@John Fenderson - So it's a Catholic, not Protestant thing at root.
Not sure, actually. It might well be Celtic, all that stuff with horse sacrifices, horse burials etc. Offhand I can't remember if the Celts were in favour of or against eating it. I'd have to do more research to refresh things than I currently have time for (and than this thread would allow for). If the Celts (and possibly other pre-Christian populations like the Germanics and the Slavs) ate it ritually, then the prohibition-turned-taboo would indeed have been Catholic (IX-XIIth centuries) and particularly enforced in those "frontier" lands that centuries later, for completely unrelated economic reasons, were to turn Protestant. I wonder if there is a parallel with the Anglo-Saxon taboo on "toadstools" (some of which which were undoubtedly consumed in ritual contexts).
Personally, I have no problem with horse meat, but many people will not eat it, primarily in countries where Protestantism is a predominant cultural feature. Those people should be respected, as we usually respect people who for an infinite variety of reasons won't eat pork, rabbit, dog, cat, eggs, worms, frogs, or for that matter any meat whatsoever. As we should respect the Roma, who find disgusting the idea of having dogs or cats as pets. Marvin Harris, the great anthropologist, might have provided us with sensible, down-to-earth explanations for these taboos, but they should never make us deviate from a basic sense of respect for others.
However, the larger scandal ? one involving immense numbers of consumers, i.e. also a question of respect ? about this horse meat affair is that it escaped the obligatory controls, which should otherwise have rejected it as unfit for human consumption because it was tainted with substances used in the race horse industry (should be banned too, IMO). There is widespread corruption at work in the veterinary trade all over Europe, and probably elsewhere, insofar as individual veterinarians are expected to control their own customers: to put it mildly, they can only be reluctant to report them.
Few are those that mention the economic backdrop, that is the increasing costs connected with the disposal of refuse???race horse carcasses, in other words.
Interestingly, even before the race horse industry turned up on the front line, the first shots in the blame game were fired at Romania (not the Roma, thank you), where horse-drawn carts in small farmer communities were a common sight until recently. A new law forbidding their presence on highways has been drafted of late, allegedly because they???not reckless driving, of course???were the cause of too many traffic accidents. This, in turn, should have led to an abundance of horse meat on the market. As if the Romanians weren't blamed for all sorts of bas stuff in Europe. I'm glad that this one didn't stick too long on the screen.
Last night, Beppe Grillo, the front figure of the Five-Star Movement that made a killer in the elections that were just held in Italy, has stubbornly remained locked in his house, trying to get a well-deserved rest while hords of journalists were feeling despicated outside his gate. To him, and to me, the vast majority of tv, radio and print are walking deads, slaves to a moribund system.
I agree, I don't believe one word of this story. Sorry, Mike, not one word. This from someone who has travelled exactly those roads dozens of times in her lifetime. Not even dementia, not even a ghost driver as we call them in Europe. Not that I don't believe that GPS can and will screw up anytime it gets a chance to do so???almost missed a flight once when my taxi, in order to avoid a jam, insisted on following its gizmo and was driving off in the direction opposite to the airport. Because I did happen to know the way, it's only a sizeable amount of yelling that saved my day.
> some vital piece of infrastructure getting blown up
Considering that big battles have been taking place around Damascus airport, which have led to its closure and incoming flights being rerouted, it wouldn't be surprising. And considering the innumerable acts of terror and atrocities committed by the fanatics financed by the US, France, Britain, Turkey and the GCC, it wouldn't be surprising if they had managed to close down the net. As they have done with satellite comm when they destroyed Libya, or as they're doing right now under our eyes with Iran. Why is it that some people automatically believe it's the government that done it?
and tell me its' not a commercial ad? OK, it's been "tagged" at such, but that's two and a half years ago and nothing has been done about it. Yet, someone could just have translated the Danish version, which is not a commercial ad.
This said, years of experience with Wikipedia, including a brief spree as an editor, have taught me that the English and the Spanish localizations are rather untrustworthy, and the French one even more so. To some degree this is also the case of Swedish Wikipedia, whereas the German and the Italian ones are quite reliable. Other localizations I'm familiar with, like those in Portuguese or, worse still, in Danish, are almost irrelevant.
In total agreement with what's written above: "Sorry, I used to listen to podcasts but over the years I've learned that listening to podcasts takes too long and it's faster to read the information I want." With the addition that while I'm reading I can listen to music.
Funny too that the same people in 1913 were complaining that all the international news that meant anything were in the hands of a small handfull of press agencies with a specific war-monging agenda, and that newspapers had turned to wasting space on such disgusting items as sports and war reports.
Funny, down to the very wording it's the same things as expressed here among the comments, about how worthless the mainstream press and journalism have become of late etc., that I'm finding in a book I'm currently reading: the minutes of the First Pacifist Congress held in Brussels in... 1913 and attended by politicians, lawyers, academics and even the Nobel Peace price recipient for that year (that was way before the Prize became controversial).
Where have we been the past 99 years?
If I may suggest another way of looking at it... An increasing number of common people all over the world, thanks to how samesaid world has been managed for the past decade or so, are becoming imbued with a spirit of independence (let's call it the Occupy spirit in Anglo-Saxon countries). That spirit extends to how they react, or rather don't react to ads and advertising in general???regardless of the fact that in the times we're living in, there's other stuff on their minds as well as little content in their wallets.
Let's put it this way: a good number of people are getting smarter.
So as a result there's maybe one reality that's finally dawning on the companies advertising for their products (as it did on me when ages ago I cancelled my small company's ads in the Yellow Pages and went all-out on the net): advertising profits primarily the agencies and other intermediaries, not the producer or the seller. Accordingly, if they have any economic sense at all, they'd be pulling the plug.
Mike, as much as I like you and your endeavour... there's much, much more to what's going on in Syria than meets the eye???as has been the case in Lybia or about anywhere the would-be masters of the world are pushing their dirty agendas. For starters, a few days ago:
No surprise. Early last year, Avaaz petitioned for a "no-flight zone" over Lybia, meaning that NATO could tranquilly fly over and bomb the population to smithens. Ask the Lybians how they feel these days, in the wake of Avaaz's good intentions. Then Avaaz petitioned to support the so-called opposition in Syria, meaning the West-sponsored murderers bent on assaulting the regime (on the way to Iran and Russia while they're at it). Avaaz is another tool of Atlanticist hegemony???and, sadly, Amnesty has become one too.
Good comments, really (curious how the level varies from one post to another.)
Now, far away from me the thought of propagating any kind of disinformation, but: a relatively reliable French site dedicated to conveying information and comments you don't find everywhere in the French-speaking world stated yesterday (without citing its sources!) that Qatar might have paid 10 million British pounds to Wikileaks for the publication of those Syrian documents???within the next two months (?)
Personally, I don't believe it, but then I've learned by now that it's not because I don't believe in something that it can't turn out to be true.