The Bosque Boys

More poison exported from China. This time its toothpaste. An alert from a listserve. Original source NYT.

DIETHYLENE GLYCOL CONTAMINATION, TOOTHPASTE- MULTICOUNTRY EX CHINA
**************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Tue 22 May 2007
Source: The New York Times [edited]


[As more contaminated toothpaste, including some made for children,
has turned up in Latin America, Chinese authorities are investigating
whether 2 companies from the coastal region of Danyang exported the
tainted toothpaste.]

A team of government investigators arrived [in Danyang] on Sunday
afternoon [20 May 2007], and closed the factory of the Danyang City
Success Household Chemical Company, a small building housing about 30
workers in a nearby village, according to villagers and one factory
worker. The government also questioned the manager of another
toothpaste maker, Goldcredit International Trading, which is in Wuxi,
about an hour's drive southeast of Danyang.

No tainted toothpaste has been found in the United States, but a
spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said yesterday
[21 May 2007], that the agency would be taking "a hard look" at
whether to issue an import alert.

Authorities in the Dominican Republic said they seized 36 000 tubes of
toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol, an industrial
solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze. Included were tubes
of toothpaste with bubble gum and strawberry flavors marketed for
children and sold under the name of "Mr. Cool Junior."

Toothpaste containing the toxic solvent was also found in Panama and
Australia in the last week.

(rest below)

» Read More

John McCain has a list of books for Memorial Day reading at OpinionJournal.

My Grandfather Taylor called Memorial Day, Decoration Day. He, like most of his generation, visited local cemetaries where relatives were buried, taking flowers and checking on the condition of the graves. Rural cemeteries in north Missouri like Owasco, Bute, Baker, and Mt. Zion.

Although my grandfather probably had never heard of Simone Weil, he would have understood her assertion that one of the great needs for modern life was for Roots. Modernity cuts one off from the roots of family, place, and nature. Decoration Day reaffirmed Roots past, and Roots present. (Various relatives dropped by the house as they visited cemeteries, or were encounted among the graves as they laid flowers. Neighbors too.)

This past week I visited these cemeteries with my father: Owasco with its abandoned church and view overlooking a small creek; Bute small on a ridge over a mile off the paved road; Baker, nearly twenty miles from any town with a population over 1000; and Mt. Zion, across the road from home, animals living under the decaying former church and peonies blooming among the graves. I stood at the graves of my mother, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, and my great-great-grandparents. Numerous great and great-great aunts and uncles. The headstones in these small cemeteries gave evidence of community inter-relatedness through marriage over the last century-and-a-half. Birds sang and flowers bloomed.

I heard stories and history from my father, whose 80th birthday was a week ago. Once more I reconnected, with family, with the land, with my roots.

Don't let your children grow up rootless; don't be rootless yourself. Happy Memorial/Decoration Day.

Drudge today links to this article critical of a new trend--women choosing plastic surgery on their genitalia. Three thoughts from this excerpt:

Patients who sought genitoplasty "uniformly" wanted their vulvas to be flat and with no protrusion, similar to the prepubescent look of girls in Western fashion ads, they found.

"Not unlike presenting for a haircut at a salon, women often brought along images to illustrate the desired appearance," say Creighton and Liao. "The illustrations, usually from advertisements or pornography, are always selective and possibly digitally altered."

First, notice that these women want their genitalia to have a "prepubescent look." Can anyone maintain that it is healthy for society to make the standard of feminine beauty the prepubescent girl? No real woman can look like she is eleven. The only non-surgical ways to attempt this are self-starvation, and shaving the genitalia. Once more the media are messing with women's heads, telling them they are inadequate.

Second, this surgical trend testifies to the disturbing reality that our society is sexualizing young girls. The prepubescent look in "advertisements or pornography" trains men to arouse sexually at the sight of younger and younger females. We rightly punish those men who prey on young girls, but I think we should punish those who facilitate their crimes as well.

Third, one of the evils of pornography is that it trains men to have unrealistic expectations regarding the female body. Pornography provides a fantasy such that some men are rendered incapable of appreciating reality. "The illustrations, usually from advertisements or pornography, are always selective and possibly digitally altered."

Farmer, we need to revisit the expansion of the "free speech" guarantee to cover anything and everything.

The Anchoress has a must read article separating fact and fiction on the Bush Administration. Cleverly written as well.

As most propagandists, and attornies, know, repeate something often enough and people will start thinking it is true.

Speaking of repeated lies, Gateway Pundit has the info on executive salaries then and now.

freak show n. A sideshow in popular entertainment, featuring grotesquely developed people or animals.

It is my habit to listen to NPR and watch C-SPAN during my early morning hours. However, I usually shift to one of the Network Morning Shows at 7:00 EDT and catch a few minutes before I leave the house.

Social commentators long ago designated the network news collage of "human interest" stories and sensationalistic snippets the "FREAK SHOW."

A few random thoughts on the human menagerie this morning that was the Today Show on NBC:

The Lead Story. Blake and Jordin: Congratulations to Jordin, American Idol Winner. I watched Idol for the first time this season. I enjoyed it. And I am happy to finally understand why the show is such a phenomenon. It is high human drama--although not high art.

Kudos to Blake for being gracious and gentlemanly in defeat. It is rare and always refreshing to see that brand of civility, especially so when exhibited on a TV reality show. Nicely done.

The Big Story. The Rosie and Elisabeth smack down on the View. Rosie O'Donnell characterized her debate with Elisabeth Hasselbeck as "big, fat, lesbian, loud Rosie attacking dear, sweet, innocent, pure, Christian Elisabeth." Perhaps she was being sarcastic; nevertheless, it is cogent analysis.

I do not watch the View. But I have taken a passing interest in the ongoing wrestling match between Rosie and Elisabeth, and I have caught several of their exchanges on YouTube. My heart goes out to Elisabeth for the following reasons:

1. She is out there on the limb all by herself. She faces a hostile anti-Bush, anti-war and anti-Republican studio audience everyday.

2. Not only does the crowd yell over her--but her cohosts do as well. She is ally-less.

3. Often times I feel that she is not quite up to the task of swimming up that stream. In fairness, it is a mean and nasty piece of water. Playing before that sort of unfriendly crowd day-in and day-out must be hell.

Yesterday, however, Elisabeth brought the hard stuff and hammered the home team. She stood her ground and kept asking the unanswerable question: what did you mean to say? In the end, Rosie's bluster and misdirection were not enough to distract any reasonable observer from Rosie's disingenuousness. See for yourself here.

Human Interest. Sixty-year-old mommies. Modern technology makes it possible for women past traditional child-bearing years to give birth. The list of geriatric moms is growing. Is this a good thing?

A doctor says: "who are we to judge?" Gray-haired mom says it is about "empowering women." No mention of what the kindergartner (or his friends) will think of his retirement-aged mommy on the first day of school. You have to love the "ME" Generation. What will they come up with next?

Read more here and vote as to whether you think women in their sixties having babies are irresponsible. I love democracy-TV.

More Human Interest. Whosarat.com. Some indicted person now maintains a website "that it has identified more than 4,300 informants and 400 undercover agents."

Why isn't this story on ABC?

The kicker: the entire interview was conducted with the "exposer" in shadows. Evidently, he did not think it safe to reveal his countenance to the world.

And that was just the first half hour...

Equal Time: I often watch Good Morning America. GMA is generally just as freakish...

This weekend I spent some time with old family friends. One man was stationed in Germany in the early 60s with the Army. He reported that along a straight stretch of fence between the Germany's, the troops from both sides drag-raced each other.

When no officers were present, troops of the opposing armies would drag race using jeeps versus Soviet block vehicles, and sometimes even tank against tank. On opposite sides of the fence the young men would line up vehicles, wait for the sign, then roar along the divide.

I am thankful these men were not forced to fight and kill each other.

Remember my mantra? When it comes to Campaign 2008, nobody knows anything. But here goes nothing:

This race for the presidency gets "curiouser and cusiouser."

The latest polls show Romney and Edwards ahead in Iowa. Admittedly, Romney is a minor surprise for me, although it probably should not be. McCain begins in a hole, as he by-passed Iowa in 2000, and Giuliani is just not a great fit for the Hawkeye State. As for Edwards, he has been running hard in Iowa for four years. If Edwards is not strong there, he is not a viable candidate anywhere.

The question of the day, however, is this:

Does Iowa matter?

Some things to think about: Although Iowa Democrats have a respectable record of selecting their eventual party nominee, the Republican straw poll has been much quirkier. The GOP caucus in Iowa is the same group that passed over Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980, selected Bob Dole and Pat Robertson over George H.W. Bush in 1988 and made a contender out of Pat Buchanan in 1992. I defy anyone to find a pattern in all that, other than kooky randomness. The Iowa GOP is not impressive as a bellweather even under normal circumstances.

And these are not normal circumstances. Iowa has even less meaning for 2008. As important delegate-rich states rush to move their primaries forward to the earliest possible dates, we are on the verge of having a national primary over a fortnight. That is, over a few nights in January and early February, all the candidates will be competing in a large number of states for all the marbles.

To reiterate, we are talking about a national primary, which means the winner will be the candidate who builds the best national organization, proves the most adroit at manipulating the national and local media and raises enough money to keep all these balls in the air.

Iowa has always been mostly psychological and momentum building, but that is especially true for this election cycle. Iowa (and more accurately the pre-Iowa polls) are mostly about creating the aura of electability.

Having said all that, I still would rather be on top in Iowa at this moment than running second or third there.

Amid all the noise in Washington, the President just hit the shot heard 'round the world.

As I noted last Friday, the President has out-maneuvered the Speaker and the Majority Leader and the anti-war, anti-Bush industrial complex. Nevertheless, I did not see any of the end-of-the-week rap-up shows even mention the Iraq funding impasse. The mainstream media are at a loss on how to cover this huge story, as it is so dramatically at variance with the prevailing template of a discredited President in free fall.

Of course, if the standoff had gone the other way, the MSM would have known exactly how to play it (in big, bold type): BUSH CAVES. Troops to Come Home.

As it is, for most of the day, the MSM have been reluctant to cover the impending announcements (hoping for a miracle, I suppose).

The news this morning: No Confidence Vote on Attorney General, THE IMMIGRATION BILL, the immigration bill-inspired conservative insurgency, Michael Moore Is Back, Jimmy Carter Pronounces Bush Worst Ever, AL GORE (and perhaps the Iraq funding bill may be approved without timelines).

Finally, after the formal announcement this afternoon, the NYT and the Washington Post ran front page articles and NPR led with this Harry Reid quote: "For heaven's sake, look where we've come. It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Bottom Line: this is the most important moment of the year in politics thus far. Kudos to the President for standing firm. He is still in the cellar in terms of popularity. He is still opposed by two houses of Congress who want his scalp. He still has miles to go in the Middle East. But, having said that, he could have given up the ghost and lost everything on this showdown. He didn’t. Perhaps we only forestalled disaster, but, thankfully, today we did not lose everything.

You have heard all this before. In fact, I have written all this before--but It is always nice to hear some plain sense from someone you don't expect.

Excerpts from Bob Kerrey's MUST READ op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today:

The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

The article in its entirety here.