
I am likely to take a ballpeen hammer to my computer today. Fix it real good.
I'm just sayin'.




The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association and 10 other food industry groups want more flexibility in those rigid standards. They seek broad permission to add ingredients, use different techniques, employ new shapes and substitute ingredients - something the standards currently don't allow.
---
"Manufacturers already can use vegetable fats instead of cocoa butter - they just can't call it "chocolate." Hundreds of people have filed comments with the FDA, with the overwhelming majority seeking to keep it that way, according to an Associated Press review of the file.
"But the shift would make chocolate cheaper to produce, since cocoa butter can be four or more times the cost of shea, palm oil and other vegetable fats.
"If you're able to replace cocoa butter with another fat, even at the 5 percent level, you're saving lots and lots of money, especially if you are a major manufacturer of chocolate bars," said Bernard Pacyniak, editor in chief of Candy Industry magazine. ... But Gary Guittard, the president of California's Guittard Chocolate Co and others question that and said any change would debase the very nature of chocolate.
"This incremental degradation of foods over the years - it's a degradation that comes from wanting to make it for less money. We're always trying to make a little more money, and that I think is the problem," said Guittard."
I've never made a blog entry here, but this particular blog seems like the best forum to take my questions about what happened in Congress this weekend.
I'm referring to the passage, demanded by President Bush, of continuing to expand some questionable surveillance programs. I admit to having hopes they would be able to adjourn without voting on the bill, but realizing it would likely pass since this President seems to get from Congress whatever he wants or ignores them whenever he wants.
The always outspoken critic of the administration, Glenn Greenwald, writes about some of the same things the passage brought to my mind, but I have others too for your consideration.
Why was this bill not fought and debated as intently as the recent Iraq War funding debate? Was that just theatrics after all?
Why are Democrats (those who voted Yes are listed in Greenwald's article) caving to the President? Or was it caving in at all? Is this why Congress' approval ratings are so low?
I know the FISA bill has a limited lifespan, but once policies are made into law, they seldom end. I'm just not very happy with this approval and have been hoping that Congress would provide less approval, even if that means stalling the entire legislative agenda.
Not that I consider aggressive intelligence-gathering bad, far from it. But it sure seems like both the intelligence groups and the Attorney General's office have done a truly botched job in the last 6 years - so how can Congress justify expanding the roles of both groups?

