Murder is an odd thing. If you kill someone ... rather, if you take the life of a person who willingly offers their life to you, is it still murder, given the legal definition being the unlawful killing of a human being with malice either express or implied. Manslaughter is unjustified and inexcusable and intentional WITHOUT deliberation.
What if you picked up a paper, and found someone in the Wanted Ads who had an ad asking to be killed.
It is certainly premeditated - you read the paper, you called the number, you met the person, and (assuming) agreed to accept their offer - premeditated. That rules out manslaughter - most especially given that no defense is involved. Your intended does not intend to defend nor attack.
If not murder and manslaughter, how far down the list of crimes do we go to find something we can convict the guy of?
What if Bob picks up the paper and looks through the ads under cannibals and finds an ad he may be interested in. Tom put an ad in the paper in the cannibal section - Tom wanted to be eaten, and he was looking for anyone interested in following through and eating him.
Is it murder if Bob meets Tom, Tom and Bob get along and both agree to the deal, Tom informs Bob he must hit him (Tom) with a hammer on the side of the head and quickly follow through to ensure that the meat is tasty and not ... is it manslaughter? Maybe we get the guy on cannibalism. For how long? And then he is out again looking for another meal. What if he claims in defense that it is his dietary choice to eat people and if they want him to eat them, whats the problem.
Well, in Germany they have to deal with this (or rather, had to 7 or so years ago). Who knows, he may be out, looking for another meal!!
17 July, 2003
BBC
German 'cannibal' charged with murder
The crime was allegedly carried out with the victim's consent
A German man who confessed to killing and eating a man he met through a website for cannibals has been charged with murder, prosecutors have said.
The 41-year-old suspect, identified as Armin M, is alleged to have killed the 43-year-old victim in March 2001 in the town of Rotenburg in central Germany, after meeting him through the site.
He then carved up and froze portions of the man's flesh, later eating some of it, prosecutors allege.
The crime was apparently carried out with the victim's full consent, however state prosecutor Hans-Manfred Jung told French news agency AFP that the victim's supposed "death wish" did not change the fact that the killer had wanted to commit murder.
The suspect's arrest in December last year caused a sensation in Germany, as the country's tabloids competed to report the most grisly details of the case.
'Sexual enjoyment'
The suspect and victim met in early 2001, after Armin M is said to have posted a personal ad on several websites and in chatrooms asking for "young, well-built men aged 18 to 30 to slaughter", the German daily newspaper Bild reported at the time of his arrest.
The victim was a 43-year-old Berlin computer technician who had sold his car, written a will and taken the day off work to sort out what he called a "personal" matter.
He then went to Armin M's home, where the pair reportedly agreed to cut off his penis.
The victim was then allegedly stabbed to death - still apparently with his approval - and cut into pieces.
The whole incident was filmed on videotape, and prosecutors say that the whole crime was committed for the purpose of sexual enjoyment.
Authorities were tipped off by internet surfers who found the requests on various sites.
Mr Jung said there was no evidence that Armin M had been involved in further cases, however several people with whom he had been in contact on the internet are still under investigation.
A date for the trial has yet to be set.
germany
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, February 4, 2010
If you are ever in Toronto
Restaurant promotes sex in its bathrooms
February 03, 2010
thestar.ca
Rene Johnston
Toronto Star
Mildred's Temple Kitchen is inviting customers to have sex in its bathrooms.
The Valentine's weekend promotion takes uncomfortable but electrifying sex from the close confines of an airplane and transfers it to the unisex stalls of the Hanna Ave. restaurant.
The Liberty Village restaurant proposes its modern bathrooms become one of the "101 places to have sex before you die."
Mildred's has always elicited a certain response. One customer, who didn't want to be named, remembers going to a wedding at the eatery's old location and seeing a copy of the Kama Sutra in the bathroom.
"They invite it," said the customer.
This time, the invitation is explicit. On its website, Mildred's asks: "Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom?
"Check out Mildred's Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture."
Actually, the picture is clouded by practicalities. Is the restaurant supplying condoms? What about the health risks of body fluids? And who's cleaning up?
"We've always had little trysts in our bathrooms," says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. "We're taking it to the next level on Valentine's weekend."
The restaurant's four bathrooms light up outside when occupied. Staff have learned to watch the light flicker twice when two customers enter the same bathroom, usually a few minutes apart.
Toronto Public Health says as long as there's no sex in the kitchen and the restaurant keeps its washrooms clean and sanitized, it's not fussed. "As far as bodily fluids, it's pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there," says Jim Chan, manager of the food safety program.
Dooher says customers must bring their own condoms but she's hiring a maid to tidy the washrooms that weekend. "She'll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies."
At least diners aren't encouraged to use furry handcuffs, part of a $55 "naughty love hamper," while at Mildred's. "Best to savour and enjoy (those) long after you leave the restaurant," the restaurant says.
sex
February 03, 2010
thestar.ca
Rene Johnston
Toronto Star
Mildred's Temple Kitchen is inviting customers to have sex in its bathrooms.
The Valentine's weekend promotion takes uncomfortable but electrifying sex from the close confines of an airplane and transfers it to the unisex stalls of the Hanna Ave. restaurant.
The Liberty Village restaurant proposes its modern bathrooms become one of the "101 places to have sex before you die."
Mildred's has always elicited a certain response. One customer, who didn't want to be named, remembers going to a wedding at the eatery's old location and seeing a copy of the Kama Sutra in the bathroom.
"They invite it," said the customer.
This time, the invitation is explicit. On its website, Mildred's asks: "Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom?
"Check out Mildred's Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture."
Actually, the picture is clouded by practicalities. Is the restaurant supplying condoms? What about the health risks of body fluids? And who's cleaning up?
"We've always had little trysts in our bathrooms," says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. "We're taking it to the next level on Valentine's weekend."
The restaurant's four bathrooms light up outside when occupied. Staff have learned to watch the light flicker twice when two customers enter the same bathroom, usually a few minutes apart.
Toronto Public Health says as long as there's no sex in the kitchen and the restaurant keeps its washrooms clean and sanitized, it's not fussed. "As far as bodily fluids, it's pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there," says Jim Chan, manager of the food safety program.
Dooher says customers must bring their own condoms but she's hiring a maid to tidy the washrooms that weekend. "She'll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies."
At least diners aren't encouraged to use furry handcuffs, part of a $55 "naughty love hamper," while at Mildred's. "Best to savour and enjoy (those) long after you leave the restaurant," the restaurant says.
sex
Friday, November 20, 2009
Movies and Popcorn, or maybe just movies ...
... and no popcorn.
Cinema popcorn is nutritional horror show: study
November 20, 2009
Agence France Presse
Sydney Morning Herald
Forget Freddy Krueger or flesh-eating zombies: the real villain of a night at the movies could be lurking in a bag of popcorn or drinks carton, according to a new US study.
Nutritional analysis of popcorn servings at some of America's biggest cinema chains has found mind-boggling calorie counts that may surprise consumers who think of the snack as a relatively healthy treat.
However the non-profit Centre for Science in the Public Interest compared some popcorn and drinks combos to consuming three McDonald's quarter-pounders topped with 12 pats of butter.
The CSPI said in a statement that a medium popcorn and softdrink combo at Regal, the United States' biggest movie theatre chain, contained an eye-popping 1610 calories and about 60 grams of saturated fat.
At AMC theatres, the second largest theatre chain, a large popcorn contained 1030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat, CSPI said.
"Who expects about 1500 calories and three days' worth of heart-stopping fat in a popcorn and soda combo? That's the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter," CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley said in a statement.
"You might think you're getting Bambi, but you're really getting Godzilla."
The study said the high calorie counts could be attributed to the fact that corn was popped in coconut oil.
Popcorn cooked in healthier canola oil showed lower levels of saturated fats but similar levels of calories and higher sodium, the study found.
movies
Cinema popcorn is nutritional horror show: study
November 20, 2009
Agence France Presse
Sydney Morning Herald
Forget Freddy Krueger or flesh-eating zombies: the real villain of a night at the movies could be lurking in a bag of popcorn or drinks carton, according to a new US study.
Nutritional analysis of popcorn servings at some of America's biggest cinema chains has found mind-boggling calorie counts that may surprise consumers who think of the snack as a relatively healthy treat.
However the non-profit Centre for Science in the Public Interest compared some popcorn and drinks combos to consuming three McDonald's quarter-pounders topped with 12 pats of butter.
The CSPI said in a statement that a medium popcorn and softdrink combo at Regal, the United States' biggest movie theatre chain, contained an eye-popping 1610 calories and about 60 grams of saturated fat.
At AMC theatres, the second largest theatre chain, a large popcorn contained 1030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat, CSPI said.
"Who expects about 1500 calories and three days' worth of heart-stopping fat in a popcorn and soda combo? That's the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter," CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley said in a statement.
"You might think you're getting Bambi, but you're really getting Godzilla."
The study said the high calorie counts could be attributed to the fact that corn was popped in coconut oil.
Popcorn cooked in healthier canola oil showed lower levels of saturated fats but similar levels of calories and higher sodium, the study found.
movies
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
More Healthcare - Charge the Fat People
Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare
July 27, 2009
LA Times
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.
Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods.
But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.
Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.
And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.
That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
fat
July 27, 2009
LA Times
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.
Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods.
But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.
Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.
And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.
That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
fat
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Food Prices Going UP
USDA: Food prices to post biggest rise this year since 1990
August 20, 2008
By Christopher Doering, Reuters
WASHINGTON — Consumers should brace for the biggest increase in food prices in nearly 20 years in 2008 and even more pain next year due to surging meat and produce prices, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday.
Food prices are forecast to rise by 5% to 6% this year, making it the largest annual increase since 1990. Just last month, USDA forecast food prices would climb between 4.5% and 5.5% in 2008.
"It's a little bit of a surprise how strong some of the numbers were in July," USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, who prepared the forecast, said in an interview.
"We've been waiting for some moderation, but especially with some of the meat prices and how much has come through relatively recently (at the retail level) leads me to believe the overall number may be a little bit higher for the year," he added.
Leibtag said he expected food prices to moderate, but the timing depends on what happens to volatile energy and food ingredient costs.
Prices are expected to rise by 4% to 5% in 2009, lead by red meat and poultry. The forecast, if correct, would be the third straight year where food prices have surged at least 4%.
In its latest food prices report, USDA said the increase for 2008 was due partly to higher costs for meat, poultry and fish, which make up about 12% of total food spending. Overall, costs for these items are forecast to rise 3% compared to 2.5% estimated last month.
Prices for fruits and vegetables, which account for more than 8% of food spending, will also rise 5.5% versus 5% predicted in July.
USDA also forecast increases this year of 9.5% for cereals and bakery products, a 14% surge for eggs and a 13.5% hike for fats and oils.
A broad range of commodities posted record highs this year, including corn and soybeans. Prices have since backed off as concerns over smaller crops due to a wet spring in the U.S. Midwest have largely dissipated.
In its first estimate of the fall harvest, USDA last week forecast a corn crop of 12.29 billion bushels, the second largest on record.
Despite the near-record crops, farm-gate prices for this year's corn, wheat and soybean crops, while lower than earlier forecasts, will still set records.
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said last week he did not see any relief for food prices during the remainder of the year.
The cost of energy — used to transport, package and process foods — is still boosting food prices, even though energy prices have dropped. Oil has slumped from a record high above $147 a barrel on July 11 to $115.
"We haven't seen those prices reflected in the finished products yet," Schafer said.
Americans spend more than $1 trillion a year on groceries, snacks, carry-out food and meals in restaurants. Farmers get 20 cents of the food dollar and the rest goes to processing, labor, transportation and distribution.
Food Pric es
August 20, 2008
By Christopher Doering, Reuters
WASHINGTON — Consumers should brace for the biggest increase in food prices in nearly 20 years in 2008 and even more pain next year due to surging meat and produce prices, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday.
Food prices are forecast to rise by 5% to 6% this year, making it the largest annual increase since 1990. Just last month, USDA forecast food prices would climb between 4.5% and 5.5% in 2008.
"It's a little bit of a surprise how strong some of the numbers were in July," USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, who prepared the forecast, said in an interview.
"We've been waiting for some moderation, but especially with some of the meat prices and how much has come through relatively recently (at the retail level) leads me to believe the overall number may be a little bit higher for the year," he added.
Leibtag said he expected food prices to moderate, but the timing depends on what happens to volatile energy and food ingredient costs.
Prices are expected to rise by 4% to 5% in 2009, lead by red meat and poultry. The forecast, if correct, would be the third straight year where food prices have surged at least 4%.
In its latest food prices report, USDA said the increase for 2008 was due partly to higher costs for meat, poultry and fish, which make up about 12% of total food spending. Overall, costs for these items are forecast to rise 3% compared to 2.5% estimated last month.
Prices for fruits and vegetables, which account for more than 8% of food spending, will also rise 5.5% versus 5% predicted in July.
USDA also forecast increases this year of 9.5% for cereals and bakery products, a 14% surge for eggs and a 13.5% hike for fats and oils.
A broad range of commodities posted record highs this year, including corn and soybeans. Prices have since backed off as concerns over smaller crops due to a wet spring in the U.S. Midwest have largely dissipated.
In its first estimate of the fall harvest, USDA last week forecast a corn crop of 12.29 billion bushels, the second largest on record.
Despite the near-record crops, farm-gate prices for this year's corn, wheat and soybean crops, while lower than earlier forecasts, will still set records.
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said last week he did not see any relief for food prices during the remainder of the year.
The cost of energy — used to transport, package and process foods — is still boosting food prices, even though energy prices have dropped. Oil has slumped from a record high above $147 a barrel on July 11 to $115.
"We haven't seen those prices reflected in the finished products yet," Schafer said.
Americans spend more than $1 trillion a year on groceries, snacks, carry-out food and meals in restaurants. Farmers get 20 cents of the food dollar and the rest goes to processing, labor, transportation and distribution.
Food Pric es
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Could it be? Food prices??
Why Your Food is Costing More Money.
Could it be, as the article suggests, that it is not just the price of gasoline but ... something more eco-friendly???
I don't know, you decide.
MSNBC.com, March 14, 2008. Why Your Food is Costing More Money.
UPDATE: April 3, 2008. Corn prices rise and spike. Chicago Tribune.com. All I can think is, how many poor, hungry people will be starving because someone thinks ethanol is a great idea. And when the poor and hungry have been given a vent for their rage and told all their problems are because of the Norte Americanons ... what then do we do? Apologize.
UPDATE: April 4, 2008. Now the concern over social unrest as rice prices jump
(whats the connection? Which would you grow, corn or rice. Ethanol or food)
Could it be, as the article suggests, that it is not just the price of gasoline but ... something more eco-friendly???
I don't know, you decide.
MSNBC.com, March 14, 2008. Why Your Food is Costing More Money.
UPDATE: April 3, 2008. Corn prices rise and spike. Chicago Tribune.com. All I can think is, how many poor, hungry people will be starving because someone thinks ethanol is a great idea. And when the poor and hungry have been given a vent for their rage and told all their problems are because of the Norte Americanons ... what then do we do? Apologize.
UPDATE: April 4, 2008. Now the concern over social unrest as rice prices jump
(whats the connection? Which would you grow, corn or rice. Ethanol or food)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Scientific American - Sept 2007
Great articles on or about food.
Page 88 - The World is FAT. Most people in the developing world are now overweight than hungry.
That farmers produce enough food for every person on earth to eat enough BUT for political conflict, natural disasters, and rural poverty. We cannot fix the disasters that may befall us, but we can take action when political conflicts occur. rather than sitting on our butts and explaining how we cannot bring them democracy and its none of our business and it costs too much, we should instead understand it as a matter of international importance that we do intervene to bring stability to save people from starvation. It is a moral imperative. To not act is immoral.
In Brazil, 37% of adults are overweight or obese.
In Egypt, the number is 59%.
In Mexico, 70% are overweight or obese.
China - 28%.
Yet, 1/8 of the world's people do not have enough to eat - because of natural events (droughts) and political conflicts.
We must understand that failure to act will make us complicit in the deaths of the millions who will starve. It is not our right to sit by and watch because it does not affect us, because they are black, because they are not imminent threats. It is a moral imperative to use what resources we have to change the conditions even if it does mean military force. A million will starve or thousands may die.
Page 88 - The World is FAT. Most people in the developing world are now overweight than hungry.
That farmers produce enough food for every person on earth to eat enough BUT for political conflict, natural disasters, and rural poverty. We cannot fix the disasters that may befall us, but we can take action when political conflicts occur. rather than sitting on our butts and explaining how we cannot bring them democracy and its none of our business and it costs too much, we should instead understand it as a matter of international importance that we do intervene to bring stability to save people from starvation. It is a moral imperative. To not act is immoral.
In Brazil, 37% of adults are overweight or obese.
In Egypt, the number is 59%.
In Mexico, 70% are overweight or obese.
China - 28%.
Yet, 1/8 of the world's people do not have enough to eat - because of natural events (droughts) and political conflicts.
We must understand that failure to act will make us complicit in the deaths of the millions who will starve. It is not our right to sit by and watch because it does not affect us, because they are black, because they are not imminent threats. It is a moral imperative to use what resources we have to change the conditions even if it does mean military force. A million will starve or thousands may die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments