Features
6.18.18: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

sex saturated souk
when the sex industry is threatened, it finds protection.
by jeffrey d. walker
12.22.03
news


Warning: many links in the following column lead directly to sexually explicit material and are certainly NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!


I know that sex sells. But it never ceases to amaze me how many people unsuccessfully attempt to reverse this trend.

Here in the Big Apple, our former Mayor and political icon Rudy Giuliani made headlines when he implemented the 60/40 law, requiring 60% of every adult business be non-sexual in nature. This “big cleanup” was to effectively close down local adult bookstores and strip clubs.

But two years after Rudy’s out of office, the sex business doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Two new feature strip clubs have appeared in Manhattan since Giuliani’s departure, including one sponsored by Penthouse magazine. World famous New York Strip club Scores not only expanded their NY restaurant (conveniently connected to their strip bar) in order to conform to the law, but also opened a Chicago location earlier this year.

Earlier in 2003, Los Angeles attempted to implement the “6 foot rule,” where a 6-foot space was required between a stripper and her customer. That law was repealed within two months.

In 1985, the US spent about $79 million on hardcore sex video rentals. In 2001, that figure had ballooned to $759 million. Add that total to the revenues secured via sexually related videos and pictures purchased over the internet, and you’ll reach a number that rivals the annual gross revenues of Hollywood’s box office receipts – roughly $10 Billion a year. In fact, the U.S. leads the world in pornographic film production – about 211 films are produced in a week.

Since the year 2000, more money has been spent in U.S. strip clubs than was spent on Broadway, regional theater performances and orchestra performances combined.

Consider, too, how much sexually tantalizing material has filtered into the mainstream media these days. I can’t open any pop culture magazine without half-nude models hawking just about any product you can think of. Almost every dating reality show, and almost every series on the E! network feature naked women and men, covered by strategically placed digital editing blocks, ready to get it on.

I can barely do any legitimate research on the internet without coming up with something sexually related. While trying to help my friend ascertain what the banging sound in the engine of his van was, I ran across the Gang Bang Van. A search for ways to stop your dog from farting will surely lead you to the interracial sexual pleasures of Dog Fart. Is your daughter going to the University of Nebraska, and wants to find coed activities to engage in? Better hope you don’t find her on Nebraska Coeds.

Not that I'm complaining.

Earlier this year, the powers that be attempted to stop Darrel Russelburg’s foray into the sex industry. The barbeque restaurant owner (turned barbeque restaurant/strip club owner) was convicted of aiding and abetting public indecency. His business was shut down, and he was ordered by the Court on November 30th to perform 100 hours of community service.

His business ruined, Darrel opted to perform his community service at the local Salvation Army. There, he managed to turn the pointing finger of piety into a poke in the eye. And he brought his strippers.

Gathering his young ladies around the all too familiar Red Salvation Army Kettles used for Christmas fundraising, The Indiana Hoosier Gazette reports that Russelburg has managed to raise more money than anyone in the history of the campaign, despite being only a few days into the drive.

“You wouldn’t believe how fast guys will cough up a few bucks if a pretty young thing shows him what she’s got!” says Russelburg.

But this shouldn’t be surprising. Nudity for charity has become quite the enterprise.

In 2001, Tampa strippers used their “assets” to provide a local church with new toys for needy children. 2002 saw a strip club in Kentucky raise funds to buy their local firehouse a new fire truck.

In fact, people from all places and walks of life, male and female, are stripping for charity: Golfers are stripping for children’s hospice; Women from Maine, naked except for a few wool items, baring themselves for breast cancer; Nude men from Maple Corners stripped for the Vermont Dairy Counsel, (among other things); Folks from New Hampshire, Colorado and South Carolina are all shedding their clothes for charitable causes.

And outside the United States, don’t miss the
Boys of Harlston, the Women of Salt Spring, (including the former Ms. Phil Collins), or the Nude Canadian accordionist calendar.

I believe the nudity-for-charity trend will make the debate much harder for sex industry detractors. It’s one thing to picket an adult bookstore in your neighborhood; it’s quite another to picket an organization raising charitable donations. I also know its going to be hard because the Salvation Army has hired Russelburg as a consultant due to his great success. I can look forward to huge bosomed bell ringers for years to come!

I was not alive in the 1960’s when “free love” was all the rage. And while “free love” may never reign supreme again, nudity for worthwhile causes is a good start.


ABOUT JEFFREY D. WALKER

A practicing attorney and semi-professional musician, Walker writes for his own amusement, for the sake of opinion, to garner a couple of laughs, and to perhaps provoke a question or two, but otherwise, he doesn't think it'll amount to much.

more about jeffrey d. walker

IF YOU LIKED THIS COLUMN...

constructing the underdog, part v: gas and class
what we're paying for and what our presidential hopefuls say about it.
by jeffrey d. walker
topic: news
published: 5.21.08


constructing the underdog, part viii: having faith
it's all about your world view
by jeffrey d. walker
topic: news
published: 8.18.08





COMMENTS

david damsker
12.22.03 @ 8:33a

Sex is a primal urge, just like eating. The obsession with sex has always been, and will always be, a huge part of our society.

Isn't the biggest chunk of the internet being used for sex now?


jeffrey walker
12.22.03 @ 9:22a

Likely. I hope charity organizations follow the same trend.

sandra thompson
12.22.03 @ 9:42a

Sexual hypocrites abound. Fortunately so does sex. (Cue evil cackle here.)

tracey kelley
12.22.03 @ 12:16p

Don't forget that PETA has long used nudity to raise, um, attention to their cause. In Des Moines, during the annual National Pork Expo (oh, innuendos everywhere), PETA activists have posed half-naked while painted as tigers, "prowling" in a cage situatated in downtown's Nollen Plaza, or body-painted their breasts with lettuce leaves and walked along the State Fair midway. There was also the national billboard campaign featuring Hugh Hefner's ex-wife dressed as a provocative Uncle Sam, wanting YOU to stop eating meat.

The message I get from this is, "Exploitation of women is fine, as long as they want to be naked and you don't harm any animals doing it."

jeffrey walker
12.22.03 @ 12:38p

I'd just like to note that one meaning of "exploit" is, "to put to productive use."

And it's not just women - men are often appearing naked.

And even if it's not good causes, what business is it of anyone else? People cry out that a woman naked is "exploitation", but you rarely see the woman herself complain. Protestors often ignore that men are there naked as well (thus negating that this issue has anything to do with women's rights), and ignore that all parties are well compensated.

Who is crying "exploitation?" People who are huge prudes who can't handle nudity. People who wouldn't appear nude anyway, and don't want anyone else to.

There is exploitation in the world - nudity being put to a productive use. It's a shame that so many people are not grown up enough to handle it, and want to ruin it for everyone else. A cry of "exploitation" is merely a red herring for "I'm a baby who can't handle other's nudity."

[edited]

russ carr
12.22.03 @ 12:57p

For that matter, regarding the use of nudity (or prurient imagery) in order to draw attention to a cause, raise funds for a charity, etc., those who are truly being exploited are not the ones posing naked, or stripping, etc., but the ones shelling out or signing up at the models' behest! Guys like Russelburg separate fools from their money by "exploiting" those persons' desire for titillation.

Using someone's physical assets without their permission, or against their will -- that's patently wrong, and not merely exploitation. But if someone wants to strip naked and do a little bump 'n' grind so that all the orphans can have a merry Christmas (and a Happy Nude Year!), then good for them.

dathan wood
12.22.03 @ 1:10p


One point you missed is that most people trying to shut down porn are really quite into it but their religion, family, morals, whatever keeps them from watching it like a normal person. What these people then do is crusade against it. It gives them a "legitimate" reason to be immersed in it. "I've watched every disgusting movie in this smut shop... twice... and I can't allow this depravity to continue!"

david damsker
12.22.03 @ 1:44p

Great point, Dathan.

I need to perform much more "research" into the world of porn movies so I can continue to be at the forefront of the fight against it.

jeffrey walker
12.22.03 @ 3:17p

...I can't allow this depravity to continue!

Dathan - that's a riot!

tracey kelley
12.22.03 @ 3:55p

Read what I actually said:

Exploitation of women is fine, as long as they want to be naked and you don't harm any animals doing it."

It was a joke, son.

That being said, naked women (and men) have nothing at all to do with the product at hand, therefore, it is not nudity for the freedom therein, but a form of advertising. Similiar to Abercrombie -a hack clothing company- showing teenagers having sex and offering fellatio tips. Manipulation of the psyche is what is being put toward productive use, not advertising a pair of jeans. To say that someone will actually relate to a nearly naked woman (or man) in order to buy clothing is absurd. To say that a naked woman promotes the true message of PETA is absurd. It has nothing to do (at least in my perspective) with being a prude and everything to do with a misguided sales approach.

For the record, I walk naked through the house all the time, often sleep naked, frequently skinny dip in my pool and sunbathe naked. I doubt that anyone wants to see it, but I don't have a problem with it. That being said, I would not become a nudist. Watching free willies all the time would make me laugh too much.

robert melos
12.22.03 @ 5:23p

Hey! Layoff Abercrombie. They're a fine upstanding clothier using healthy college aged men and women, albeit scantily clad, usually drenched in water or mud, rolling about together in -- um, sorry, I forgot what I was going to say.

Seriously, we've known that sex sells since Fred and Wilma and Barney and Betty, the Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice of the stone-age, were swinging. I heartily approve of the use of sex in selling just about anything. It's all about free enterprise.

jeffrey walker
12.22.03 @ 6:23p

Trac, I read your statement the first time. You’re the one that’s absurd.

quoting: "Exploitation of women is fine, as long as they want to be naked and you don't harm any animals doing it."

First of all, if they want to be naked, it's not exploitation.

Second absurdity:

quoting: “Manipulation of the psyche is what is being put toward productive use, not advertising a pair of jeans.

Taking nudity out of the question, all advertising is the manipulation of the human mind, trying to get someone to prefer one product over another. And if nudity helps generate sales, then it’s a perfectly successful sales approach – not misguided in the least.

Relation of one thing to being naked is perfectly valid. I don’t know how it is walking naked around the house it Iowa, but walking around in designer jeans in public is but one way you can improve your chances of getting laid. Therefore, associating nudity and jeans is perfectly valid.

PETA is a wonderful organization that tries to save animals. If a model helps draw attention to that cause – if one person’s head it turned by the woman long enough to hear the message and lend his support, then the point has been made. How is that absurd?

I’m sorry that a clothing catalog makes you think of sucking dick, but advertisements shouldn’t bother you (prude). Don't buy it if you don't like it.

tracey kelley
12.22.03 @ 9:37p

Ah yes, lawyers. Experts in all things, especially industries in which they haven't worked in and of which they have little to no knowledge.

Your "makes you think of sucking dick" comment is extreme and juvenile, but falls well into the act you like to portray on this site, and I have no problem pointing out that absurdity as well. I discuss your column with intelligence and accurate, proven points, and you, as always, have to resort to name calling and inane accusations. 'Way to be a "nonconformist" Jeffrey. However, in the drama soup, you're missing the overall point.

Once advertising for a non-sex related product has to resort to implied sexual acts to capture attention, it no longer matters if it "works" or not. Abercrombie is just another in a long string of non-original, overpriced, cowbranded clothing companies that can't secure Morgan Fairchild for their campaign, so they take this route. Sex is fun, sex is love, sex is lust, but sex is not a pair of jeans and $50 faded t-shirt.

PETA is an extremist organization at best, which sometimes actually does raise awareness to serious issues such as abusive animal testing. They are, however, one of the lowest ranked rescue/program-oriented animal charities, so obviously, their approach to publize their "true" message isn't working. That's why, in my advertising professional opinion, even though they do well to keep most of their administration and fundraising budgets within acceptable percentages, they obviously have not measured their overall promotional effort to determine true results. Walking half-naked among pork farmers is not a step toward spreading the "true message" or attempts at conversion. It is a cheap grassroots protest, nothing more, nothing less.

And, please, in your response, don't direct it to me - only out yourself on parade for your own benefit, for I am done discussing this column. Merry Christmas.

robert melos
12.23.03 @ 2:30a

Tracey makes a good point when she says "Once advertising for a non-sex related product has to resort to implied sexual acts to capture attention, it no longer matters if it "works" or not."

Let's face it, advertising executives have been misusing sex to sell just about everything that comes along. Consider the shampoo ads where you hear a woman behind a closed bathroom door, her husband listening at the keyhole, as she moans and shrieks in the throes of orgasmic bliss over washing her hair. Sure it's funny, but is it necessary? Is the product that inferior that deception is required to sell it?

If this is true George Bush should've given his going to war with Iraq announcement against a backdrop of scantily clad women pole dancing for the Congress. Come to think of it, the whole war thing would've been better accepted had they made it seem sexier.

Perhaps this is why recent wars have been such a political failure? The Cold War was hot. Since then, nothing. Bush has missed his mark in the war department. Of course it is hard to sex up a war in a country predominantly made up of modest Muslims who frown on that type of Americanism.

Now they are not prudes for believing in a faith that frowns on blatant sexuality being used as most advertising agents use it. It is just not their way of life, or chosen way of life. That'll be something else we may see change.

Oh yeah, back to my point. I think it cheapens sex to use it to sell things where it doesn't apply.

adam kraemer
12.23.03 @ 12:04p

This is why I've never resorted to appearing naked in my column.

jeffrey walker
12.23.03 @ 12:54p

You can think I'm juvenile, Tracey (as you skulk away), but I know that, in fact, you're a prude.

If sex is used in an ad, and it sell products OR raises donations, then the ad worked. I'm sorry you wish that only high-brow advertising was allowed, but it isn't.

the PETA message works because it is heard. Perhaps you are aware of other charities who present ads in a way you like more, and I don't doubt that they send a higher percentage of their profits. But when that higher percentage is a small fraction of the amount PETA generates, then I'm JUST SORRY TRACEY - PETA ads have, in fact, raised more attention. Where is the better ad campaign? Has anyone noticed? No. Because PETA is outperforming the other organizations hands down. So what if it was sex that did it? It's better than the alternative of most people never hearing a message at all.

Tracey - I direct this at you because you just have to face facts here. You may not like sexual ads, but they DO work - and they work BETTER than the alternative. It's only your prudeness that blinds you.

[edited]

mike julianelle
5.13.04 @ 2:38p

The ideas in this column are far too progressive and incendiary for my primitive mind.

I'm just a caveman!

lisa r
5.13.04 @ 5:40p

Tracey, a prude? Is there a definition of prude I'm not aware of?

As someone who works in an industry targeted unjustly by PETA, I'd have to say their methodology stinks. They operate on emotion, not facts, and in the process of trying to shut down the few truly horrible aspects of animal research end up harming the animal research industry geared toward making animals' lives healthier and happier. End result, animal research targeted at animal health and welfare suffers as much if not more than animal research targeted at human cosmetics. They use sex and anthropomorphism to advance an extreme agenda based on misinformation. The animals aren't the winners--the extremists are the winners because they got what they wanted...someone to pay attention to their narcissism.

Just recently they (or a related group, can't remember which) released 1000 or more farm-raised mink into the wild. Well over 500 of the poor animals starved to death or met their fate at the hands of predators or vehicles. There's nothing humane in death by starvation--it is slow, insidious, and painful. Others that managed to figure out what the heck they were supposed to do in the wild are no doubt now creating all sorts of havoc with the indigenous wildlife, the effects of which could very well be the end of an endangered species. The recaptured ones now have been exposed to all sorts of diseases to which they have no immunity. All because someone wanted to save the poor things from becoming fur coats.

Moral of the story? All actions have consequences beyond the intended. That includes using sex to advertise products that have nothing to do with sex. The companies that approve such drivel just prefer, like PETA, to ignore the bigger picture in favor of drooling over the bottom line while they secretly lust after the models in their advertising.

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 6:03p

Lisa, that is strong. You could easily get a column out of that. Have at it!

jeffrey walker
5.13.04 @ 6:14p

Lisa: Whatever. I notice you don't at all mention what it is you do.

So, PETA released minks? OH NO! Now they can't be murdered to be made a freakin' coat. The people raising them to be slaughtered won't make money of of the suffering of the animals and the greed and stupidity of humans who would wear them. Oh no -- they got a least a fighting chance to live!! 1000 release, and about 500 didn't make it?? Better chances than on the farm, 'eh?

The moral of the story? Justify something however you want. You, whatever you do for a living, is probably not the moral highground.

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 6:55p

OH NO! Now they can't be murdered to be made a freakin' coat.

It's illegal, super-genius. It took at least two major felonies for half of those rats to survive. Cool, we're so magnamimous! Fucking terrorists. I'm pretty sure that Lisa doesn't commit those kinds of crimes for a living. And what the fuck does morality have to with anything? Who's in charge of it, you?

Come on, bro, back to reality. ;-)

jeffrey walker
5.13.04 @ 9:38p

Whose the fucking terrorist? The fuckers holding these little bastards in cages, or those who let 'em go?

It's not illegal to slaughter and kill animals only because of a whim. It doesn't make it right. Fuck legal -- you say it's legal (and I suppose okay) to make a coat out of a creature; I say, if that's the case, I can eat the farmer's brain with toast for breakfast. It's the same as far as I can see - killing something else because you want it.

I don't know what she does. But she says she's targeted by peta. Well, there's probably a good reason. She's probably doing something lousy to animals. Hence, while she is happy to bad-mouth peta "or a related group", more than likely what she's doing is no better even though she thinks it is.

[edited]

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 9:50p

Whose the fucking terrorist?

That would be any fascist socialist who uses criminal disobedience to attempt to socially engineer the rest of us to acquiesce to their warped thinking.

It's the same as far as I can see

That's because all you myopic misanthropes can't see through your own fuzzy ideals. If you love animals, don't buy fucking fur coats. It's your fucking job as an American to stay out of other peoples faces. You don't like it, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Well, there's probably a good reason.

There's no 'good' reason for anything PETA does, because reason completely eludes them. Animals don't have any fucking rights in this country. PERIOD. People need to stop making shit up out of thin air because of how their poor heart feels.

You must be devil's advocating here, I don't buy that you believe the crap you're spewing. Nonetheless, your turn, hit me with something strong this time.

[edited]

[edited]

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 10:07p

Lisa: Sorry for this profanity-laced hijacking of a topic you maturely brought up. But Walker and I have some very juvenile business to attend to, after he stipulated that we are all 'naive bastards'. He's yanking my chain, be he can't win because I have no shame and will happily thrash him in vain. But you and others with class dserve better than this, so my apologies.

jeffrey walker
5.13.04 @ 10:07p

That would be any fascist socialist who uses criminal disobedience to attempt to socially engineer the rest of us to acquiesce to their warped thinking.

Is that how you felt about the civil rights movement? You know, blacks didn't have rights (PERIOD) at one point. It was criminal to steal slaves off plantations. It was criminal to hide them from slaveowners. I suppose you'd call Frederick Douglass a fascist. what kind of wanker are you?

Animals may not have rights. But this is America where things can change. If it comes around, will you go somewhere else? Because people like me are here to stay. Either way, suck it up.

I see you have a low opinion of PETA, so I don't expect you to have anything good to say about their great work. But I hardly see how being offended by people slaughtering animals is and trying to stop them is "making shit up out of thin air."

P.S. - I am the devil; no advocate needed.

[edited]

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 10:19p

That's better, but now you're acting like you care about human beings by mentioning slaves. (Nice analogy between humans and rats, by the way, that makes sense.)

But if you care about human rights, you can't advocate stealing from fur farms, which are run by humans that actually have rights. You have to legally oppose it in court. Get your butt to DC and start lobbying for an animal protection act or something. Also, there's nothing wrong with being offended with slaughtering animals, there's something wrong with making the moral choice that everybody else should be. That is what you're trying to do, and morals don't mean anything. They are purely relative. You, the self-proclaimed devil (and a weak-tit one at that) ought to know all about that. Don't you have a little pissant church in your name?

Better words, but you're still faking it pretty bad. (PETA's great work, beer shot out my nose over that one.)

Your turn.



lisa r
5.13.04 @ 10:23p

I'm livestock nutritionist, Mr. Cynic. One who is immimently qualified to identify bovine feces when I see it, even if it's in print. One who has been known to get attached to her research subjects and sob uncontrollably when one dies. The only thing that kept me going at such times was the sure knowledge that when I solved the problem I was studying thousands more would live long lives and produce healthy babies for other animal lovers like myself to enjoy and love. It's a little thing called "compassion".

Thanks to people like me, your pets have drugs and procedures that save them from what would have been sure deaths 20 years ago. They have diets targeted to specific nutritional needs such as feline urological syndrome. There are even weight loss diets for pets whose owners don't have the self-control to deny Rover and Sylvester table scraps and insist on keeping them penned up in tiny apartments with inadequate exercise.


Contrary to what people in PETA and other animal "welfare" terrorist organizations would have the public believe, we animal scientists do our jobs because we love animals and feel a responsibility toward them. No one who hates animals would dare to take a job that frequently means collecting and analyzing feces and urine or long hours in the lab handling blood and tissue samples. You think your office mate's cologne is nauseating? Try collecting rumen fluid sometime.

We risk getting gored, crushed, bitten, kicked, trampled or otherwise mutilated in all types of weather at all hours of the day and night to take care of our research subjects. While you risk paper cuts shuffling papers we face the very real possibility that we could be killed by the very animals we're trying to care for. We risk potential exposure to rabies, brucellosis and all sorts of nasty little diseases the average man on the street doesn't even know exists. People who work with cattle in areas where anthrax outbreaks are known to occur have a much greater chance of contracting anthrax than you'll ever face.

Thanks to my fellow animal scientists, humans now have the possibility of hip and knee replacements--that started as research to deal with hip dysplasia in dogs. Artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer started in the livestock industry to help speed up the development of improvements demanded by consumers--the use of those techniques in humans was a tangential result.

I love working with animals. It's the obnoxious two-legged jackasses in 3-piece suits brandishing their J. D. degrees around who try to make my job more difficult that I dislike.


dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 10:36p

She owns you now, punk. Don't even try. ;-)

lisa r
5.13.04 @ 10:39p

I don't know what she does. But she says she's targeted by peta. Well, there's probably a good reason. She's probably doing something lousy to animals. Hence, while she is happy to bad-mouth peta "or a related group", more than likely what she's doing is no better even though she thinks it is.

You must have your cohones caught in a steel trap. I've never had my work targeted by PETA--they'd have looked like absolute fools to have protested or interrupted research that was meant to save pregnant mares from horrible deaths during labor and delivery, and prevent stillbirths and neonatal foal mortality.

And while you're ranting about those mink being kept in cages, consider that at least in those cages they had adequate food and shelter and health care. Only an idiot would try to raise something for fur, wool, meat, milk or eggs and expect to produce a quality product without taking care of the creature that makes that product.

You want to be outraged about animal injustice? How about working to put puppy and kitten mills out of business by refusing to buy animals from pet stores. Don't give in to the urge to buy a specific breed of dog just because it looked cute in a movie or on a dog show on Animal Planet. Don't refuse to neuter your male animals because it offends your own sense of masculinity. If you want a purebred animal, fine, but buy from a reputable breeder and insist on one that's genetically healthy...and then go to the pound and adopt a mixed breed animal to keep it company.

And while you're at it, learn to curb the urge to make assumptions about people you don't know. Remember, the first three letters in assumption spell "ass".


[edited]

jeffrey walker
5.13.04 @ 11:33p

But if you care about human rights, you can't advocate stealing from fur farms, which are run by humans that actually have rights.

Fuck that shit. Dan, I am not going to support the rights of an animal slaughtering bastard. They get what they get, and that's all. As far as I'm concerned, human rights are earned, not deserved. I thumb my nose at your bullshit, and now I'm done with you on this subject.

I've never had my work targeted by PETA. Well, you're the one who says PETA targets your industry. So do they, or don't they?

not all researchers have ethics. I suppose it sucks when a few goods ones get targeted, but it's not a peachy-keen world in every lab out there. So if you, in fact, aren't a target, then what's your problem with PETA going after others? Do you imply that all are noble? You should be happy PETA fucks up your competition.

P.S. - I don't buy pets in stores, all my animals are fixed and none are purebred, but thanks for your return assumptions. I already know the drill. And I'm not offended by your masculinity comment, nor your dig at attorneys. I don't give a shit about either. As you can see, I would probably not use my degree for animal rights; as danny boy already has fished out, I'll do my good work on the other side of the law. As Thoreau said (paraphrase), if a law be unjust, then a just man belongs in jail. I may see you back there one day. But they gotta get me first.

[edited]

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 12:03a

Animals may not have rights.

I'm educating you right and left tonight, Jeff.

Animals DO have rights....that's why there are hundreds upon hundreds of pages in the US and state code sections on agriculture devoted to animals. Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations has all sorts of stipulations regarding animal welfare, commerce and transport. Title 21 (the section which covers the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act) is chock full of regs regarding animal drugs. Every state has its own version of the Uniform State Feed Bill that dictates what must be present on the labels of every bag/can of pet food or bag of livestock feed sold in that state, from nutrient minimums and maximums to ingredients and warnings that supplements the FD&CA's regulations. All these regulations are in place to protect the animals first, the public second.

The only place the state and federal governments fail spectacularly is in not making animal abuse and neglect felonies with serious penalties. Most states treat both as misdemeanors and give even repeat offenders a slap on the wrist for things like burning cats alive or operating dog-fighting facilities.



jeffrey walker
5.14.04 @ 12:13a

Sorry, Lisa; laws regulating how industries handle animals within the stream of commerce is not the same as rights. That's a regulation on industry and cannot be construed as a right to the animal itself.

How about, let's not be shipping them around like Jews off to the concerntration camp in Nazi Germany. That's more like a right.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 12:36a

You obviously have never waded through Title 9 or any of the state codes regarding animal welfare, or you wouldn't say that. I'd say any rules and regs that are designed to guarantee that an animal be treated humanely regardless of whether or not it's destined for a slaughterhouse are a form of animal rights. So are the reams of forms that animal researchers are required to file with various agencies before embarking on any animal research. That those same regs also make sure consumers and those involved in animal commerce are also protected doesn't lessen the benefits to the animals. You're referring to the section of Title 9 which applies to the Packers & Stockyards Act, which is only a small portion of that chapter of the CFR.

I think I can safely speak for animal producers everywhere when I say that your comment about shipping animals around like Jews to concentration camps is offensive and undeserved. The animals at least receive food, water and health care on a regular basis before slaughter. The Nazis couldn't even be bothered to do that for POW's in the last days before they fell, much less the poor people in concentration camps.

Stop watching PETA propaganda, get out of Brooklyn and visit a farm sometime.

City slickers...sigh.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 12:40a

You obviously have never waded through Title 9 or any of the state codes regarding animal welfare, or you wouldn't say that. I'd say any rules and regs that are designed to guarantee that an animal be treated humanely regardless of whether or not it's destined for a slaughterhouse are a form of animal rights. So are the reams of forms that animal researchers are required to file with various agencies before embarking on any animal research. That those same regs also make sure consumers and those involved in animal commerce are also protected doesn't lessen the benefits to the animals. You're referring to the section of Title 9 which applies to the Packers & Stockyards Act, which is only a small portion of that chapter of the CFR.

I think I can safely speak for animal producers everywhere when I say that your comment about shipping animals around like Jews to concentration camps is offensive and undeserved. The animals at least receive food, water and health care on a regular basis before slaughter. The Nazis couldn't even be bothered to do that for POW's in the last days before they fell, much less the poor people in concentration camps.

Stop watching PETA propaganda, get out of Brooklyn and visit a farm sometime. You'll find that the farmers DO care about their animals and do their best to take care of them. Equating them all to the Nazis is like the Arab world equating all Americans with those few morons who tortured the Iraqi prisoners.



jeffrey walker
5.14.04 @ 12:46a

Grew up in N.C. Seen hog farms and chicken farms. Seen hog slaughthouses. I'm not impressed by how they treat their animals, nor by the regulations of which you speak.

If you are distinguishing between a small, family owned free-range chicken farm and a large commercially owned animal factory, we can talk. Small is good, and I have no problem. But these big farm enterprises who
"at least" give them water is pretty fucking WEAK. OF COURSE THEY GIVE THEM FOOD AND WATER >> how else can you sell the "product" a/k/a animal? Can't make much of a coat from a skinny mink -- meat is not so good on a boney cow!

thanks for playing, and don't tell me what to watch.

[edited]

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 1:12a

So if you, in fact, aren't a target, then what's your problem with PETA going after others? Do you imply that all are noble? You should be happy PETA fucks up your competition.

Competition? My only competition when I was doing research was an endophytic fungus which was producing 9 different toxins at one time. I didn't, and still don't, care what the guy in the next lab is doing as long as he (or she) is going about it ethically.

My problem with PETA is that they don't care about stopping UNETHICAL researchers or producers. That's just a smokescreen. They want to force the world to stop ALL animal research, regardless of the goals of that research. They would have us switch entirely to in vitro research with established cell lines or computer models. Neither one is an adequate substitute for a live model. A mammal, be it Homo sapiens or Bos taurus, is a complex being made up of 9 different physiological systems that (with the exception of the reproductive) are ALL required for the survival of the individual...and each of those systems runs on a plethora of interdependent biochemical pathways regulated by hormones, neurotransmitters, and other chemical messengers. Isolated cell lines function differently in a culture flask than they do in situ. Computer models are only as good as the info we already have, so predictions are based on what we already know...they can't possibly account for results influenced by reactions and pathways we haven't identified yet.

Look what happened with thalidomide because they used it to treat morning sickness without testing it on pregnant lab animals first.

Embrace PETA and its cohorts if you will. Any group that tries to get its agenda to adults by terrorizing their children in schoolyards while dressed as a chicken is a TERRORIST organization. Period. If they were truly interested in dealing in facts and truth they'd use socially acceptable channels to get their message out.

I believe you accusing me of being someone involved in unethical research and having something to hide trumps any assumptions I could possibly have made about you.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 1:38a

I, too, grew up in NC, and in fact am a product of NC State's animal science program. I work in the dairy industry and spent some time out west working around the mega-dairies.

We have better control over what goes into the animals in confined feeding situations than we do if they are on pasture. We can monitor intake at a bunk, but we can only estimate how much pasture an animal eats, and even then we don't know if they ate weeds or grass. By knowing exactly what's going into the animal, we then know exactly what's going on your table. That's a good thing, IMO.

Not all skinny animals are necessarily unhealthy. A milk cow goes into negative energy balance after calving until her feed intake catches up to her milk production. That's also true of any lactating animal, just more obvious in a dairy cow.

Confined hog farms, although distasteful in concept to many people, have enabled us to establish disease-free swine herds and control, even eradicate, some devastating diseases such as hog cholera.

I much prefer the sanitation abilities that those mega-dairies had in the milk parlor with their milking systems than what that Amishman across the street can accomplish in his little stanchion barn where he carries the milking machine from one cow to the other. I also like those nice bright halogen lights that give the milkers a good look at the strip milk before they hook the milkers up to the lantern light or 60 watt incandescents popular around here.

Cattle in free-stall barns don't spend most of their time tied in one spot. I've spent a lot of time walking through those pens, and believe me, those cows are just as content as the ones across the street...more so, because they can move around at will any time they like, unless they're actually in the milking parlor. Stanchion barn cows only get to do that if they get turned out for a couple of hours.

Furthermore, one of the big reasons we've had such a move to the CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) style of animal production is because our population can't be fed by the steadily dwindling number of family farms, especially when most of those family farms frequently end up being snatched up by developers looking to put up business parks and housing developments and strip malls every time some farmer gets out of the business.

If you've paid any attention to the agricultural news lately, then you know that one of the reasons that milk prices are going up is because there are fewer cow numbers, so supply has decreased. They went down because the prolonged spate of rock-bottom milk prices for the farmers took its toll...cow numbers went down because a lot of smaller farmers sold out or went bankrupt and the banks sold their cows.



[edited]

dan gonzalez
5.14.04 @ 8:04a

Fuck that shit. Dan, I am not going to support the rights of an animal slaughtering bastard

Heh. You don't have a legal choice, but that's beside the point. You're done with the topic. What an exit from the debate.

Still, the whole point on my part was to disprove the 'naive bastards' comment and to help try to keep you engaged around here. Good sparring with you guy, don't waste any time being pissed, it's all part of the drill.

jeffrey walker
5.14.04 @ 9:26a

Hey dan -- you don't know what I was making that comment about. And it wasn't about a article more than a year ago! But I don't expect you to know that. And Just because the law attempts to dictate a choice doesn't make it the only choice; (naive bastard).

Thanks to Lisa -- she the BEST DEBATER in recent memory. I applaude her.

dan gonzalez
5.14.04 @ 11:46a

I applaude her. Me too.

(naive bastard) Touche brother. I hijacked this. I was going to wait until your next column but was having too much fun, so I poked my nose into it. No hard feelings, I respect all who live their beliefs. I'm looking forward to your next column and our next go-around, and I won't be so low-brow next time.


jeffrey walker
5.14.04 @ 1:43p

thumbs up, boss.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 3:10p

*blinks in surprise* Thanks. Must be a side effect of surviving grad school. Come to think of it, some of that reminds me vaguely of a question on one of my written defense exams.

Isn't the biggest chunk of the internet being used for sex now?

I read on a friend's blog this afternoon that 70% of all internet sites are porn-related. What a waste of a tremendous resource to devote that much space to trash.


[edited]

jeffrey walker
5.14.04 @ 3:30p

one man's trash.. well, you know.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 3:50p

There's a corollary to that: some people's taste is all in their mouths.

jeffrey walker
5.21.04 @ 7:19p

Here's a the sex industry doing something you lefties can get behind: Strip clubs register voters, urge them against re-electing Bush
.

dan gonzalez
5.21.04 @ 9:02p

I read on a friend's blog this afternoon that 70% of all internet sites are porn-related.

Is there any definition of porn-related? This stat sticks out, it has not proven true in my experience, which is admittedly limited. I built two dozen or so large web-hosting data-centers in the 90's, with 1000 to 2400 racks of servers in each and thousands of customers. We had porn shops in there, but definitely not 70% by any stretch. Interestingly, the porn shops were very profitible. I'd believe that 70% of profitible web-sights were porn, because most sites are not profitible. (E.G, the New York Times and others where nobody pays for premium subscriptions.) Most people don't want to subscribe to handfuls of sites, they can't afford it and can get all the content for free somewhere. But porn, people pay for that. It may be trash, but it was good for the hosting business: they always paid their bills. I'd bet it's the single most successful .com business model, but that 70% still strikes me as high.

you lefties can get behind

That article has great quotes from the owners and strippers: "I used to be a Republican, but now with all this, it's changing my views." All what? Hilarious. These people actually think Bush is ultra-conservative! Talk about naive bastards.

Also, the spokesperson from the RNC is priceless. "I have to admit that the strip club owners are not a group we targeted." Beauty.

robert melos
5.21.04 @ 11:11p

Dan, whatever it takes to get Bush out of the White House is fine. I don't like the devil I know. If a few strippers go out and vote against Bush (I'll avoid the possible innuendos here), all the better. Most voters don't vote with any form of intelligence.

I know women who still vote the way their husbands tell them to vote, and people who vote for the guy with the best hair, or the hottest looking guy, or the guy whose lies they most believe. I know some people who will flip a coin. Voting the issues or going with gut instinct are my preferred voting choices.

I heard a rumor today that Kerry was looking to pull out of the race, and I thought, "Oh well, Nader would get my vote then." Without Nader or Kerry, I'd have to vote for anyone not Bush. I just don't like him or trust him.

On the other hand, Wisconsin is kind of cold for strippers. I would suggest they forget voting and consider moving to a warmer climate.

dan gonzalez
5.22.04 @ 8:38a

I know, I hear ya. I was just saying it's funny for them to be so worried about losing their jobs when he's never threatened them.

That rumor is alarming. I heard he was delaying his acceptance of the nomination, but not pulling out. Wow, if it's true.

lisa r
5.22.04 @ 9:02a

He's not pulling out. According to published reports, he's delaying accepting the nomination so he can keep using all that money he raised for his primary campaign. Once he accepts the nomination, he's restricted to using only federal campaign funds.

Just another way to avoid playing by the rules, IMO. Personally, I don't think he should pass "GO" or collect $200. Then again, I feel that way about all career politicians. Being in public office SHOULD be about serving your fellow citizens, but it isn't. It's self-serving.

robert melos
5.22.04 @ 10:35p

If I were really pissed at Kerry I'd start using Hunt's Ketchup.



Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash