You know that feeling when your stomach is churning, full of butterflies? You may get sweaty palms or start shaking. For some reason you just have never been so scared. Well this is how I feel when the subject of cannibalism comes up. Either reading about it, watching a movie about it it, or just hearing about it, to me there is simply no worse thing. Cannibals are undoubtedly horrifying. The prospect that they could sum up the nerve to kill and eat human flesh, one of their own kind, is just proposterous. When I was browsing CNN.com's recently published news articles, I was astonished to find a current case dealing with a man on trial for cannibalism in London, England.
"A British chef who killed a man with a knife and cooked and ate his flesh was sentenced Monday to minimum of 30 years in prison."
That is the first sentence in the article. What the heck? Now I can see the sentencing to a minimum of 30 years in prison part, but the beginning of that sentence... a chef KILLED a MAN with a KNIFE and COOKED and ATE his FLESH? How much more disgusting can we get here? Back to the 30 years sentence... is that long enough? I couldn't even imagine a justifiable sentence for such an act.
While the two were on a weekend getaway at the chef, Morley's house in Leeds, it seems that Morley just decided that it was a good idea to kill his guest, Oldfield. "Morley slit Oldfield's throat as he lay in his bed, stabbed him repeatedly and cooked some of his flesh." Morley defended himself in court by saying, "he had been provoked when Oldfield unexpectedly initiated sexual contact after the pair watched "Brokeback Mountain," a film about two cowboys who try to conceal an affair."
To me this is just plain ridiculous. If Morley's claim was really true, there should have been no need for him to kill and then eat Oldfield. There is absolutely no reasoning to justify these actions.
Cannibalism is a sickening thing. Just imagine if it was happening in a species besides humans. Would it be okay for a squirrel to eat his or her squirrel friend of family member just because they were bored or wanted some chow? Absolutely not.
CNN.com
Cannibal chef jailed for 30 years
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/20/uk.chef.cannibal.ap/index.html
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Economy and Food
After reading a fellow classmate's post on the current American economic situation, I was motivated to look a bit more into it for myself. I stumbled across an interesting article that put a certain component of economics in an easier way to understand. It wasn't talking about the stock market, but it was talking about our economy's situation having an affect on the prices of food.
In the article, "Falling oil prices? Food won't necessarily follow," they use the term "sticky" prices to describe how prices on goods are rising and staying high, "although the rationale for the price hikes--such as soaring oil prices-- is gone." To me, this definitely seems like the food industry is trying to take advantage of the consumer to get ahead of their losses. However in the article it is stated that the only thing that usually can lower a price hike is demand decreasing on the item, and a substantial demand decrease is not likely. According to Lars Perner, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, "Companies also tend to price their products based on what their competitors are charging and not necessarily on what it costs to make them." I find this very interesting, because it seems almost if the companies making certain products aren't even looking at America's economy when trying to find a price point that is ideal for their product that both appeals to the consumer and reaps a benefit for the producer.
This leaves me thinking what the relation even is between food prices and the economy right now. What do you think? I am finding it to be a puzzling situation.
CNN.com/US
Falling oil prices? Food won't necessarily follow
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/19/sticky.prices.ap/index.html
In the article, "Falling oil prices? Food won't necessarily follow," they use the term "sticky" prices to describe how prices on goods are rising and staying high, "although the rationale for the price hikes--such as soaring oil prices-- is gone." To me, this definitely seems like the food industry is trying to take advantage of the consumer to get ahead of their losses. However in the article it is stated that the only thing that usually can lower a price hike is demand decreasing on the item, and a substantial demand decrease is not likely. According to Lars Perner, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, "Companies also tend to price their products based on what their competitors are charging and not necessarily on what it costs to make them." I find this very interesting, because it seems almost if the companies making certain products aren't even looking at America's economy when trying to find a price point that is ideal for their product that both appeals to the consumer and reaps a benefit for the producer.
This leaves me thinking what the relation even is between food prices and the economy right now. What do you think? I am finding it to be a puzzling situation.
CNN.com/US
Falling oil prices? Food won't necessarily follow
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/19/sticky.prices.ap/index.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
