Archive for July 2nd, 2009
Foie Gras: Eating Diseased Giblets
Foie Gras (fatty duck/goose liver) is a much “prized” delicacy. And terribly expensive to boot. Food writers try to outdo each other extolling the virtues of the dish. Indeed, a “gourmet” restaurant is not worth its self-proclaimed status if it does not boast foie gras on its menu.
The story is not much different in Mumbai. One self-proclaimed “foodie” Prashant Rajkhowa ( http://healthylivingindia.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunday-cookout-at-cafe-prato.html) reviewing Cafe Prato in the Four Seasons hotel in Mumbai in his blog 'Healthy Living In India' (ha, haa!) where he ate (probably for free) actually writes: “The Foie Gras was excellent and if I was ever reborn a goose, that's the way I want to go.” This guy is certainly asking for it, so I must grant him his last wish.
Okay mate, here's what we'll do: We will start with shoving a pipe down your throat several times a day and pump you so full of food that your liver becomes diseased and balloons up. If you’re not already dead by the time we’re through with you, we’ll cut you up, extract your bloated liver (throwing the rest of you away as feed) and serve you up to your earlier avatar in a “fine dining” restaurant. (Waiting for the next review, Prashant).
Anyway, back to foie gras. A European Union’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health study shows that duck/geese death rates during force feeding skyrocket by 10 to 20 times – imagine any process that causes a population’s death rate to be 1000 to 2000 percent greater than normal. Of course, every animal is in misery for the entire horrid ordeal.
According to scientific studies, the birds who don’t die suffer from impaired liver function, skeletal disorders, and other serious illnesses. Many become so sick they can barely move. Carcasses show wing fractures and severe tissue damage to the throat muscles.
Dr Ian Duncan, a consultant to the Canadian government and poultry industry who literally wrote the poultry regulations in Canada, explains that “force feeding quickly results in birds that are obese and in a pathological state, called hepatic lipidosis or fatty liver disease. There is no doubt, that in this pathological state, the birds will feel very ill.”
Dr Duncan further explains that the regular insertion of a feeding tube damages the birds’ oesophagi, which exacerbates the painfulness of each force feeding, and that “the birds’ obesity will lead to myriad other problems from skeletal disorders to difficulties in coping with heat stress, and all of which are accompanied by feelings of malaise.”
Dr Christine Nicol, a consultant to the British poultry industry and government, and a professor at the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol, says, “My view on the production of foie gras is clear and supported by biological evidence. This practice causes unacceptable suffering….It causes pain during and as a consequence of the force feeding, feelings of malaise as the body struggles to cope with extreme nutrient imbalance, and distress due to the forceful handling. The most extreme distress is caused by loss of control of the birds’ most basic homeostatic regulation [survival] mechanism as their hunger control system is over-ridden.”
In other words: All the birds are sick, vast numbers to the point of death. And it’s these scientific facts that explain why every reputable animal protection group in the world, including many that do not advocate vegetarianism, condemns foie gras as cruel.
No one who professes to care about animal welfare can defend forcing pipes down birds’ throats two or three times a day and pumping up to 2 kg of grain and fat into their stomachs until their livers enlarge to ten times their natural size (livers expand from about 70 grams to about 700 grams).
Biological facts – which have been completely lacking from a few recent articles defending the industry – show beyond any doubt that foie gras production is cruel. Kind people are duty bound to oppose it.
Roger And Out
The Significance Of Washington’s Coup Attempt In Honduras
The White House, however, would like you to believe that they “attempted to convince the Honduran military not to intervene.”
Rubbish.
When it comes to the Honduran military, the US government needn’t ask permission for anything. The decades long relationship between the two institutions is one of dependence — Honduras’ military has long been financed and trained by the US. The New York Times explains:
“The two nations have long had a close military relationship, with an American military task force stationed at a Honduran air base about 50 miles northwest of Tegucigalpa. The unit focuses on training Honduran military forces, counternarcotics operations, search and rescue, and disaster relief missions throughout Central America.” (June 28, 2009)
And from Latin American expert Eva Gollinger:
“The US Military Group in Honduras trains around 300 Honduran soldiers every year, provides more than $500,000 annually to the Honduran Armed Forces and additionally provides $1.4 million for a military education and exchange program for around 300 more Honduran soldiers every year.”
This year US aid to Honduras was $43 million.
It is utterly unimaginable that the Honduran military would act against the wishes of the hemisphere’s military and economic superpower.
In fact, the chief military leader of the Honduran coup — Joint Chief of Staff Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez — lived and was trained at the notorious School of Americas (SOA), a US military base that trains Latin American military officers to act in the best interests of United State’s corporations. It is no coincidence that another coup leader — Air Force head Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo — is also an SOA graduate.
When Honduran President Manuel Zelaya realized that Vasquez was acting against him, he was fired — the rest of the military chiefs resigned in protest; and the coup was on.
The highly conservative Honduran Supreme Court then gave the military the “legal” cover it needed to pursue the coup, a fact the US media uses to justify the events.
The reason for the coup lies in President Zelaya’s recent foreign policy shift — away from the United States towards Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. This turn was the result of the United States largely ignoring Honduras, after a long lasting, villainous relationship had ended: the US had, for years, funneled large amounts of cash and arms to the Honduran government to kill the regions political leftists, the high point being the regions turbulent 1980’s.
After Zelaya was elected in 2006 (he still has one year left in his term), he promised to shift Honduras’ politics toward helping the poorer layers. He realized that he could not achieve any of his promises with the scant amount of aide from the US and looked instead to the Latin American trade association, ALBA. Zelaya explained:
“I have been looking for projects from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, Europe and I have received very moderate offers … that forces us to find other forms of financing like ALBA.” ( Rueters, April 26,2008 )
The US government did not like this move, since it prefers US banks to dominate the economies of Latin American countries. The New York Times confirms:
“…[Washington’s] relations with Mr Zelaya…had recently turned colder because of the inclusion of Honduras in the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, or ALBA, a leftist political alliance led by Venezuela.” (June 28, 2009)
Nearly all of the US media’s writing about the Honduran coup is littered with negative references to Hugo Chavez, the “socialist project,” and other buzzwords meant to influence the reader toward acceptance of the coup.
For example:
“…[Zelaya] has the support of labor unions and the poor. But the middle class and the wealthy business community fear he wants to introduce Mr. Chávez’s brand of socialist populism into the country, one of Latin America’s poorest.” (New York Times, June 28, 2009)
Obama himself does nothing to condemn the coup. Yes, he is “deeply concerned” about the events in Honduras, but his vague comments about “dialogue” and respecting “legal procedures” is full of loopholes — big enough for a coup to squeeze through.
If Obama immediately refused to recognize the newly installed coup government in Honduras, while threatening to withdraw US military and financial aide — along with the U.S. ambassador — the coup would dissolve in seconds. Strong actions like these, however, were completely absent.
Eva Gollinger comments:
“I think a clear coup d’etat against a democratic government that also happens to be a major dependent on US economic and political aid should provoke a more firm and concise statement by the US Government.”
Such a statement did come not only from the General Assembly of the United Nations, but from the formerly US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS). Both organizations are refusing to recognize the new coup government in Honduras and are demanding the return of Zelaya. This is a big blow to Washington, who in better times could rely on the OAS and UN to turn a blind eye to a US-sponsored coup, such as the one in Haiti in 2004.
Now, however, the OAS has largely broken from the U.S. stranglehold, emboldened by the independent path taken by numerous Latin American countries, though especially Venezuela.
And this is the broader motive for the coup. The U.S. banks and other corporations that once dominated Latin America are being quickly pushed aside, so that governments may use their country’s wealth for social services and real economic development — not foreign for-profit plunder.
The US coup attempt in Honduras is thus a sign of desperation. It was also a huge gamble. Obama had hoped that the UN and OAS would let this one slide. It was also hoped that the Honduran people would be intimidated by martial law and a communications blackout. Neither was the case.
Huge protests have defied the military-ordered curfew. Latin American countries have united in defiance of a tyrannical US policy. It is reported that these happenings are causing splits in the Honduran military, while also a general strike was being prepared by the nation’s trade unions.
In consequence, the coup is likely to crumble, and Obama’s first attempt to re-tame Latin America will have failed. The actions of the UN and OAS are striking examples of the shrinking international influence of the US, meaning that future interventions — both military and economic — are likely to be more direct to restore US hegemony. Obama’s more-subtle attempts to uphold US “influence” in the world will ultimately require blunter, Bush-like tactics.
If the Honduran coup fails, Obama will eloquently discuss how pleased he is that “democracy was restored” — while refusing to admit that he tried to kill it.
Shamus Cooke/CounterCurrents.Org
Workers Uniting Condemns Hounduras Coup; CPI(M) Urges UN To Intervene
Workers Uniting, the world’s first global union representing 3.5 million workers in North America, the UK and Ireland, has just issued the following statement on the military coup in Honduras to oust popularly elected President Manuel Zelaya.
Workers Uniting stands in solidarity with our fellow unions in Honduras – including the Unitary Central of Honduran Workers (CUTH), the Confederation of Honduran Workers (CTH) and the General Workers Central (CGT) — as well as with the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA), in condemning the military coup that resulted in the illegal ousting of democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya. President Zelaya was working to free his country from decades of hunger and poverty until he was abruptly thwarted in these efforts by the Honduran military.
This military coup is an illegal attempt to use armed force to overturn the course of democracy and social progress chosen by the Honduran people at the polls, and we call upon the nations of the world, and especially the U.S., the UK, Canada and Ireland, to officially declare the seizure of power by the military in Honduras a “military coup” and to act accordingly. In the case of the U.S., this means withholding all military assistance unless and until President Zelaya is returned to power.
Meanwhile, the military and coup conspirators are trying, through violence and arrests, to suppress popular demonstrations by unions and other social groups; are illegally shutting down critical news outlets; are establishing a blanket military presence and setting illegal curfews. We condemn these acts as well, and call upon the Honduran military to respect the human rights of all, including those demonstrating for a peaceful return to civilian and constitutional rule.
We join the OAS and UN in condemning the military seizure of power in Honduras as a giant step backward for the Western Hemisphere, and an act which simply cannot be tolerated. We therefore call upon our respective governments to take all peaceful, diplomatic measures to ensure the immediate and unconditional return of President Zelaya to his rightful place as President of Honduras.
We further support the efforts of the OAS, UN and other Latin American leaders to accompany President Zelaya back to Honduras on Thursday, July 2, 2009, and call upon others to join them in this effort.
Meanwhile, the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has issued the following statement:
The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) strongly condemns the coup against the
elected President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya and the forcible removal
from his country. It expresses its solidarity with the people of Honduras.
It is reported that military forces are acting in collusion with vested interests who opposed the reforms of the country’s constitution to bring it in line with people’s aspirations, needs and fundamental right. The coup took place on the eve of the proposed national referendum on these issues.
The military has surrounded the houses of important ministers including the Foreign Minister Patricia Rados and other officials. Given the international condemnation of the naked attacks on democratic rights of the people of Honduras, steps should be taken to ensure that President Zelaya is allowed to return to his country and reinstated in his position as President.
The United Nations should intervene in the matter.
