Hey PETA: Can we at least eat Salmon?

It seems to me that Salmon is a meat that is ready made for the conscientious eater. The buggers are about to make a treacherous and arduous journey back to their birthplace in order to die. Sure, some might get laid right before they die, but most never even get laid. And it is hard to imagine that fish laying is really all it is cracked up to be.

Catching them a couple weeks before their reaquaintance with fresh water (which must be a painful experience...at least like giving birth) and smacking em hard on the head with a mallet seems like the kindest thing that we can do. Eating them after that is just reward for a job well done.

There may be environmental and sustainment issues with eating salmon, but at least ethically, aren't we off the hook? Can PETA support eating salmon?

Anybody else see this as an example

of the downfall of western civilization?

N.J. Eatery Writes 'Jew Couple' on Check...

It was a headline on Drudge.

Some waitress writes "jew couple" on a check, and now 40 million people know it. Even if it is offensive (is it offensive to be referred to as a 'jew couple' if you are jewish?) it is hardly worth the bandwidth of 40 million people to know about it.

It seems to me that at this point that there is no slight that we can wrongly but innocently pass upon another without risk of being "outed" nationally for a simple 2 second thoughtless act. Next time some one refers to me as the "fat guy over there," I am calling Drudge and outing them.

Is Iraq worth 2,000 GIs? 10,000?

How do you value any action but to put in in some sort of context? The only context I can think of to determine the amount of lives and dollars a particular action would be worth would be to compare it to the cost of other actions, and the benefit derived from it.

Korea, for example, cost 54,000 american lives, eventually resulted in a democratic and capitalist S. Korea, but has required an American presence for 50 years. On the other-hand, it also resulted in an isolated and dictatorial N. Korea with nuclear weapons, and a starving population. Was the loss of 54,000 american lives in three years, and a cost over 263 billion dollars in today's currency not including the 50 years of occupation worth it? (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/ warcost.htm) Do we include the loss of 150,000 chinese, 290,000 N. Koreans, and 220,000 S. Koreans as we do the math?

I would say that the existence of South Korea as a democracy today probably is not worth the cost we paid to make it happen. We have no vital interests there. As a showdown between the post WWII victors, it may have prevented further encroachments by showing we were willing to fight, but in retrospect, I am not sure it meets the cost benefit analysis. If south Korea was swallowed by N. Korea tomorrow, we could buy our DVD players from someone else.

Compared with Iraq, where we do have vital interest regionally, and where 70% of the world's oil reserves are contiguous in three countries, it would seem to me that the cost at Korean War levels would be acceptable.

Anybody think Korea was worth the cost, but Iraq is not?

The Failed Constitution

Le Monde Paris:

Several years after the attempt to free a population from tyranny, the formation of the central government continues to founder. A large portion of the population continues to support the former regime, while there is danger of fracturing the loose alliance of the various states. The founding document for the central government fails to provide any real power, and the "representatives" were selected by an uninformed population, many of whom are illiterate.

Additionally, minority and women's rights are not protected by the founding government.

The central government, designed as a confederation of states by its founding document, has little power. A small group of radicals are currently proposing ditching the confederation altogether, in direct contravention of the terms of the document. This purported coup would strip the several states of any real power, and centralize most power to a small group elected by only the males of the society, and only males from a single ethnic background.

This new Constitution is likely to prevent voting from women or minorities, as well as impose a system of perpetual servitude for certain minority groups. Some minority groups are likely to be "ethnically cleansed" from the country completely, or placed on reservations.

Observers are at a loss at how to stop this coup, and according to the French Ambassador, we are likely to see Civil War in the future.

The radical representatives are currently meeting in Philadelphia, and may by a simple vote end the Articles of Confederation in favor of this new Constitution.

January, 1787.