guessing you will say that people like that are naive and should pay more attention but the fact is that the people who saw that show who actually have the financial means are now attempting to make a difference by donating money to the International Organization for Migration which fights child trafficking in Ghana. I know it's only a few lives here and there that are being changed but who knows how many kids have now been rescued thanks to the people who saw that show and were able to put an actual face with the issue. I know that one episode of Oprah didn't chop down the tree you spoke of but I bet more leaves got plucked after that show than before it! The fact of the matter is that child slavery goes deeper than that and I know we both are aware of that. Rescuing these kids isn't going to stop it because there is another family ready to sell their child off. The governments of these countries as well as the economical situation that these people live in is the main factor. These people need to stop reproducing to the point where they can't feed their entire family so they wind up selling some of their children to be able to pay for the rest. Sadly it's a cycle that has no forseeable end in sight but if putting a face on this monster can at least help in saving some of these children I say more power to you Oprah! Posted by LET'S GO NOLES! on March 29, 2007 - Thursday at 2:49 AM [Remove] [Reply to this] ________________________________

	Wes & Claire	OK, I take away the Oprah does "more harm than good". That is a little harsh. It is 50/50. Posted by Wes & Claire on March 29, 2007 - Thursday at 12:03 AM [Remove] [Reply to this] ______________________________

	LET'S GO NOLES!	Yah that statement that "Oprah does more harm than good" is preposterous, not 50/50. Posted by LET'S GO NOLES! on March 29, 2007 - Thursday at 2:51 AM [Remove] [Reply to this]

	emily rocks	______________________________ The rich want to keep it that way. I don't see the point in having that much money. Seriously, it's going to sit there and earn interest and earn more money and never get spent. It'll be passed on to kids (not Oprah, I guess...who knows where she will leave her money) and still not get completely spent unless a drug addiction ensues. There are so many poor people, and yet this money is sitting there but is completely out of reach. This is off topic, but it really irritates me that rich people get free shit all the time. WTF? Free meals, special treatment, stores close early so they can have private shopping time...Honestly, I wouldn't accept it. That's so rude to close a store so that some rich bastard can shop. Anyway, it comes down to the simple fact that people are greedy. Money = fame = being listened to. The more money you have, the more influence. Why don't these people influence some good? If you have the capabilities to help, why not do it? Even those that can't afford it still try to make some kind of donation to help. I commend Bill Gates for his generous donations. I don't fault him for keeping less than half of his money, although it would be kind of him to give more. So many of these actors talk politics all the time and they don't do shit either. GAH! This could go on forever. But don't be so cynical about bringing a child into the world. Sometimes, it does seem almost cruel to know what a child will grow up to see or even possibly become. But this child could be the one that changes it all, and maybe one day people will wake up and the world will change. Ok, fine, maybe not. Posted by emily rocks on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 12:56 PM [Remove] [Reply to this]

	Wes & Claire	__________________________________ I agree. The rich will definitely keep it that way. The money has been flowing to serve that purpose for hundreds of years. It is filthy! With money invested in simple interest accounts, that much money will basically never disappear. Of course, like you said, pending an explosion of the Scarface lifestyle. But the ones that hold all the cards will never hit the bottom. If you have enough money that it will never run out for 10 generations or more, maybe it is time to dump some. Posted by Wes & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 11:45 PM [Remove] [Reply to this]

	Julie & Claire	____________________________________ I agree with all this. The wealthy should not be treated one bit differently. Why do they need free ice cream coupons from Marble Slab, for example? I guess they might make an appearance! Isn't that lovely??? Why don't businesses offer free food to the homeless? I DON"T mean the 3 day old bread that nobody else bought.... I mean the fresh, new food that is offered to paying customers. Wouldn't that be something? If you went to Panera and saw a few tables with the homeless enjoying a meal. But, then you would probably not want to go back. At least not when the homeless are there anyhow. Posted by Julie & Claire on March 28, 2007 - Wednesday at 2:50 PM [Remove] [Reply to this]

	JJ	_________________________________________ Hey, wait a minure...Aren't we the rich? If we have a roof over our head, electricity to run the A/C, running water to flush down our hydronated feces, a different name-brand shirt to wear every day, an over-priced earth-raping automobile, and high fructose corn syrup running through our blood...........then we are indeed the rich. At least more wealthy that 90% of the people on this planet. Does that count? Posted by JJ on March 29, 2007 - Thursday at 7:45 AM [Remove] [Reply to this]

Julie & Claire

Yes! I think you summed it up! We're richer than we realize. I really am trying to not have so much high fructose corn syrup in my blood! Step by step! Posted by Julie & Claire on March 29, 2007 - Thursday at 1:16 PM [Remove] [Reply to this]

The Pet Food Manufacturer

I while ago I mentioned writing a blog about how most of your household brands come from the same handful of companies. A good example of it is all over the news right now. That being the massive pet food recall. Menu Foods makes wet pet food for 98 different brands (and brand varieties). Yes, 98 brands. These "competing" brands, with their familiar packaging and recognizable logos, all come from the same garbage factory. This includes Iams, Eukanuba, Nutro, Science Diet, Breeder's Choice (Is it really?), Ol' Roy (Wal-Mart), and a bunch of other store brands. It is a shame the general public doesn't know about this corporate pyramid. Try to buy food, human food and pet food, that is not included in this mass manufacturing of your diet. It could save your life!

Speaking of Iams, I just discovered that they (along with all the other big pet food brands) do some pretty terrible testing on animals. Here is a look inside their lab, starting off with the slicing away of doggie muscle tissue. (from IamsCruelty.com)



Scene 1: The Iams dogs in this scene have just had large chunks of muscle cut from their thighs and have been placed on the laboratory floor to recover from the effects of the anesthetics. Some of the dogs are unconscious, while others are awake and trying to right themselves. The federal Animal Welfare Act requires that this type of surgery be conducted in "aseptic" conditions.

Scene 2: This scene provides a closeup of the Iams dogs and their wound sites.

Scene 3: A bloodied beagle is strapped down to an x-ray machine so that her muscle, fat, and bone density can be recorded.

Scene 4: One of the laboratory's employees tells our investigator to hit the dogs on the chest if they stop breathing.

Scene 5: The Iams dog on the x-ray machine is placed back in the pile of dogs on the floor.

Scene 6: Anesthetics are administered to an Iams dog left unattended on the laboratory floor.

Scene 7: Iams dogs, some awake and some unconscious, lie on the paint-chipped laboratory floor.

Scene 8: A laboratory worker holding a dead Iams dog in a black plastic bag tells our investigator that the dog "bled out its mouth." The dog, who was found dead in his cage, was subjected to a muscle biopsy earlier in the week.

Scene 9: Iams dog Mae-Mae exhibits stereotypical behavior (i.e., pacing and circling) associated with life in a cage.

Wrong Wrong Wrong

It didn't surprise me when I learned my favorite company, Halliburton, is moving it's CEO and corporate headquarters to Dubai, U.A.E.. It shouldn't surprise anyone with Support The Troops or W stickers, either. (By the way, quit being stubborn and take those W stickers down!) The U.S.-based company that has gotten the biggest no-bid U.S. contracts in the Iraq war has decided they want to look "less American" in their quest for oil. The same company that receives filthy amounts of money from U.S. taxpayers, to support the U.S. troops, is selling out. It doesn't really change things, they have been bending us over for years.

In this humble bloggers opinion, they Iraq war was just a business plan from the beginning. Some make that stance out to be a Michael-Moore-ist cliche. To that I say...If I take a dump in your hand, you better not try and convince me I didn't just take a dump in your hand. It's right there! In your hand! Please don't ignore it and proceed to eat a meal with your family while talking 'reality TV'.
Anyways, Iraq is a successful experiment in sending young Americans around in circles, in Hummers, waiting to die. All so the shareholders of Halliburton can reap the benefits. The terrorists will follow us home! We must keep the young ones over there, to die, as a buffer, so we can eat at T.G.I. Friday's safely!

They can give all the lip service they want about how they will continue to pay taxes and keep their Houston offices open. Anyone with common sense knows where this is headed. The executives have avoided income tax for years with offshore addresses, so why not take the company toward the next level? They are not an American company. There is no such thing as an American company. The only American company is the American government. Every American corporation pledges to the bottom line, not a flag.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dubai.html