America needs more Commies

And some real socialists, too. (And to any of you wondering if there's a difference between a communist and a socialist, the answer is yes.)

I don't say this out of some misguided affection for Marxism and yearning for his influence, along with the influence of such great guys like Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh, to be in our government. I'm not THAT desperate after 3 years of Bush, (though if he gets another term, I'll be ready for a Red Revolution.)

We need real communists and socialists for balance in American democracy.

America has lacked real communists and socialists for so long that we have forgotten who they are. Because of this, the right can launch misguided attacks on Democrats. For example, here is Rachel Lucas' recent attack on Howard Dean:

I have been asked repeatedly now why I hate Howard Dean.

Simple: because he's an arrogant, pushy, no-smilin' jackass. I look at his face and I want to do violence to it. This kind of thing can't be explained, it's simply nature. See Howard Dean's face, feel visceral desire to smash Howard Dean's face. Dean-face-smash. It's out of my control.

And more importantly, he's a socialist twerp. Me hateses socialists.

Here's the problem: Howard Dean isn't a socialist. Since we lack the strong presence of real socialists in our society, Lucas and other members of the right are allowed to get away with comments like this. I won't go as far to say that her and other members of the right are knowingly misleading people; they actually think that Democrats are socialists and/or communists. They truly believe in their rhetoric. But they are wrong.

On both the right and left, the standards for being a socialist have reached ridiculous levels. During the 2000 election, I remember a column on MSNBC about Nader and the Greens, and it used a watermelon as a metaphor to explain the movement: “Green on the outside, red on the inside.” I still think this is ridiculous, but maybe the criticism is warranted since the International Organization of Socialists (ISO) was heavily involved in the Nader campaign.

But then the case for Greens being closet socialists is weakened because the ISO’s parent Socialist party in England officially ousted them from the party. The real socialists told the ISO that they were not socialists because they supported Nader, and thus they supported capitalism. They just weren’t socialist enough anymore.

Think about that for a minute. International socialists got into a feud over support for Nader because, essentially, Nader was too much of a laissez faire capitalist for their tastes. I have never believed that Nader is a socialist, but he never struck me as fully supporting free market capitalism. (Then again, neither does Bush, but that’s because Bush leans more towards feudalism. That’s another conversation for another time.) This makes the real socialists seem kind of loopy.

And that’s the point. Real socialists are loopy. They are rather nuts. They really aren’t rooted in reality. Real socialists are the people who look at Ralph Nader and scoff at him because, god forbid, he supports your right to start your own business if you so wish. This is the mindset of a real socialist.

This information may be new to people on the right side of the fence. To them, I pose this question: if real socialists reject Nader and the Greens, then how can any Democrat be a socialist?

This is why America needs real socialists and real communists. Standards have fallen so far that people can get away with calling politicians like Dean a socialist.

I’m reminded of a validity of my point when I think about my exgirlfriend labeling me as a communist, which is above and beyond just being a socialist. My ex is a Republican from Cincinnati, a strongly and unquestioningly Republican city. One day after a discussion about politics, she called me a communist and I think she actually believed it. So I was forced to tell her about the Spartacus League.

My first, and thankfully only, encounter with the Spartacus League came in the summer of 2000. I was in Philadelphia to protest against the Republican National Convention. I went down there alone, but met up with some people from the RI Nader campaign (who, for full disclosure, were also ISO members) and stuck with them for the day. While we walked around the gathering crowd for the Unity2000 protest march, we ran across a couple guys handing out copies of “Workers Vanguard,” the newspaper of Spartacus League socialists. Well, they called themselves socialists, but they are really only socialists in name only. The Spartacus League are a bunch of communists through and through.

I think they were there less to protest the GOP convention and more to tell us Nader supporters how they thought we’re a bunch of assholes.

When I encountered these Spartacus League members, I was with a seasoned ISO member and a new recruit to the cause. At the time, I was a political neophyte and had about as much experience as the new recruit, so I got to see my first socialist (well, psuedo-socialist now) v. real communist argument. Live and in person, and completely not comprehending a word of it at that point in time. Back then, I was still under the mindset that there wasn’t a difference between socialists and communists, and felt strange for having all these new friends who were members of the ISO.

The seasoned member did most of the arguing while the new recruit and I watched, trying to process the information. The Spartacus League guys talked about how Nader wanted to start a war with China, he received too much support from businesses, etc. Basically, they were full of shit, but at the time Nader made some statements that went against Chinese trade policy and these morons equated Nader's stance as being a declaration of war against China.

I grab as much literature as I can at protests, so I got a couple copies of Spartacus’s “Workers Vanguard” just for the fuck of it. As we walked away, the seasoned ISO member told us to stay away from those jerks, much like a parent would tell their child to stay away from the junkie on the corner.

One thing I began to understand from this encounter is how communists think of communist states, like China. To them, China is a big workers paradise. It’s communist, so obviously that means the workers won and they control the country. To them, the communist governments in control can do no wrong.

Of course, anyone with half a brain can point out just how cruel communist governments have been throughout history. I’m not saying that communism causes fascism per se, but if real commies can’t find it in their heart to criticize Stalin or Mao for their crimes just because they believed in the same style of government as they do, then they are nuts.

This is the mindset of REAL communists. And, quite honestly, we don’t have enough of them in our society to show us just how nuts they are. I did a search for “Spartacus League” on Google and I couldn’t even find a webpage for the organization, all I could find was the history of the first Spartacus League in Germany after World War I.

These are the stories of real socialists and real communists. And hey, I have my own criticisms against the Democrats, but one of them will never be that they are a bunch of pinko commies who are out to Stalinize our nation. It’s simply not true; ask a real communist and they’ll let you know.

Perhaps if America hadn’t been so successful with practically eradicating these political ideologies from our society, the right would have a better concept of what is and isn’t Marxist. Because now they are trying to paint candidates like Dean as being big time socialists, and it just isn’t true. They have yet to see a real socialist.

(For the record, my ex still probably thinks I'm a commie.)

Steak and Cheese Picture of the Day

Now that would just be disgusting.

Fark Headline of the Day

“We are very excited to be hosting a cornhole tournament, one of Cincinnatians’ favorite pastimes.”

Urban Dictionary Definition of the Day

Beat it like a rented mule!

What is it?

Jesse at GC13 has a disturbing photo you should see.

The Idiocy of Newsmax, part 9084892037903703 and a half

I'm on Newsmax.duh's email list, and occasionally I'll look at the emails. Normally it's the same old Republican crapola, but today they have gone over the top. Here's the full text of my email:

Joe Wilson Details His Affair with CIA Wife

He says the Bush administration violated his wife's privacy by revealing that she worked for the CIA.

But now Spygate accuser Joseph Wilson is sharing with reporters intimate details about his relationship with the allegedly secretive Valerie Plame, offering an account of the couple's "heavy make-out" session just before she told him she worked for the CIA.

Wilson, who said recently he would have sacrificed anything to guard his wife's privacy, offers the steamy details in the Jan. 2004 issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

The move has even supporters wondering if he's blown his credibility as a White House whistleblower just as the Justice Department rachets up the investigation into his claims.

Based on Wilson's recollections, Vanity Fair reports:

"Meeting in Paris, London and Brussels, [the relationship between Plame and Wilson] got very serious, very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a 'heavy make-out' session when she said she had something to tell him."

Wilson said that at that point his date interrupted their steamy tryst and decided to come clean. "She was, she explained, undercover in the CIA."

"It did nothing to dampen my ardour," he told VF. "My only question was: Is your name really Valerie?"

Wilson's decision to go public with details from his wife's sex life prompted dismay at the Washington Post, where editors have been trying to sell his complaint that the Bush White House blew his wife's cover as a serious national security scandal.

"Capitol Hill aides in both parties said Wilson had badly hurt his credibility with his apparently enthusiastic participation in a spread in the January issue of Vanity Fair," the Post complained last month.

"The article includes Wilson's steamy account of his early romance with Plame," the paper noted. "Congressional aides said the article bolstered the contention of Wilson's critics that no one had done more than him to draw attention to Plame, and that the couple had eagerly contributed to their celebrity."

Mr. Wilson himself seemed unfazed by the apparent conflict, telling the Post that his only complaint was that his wife "had to be clothed as generic blonde" in Vanity Fair photos to protect her identity.

Despite volunteering his wife for a new round of publicity, Wilson's allegation that her privacy had been violated is still being taken seriously at the Justice Department, which appointed a special prosecutor to review the case last week.

OK, so let me get this straight: Wilson admits that he had a make out session with his future wife, and this somehow ruins his credibility? Oooh! Stop the presses! Joe Wilson MADE OUT with his then GIRLFRIEND! Big fucking story! Maybe more details will come out, like Wilson [dun dun DUN] POPPED A BONER! Or maybe Ms. Plame got wet between the legs! Shockola fucking city! They are guilty of premarital making out! WILSON AND PLAME ARE GOING TO HELL!

Meanwhile, Wilson was right about the lack of WMDs in Iraq, which means Bush lied to us. Plus a senior member from Bush's staff leaked Plame's occupation to the press, thus ruining her career and endangering her life. But the only thing that's important to Newsmax.duh is a make out session. Let me tell ya, that's REAL fucking jounralism.

Patriot Act II now in effect

Another big story I missed over the holidays. (Personally, I blame the cookies and all the evil sugar in my system.) To me this is a big story, as it shuld be to you, and as it should be to every other American. But it got buried with the "capture" of Saddam.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

...The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability.

...This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power.

...Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.

...The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?

OK, so that's a lot of quotes from the article, but the article is very appalling. I urge you to read the whole thing.

Pat Robertson has some delusions about God again

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk, I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."

And the lord told me that Pat Robertson is a fucking asshole who beats off to little boys. But seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to make a bullshit statement like this? This kind of rhetoric just pisses me off. It just goes to show you how big the egos of some Bush supporters are; they won't question anything Bush does because they believe his presidency his been ordained by God.

I'm just waiting for a headline from the Onion: "God sues Pat Robertson for Slander."

Is Israel trying to cause instability in Baghdad?

Here's an interesting report from an arab newspaper in London, translated to English courtesy of TIDES

When questioned, the captured man admitted that he is part of groups totaling 3,000 in number who were taken to Tel Aviv where they received training to instill panic, fear, and disunity in the ranks of the Iraqis through carrying out subversive and destructive actions targeted against state service institutions that directly affect the citizens' lives.

Dicks get paid more

Kind of old news, an article I missed over the holiday confusion, but serves to be posted: "Women's pay gap in 2003 is actually wider than it was 20 years ago"

Another Earthquake

First California, then Iraq, and now Mexico City, though it looks like there's no major damage from this one. Which is good, that means there's a few more people left to ask God if s/he's pissed or not.

Urban Dictionary Definiton of the Day

Cleveland Steamer!

Happy New Year, you dork

You gotta be pretty damn pissed to look like this.

Choo Choo, here comes the Propaganda Express!

Today the Propaganda Express brings you this headline: New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure.

Of course, this article does not mention a rather recent story discussing how the "jobless count skips millions." But I guess that's just the damned liberal media talking!

The Military owns your ass

From the "Too Fucking Bad" department comes this story from the Washington Post: "Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting."

...thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

...Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year.

..."An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract; I am not," said Costas, 42, who signed an e-mail from Iraq this month "Chained in Iraq," an allusion to the fact that he and his fellow reservists remained in Baghdad after the active-duty unit into which they were transferred last spring went home.

When I got all those calls from military recruiters after I graduated from high school, they never told me about this.

So you like end of year lists, eh?

This mother list of lists should keep you happy.

Pakistan: Take 3

Who knew reading the right-wing National Review's blog could sometimes be a good thing? I added them to my tracking on Blogmatrix and browse summaries of their posts, usualy never clicking on a single one. But today they had an interesting post on the security of Pakistani nukes in case something drastic happens, like the assassination of Musharraf. They linked to this article from the New York Times:

Two recent assassination attempts against Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, have renewed concern in the Bush administration over both the stability of a critical ally and the security of its nuclear weapons if General Musharraf were killed or removed from office.

Well, it's good to know that this shit has raised some eyebrows in the White House.

Officials said they were relatively confident that even if General Musharraf lost power or was killed, Pakistan has established some fairly reliable nuclear safeguards. Nuclear warheads, triggering devices and the delivery systems for the weapons are all stored separately; thus, it would be difficult to steal a complete weapon, according to administration officials and academic analysts.

This paragraph strikes me as being a little bit odd. I'm no military or nuclear expert, but what's the point of having nuclear weapons if the three main components of the system aren't together? I would expect a country that had nuclear weapons to be able to launch them as quickly as possible. If you can't, then what's the point of having the weapons? Like I said, I'm no military expert, but this just doesn't make sense to me.

But administration officials appear less concerned that General Musharraf would lose control over actual weapons than over highly enriched uranium. Terrorists in possession of bomb fuel, even without the triggering devices needed to produce a nuclear explosion, could build a "dirty bomb" that spews radioactive material, or could attempt to engineer a crude nuclear device.

Mmm yeah, this would be a bad thing.

The most interesting paragraph is saved for the very end of the article:

"It's very unsettling what these assassination attempts imply, that the inner security circle for Musharraf has been breached," said Gaurav Kampani of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "If security for the president, for the head of the Pakistani Army, cannot be guaranteed, what guarantee is there that nuclear assets and missiles and so forth are safe?"

Indeed. While I'm happy to hear that the Bush administration is paying attention to this problem, I still find it amazing that they are paying so much attention to Iraq and claiming that it's for the security of our nation when the instable political situation in Pakistan creates a big, nuclear question mark. Not paying the utmost attention to a hot spot like Pakistan, while diverting our resources and interests to a cold spot like Iraq, is irresponsible to the safety of our nation.

I betcha this asshole wishes he was an American [updated]

Parmalat is Europe's "Enron." Italy has Pamalet boss Calisto Tanzi in prison because he has admitted to using his position to steal millions of dollars from the company.

This feels like dreamland when you take a look at what happens to corporate criminals in the United States. Last time I checked, former Enron CEO Ken Lay is a free man. Of course, I guess it helps your cause to have the president in your back pocket.

Update: Maybe it's good to be Italian after all:

Led by Silvio Berlusconi, the nation's prime minister and perhaps its leading business executive as well, Italy has acted to remove criminal penalties for accounting fraud and, in the past week, has rewritten its bankruptcy laws to accommodate the spectacular failure of Parmalat, the giant dairy and food-processing company controlled by the Tanzi family.

Buzzflash headline of the day

"After Making Sure All the Evidence was Gone, Ashcroft Recuses Himself From Leak Investigation. If It Took Him This Long to Figure Out He Had a Conflict, He Should be Fired." Hmmm.. Why did it take Ashcroft this long to realize his conflict? Maybe there should be an investigation into that.

Republicans don't care if your food is safe or not

Daily Kos has a great entry today that poitns to legislation, blocked by the Republicans, which would have made our food safer so maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have to worry about things like mad cow disease.

At present, the United States inspects less than 2% of all imported food ... The administration has yet to respond to Mr. Obey's very detailed critique of its spending priorities on homeland security. If the White House believes that his numbers and analysis are wrong, it needs to say so and provide a substantive response to his complaints.

Of course, the administration didn't.

More proof that Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism

What has happened since we "captured" Saddam? Well, first we eventually found out that he was a prisoner of the Kurds and he was in no position of power for at least a few weeks.

Then the attacks against our military continued.

Then the terror alert level was raised to orange because of increased "chatter" among the terrorists.

Then France had to put a couple internaltional flights on hold because they suspected terrorists were on the flights.

Then there was a near successful assassination attempt on Pakistani President Musharraf, likely an inside job perpetrated by members of the Pakistani government and/or miltary who are sympathic to al-Qa'ida. Coincidentally enough, there's a strong al-Qa'ida presence in Pakistan, and it could have been al-Qa'ida who led the attempt.

If Musharraf was assassinated and Pakistan went through another coup, the atomic bomb would have fallen into the hands of al-Qa'ida or their sympathizers.

Then today, the US tells airlines to have armed air marshals on certain international flights.

All of this has happened after Saddam came into our custody. Before Saddam was in our custody, he was held by the Kurds and effectively removed from power for who knows how long.

And all I have to say is what the fuck? I demand that Bush come before the nation and tell us the truth. The evidence is overwhelming: Saddam was not involved in international terrorism.

Now some of you might but saying, "Tas, you're a liar. Saddam sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's supporting terrorism!" Sorry, but that's chump change. Reprehensible, yes, but certainly not support for al-Qa'ida.

And what kills me the most is the situation in Pakistan. I know my expounding on it a few days ago is pure speculation. Some may view it as a crackpot conspiracy theory. But let's face the facts: al-Qa'ida has a huge presence in Pakistan, members of Pakistan's military are sympathetic to al-Qa'ida, and this assassination attempt took place in a city so secure that it had to be an inside job. I doubt that Musharraf's would be murderers are more pro-American and pro-peace with India then he is. So, drawing the logical conclusions here, that means that on Christmas Day, a near coup was staged that, if it succeeded, would have put an atomic bomb in the hands of terrorists.

AND NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THIS!

[stomps feet around] WHAT THE FUCK?! Al-Qa'ida almost got the bomb, yet we're still in Iraq looking for weapons that don't exist?! Earth to Bush and the Pentagon: the whole world was almost completely FUCKED on Christmas! Do you guys even give a SHIT?! God fucking damnit, what's it going to take for them to wake up? A mushroom cloud?

Saddam's power has diminished, Iraq doesn't have weapons.. The only threat Iraq poses now is the one that our invasion created, which fragmented the country and allowed terrorists to setup shop there. How big is this threat compared to that of a terrorist group having their fingers on the big red button?

Suck it up, Bush. Admit you were wrong, get out of Iraq and focus on the real problems in the "war" on terrorism.

Lincoln's bulging crotch is definitely the problem

Jesus' General delivers a completely hetrosexual letter to Sec. of Interior Gale Norton and National Park Service Director Fran Mainella: "We must protect Honest Abe from leering homosexuals."

Once we take care of the problem at the Lincoln Memorial, we can start removing the other homosexual imagery that has become so prevalent in our government--things like the Forest Service's Smokey the Bear. We could replace him with a big burley lumberjack--I'm picturing a very hard, muscular, boyish yet manly looking man, shirtless and sweating from the exertion of felling long rough columns of mighty timber in the summer sun. He would be the perfect icon for our new forest policies.

Oh yeah, oh baby, oh.. Err, excuse me. Sorry.

Obviously a Chinese import to America

And I thought these were obvious

For my male readers, I would have recommened AskMen's "11 Places Women Want To Be Touched," as something we should all read, but the g-spot and clitoris are nowhere on the list. It has all the normal stuff on there: stomach, back of knees, blah blah etc. Boooring. AskMen probably did ask men, that would explain why this article sucks. If they went out and asked women what 11 spots should be in the article, I'm betting we would at least get a detailed description of how to find the g-spot. And boy, could we ever use one.

I removed this entry from the blog because, for some reason, it screwed up the template. If you had linked it, please change your link.

Beating the Meat

I know I haven't shut up about the Mad Cow scare and the beef industry in general, but it's an important topic. And on the topic is an article from the Nov/Dec issue of Mother Jones (a magazine you really should have a subscription to) about one meatpackers' fight against the USDA. I'm going to copy and paste the whole article here because it's a very important read, because it shows us one example of how our government doesn't give a shit about what we put into our mouth. To them, it's no concern if we live or die. This is an outrage. This article, published before we found out about the first case of Mad Cow disease within our borders, is a more pertinent read now.

Meatpacking Maverick
Montana meatpacker John Munsell's against-the-odds struggle for improved food safety.

By Michael Scherer
November/December 2003 Issue

Bad Meat made an activist out of John Munsell. Before the tainted beef arrived -- USDA-approved and vacuum-sealed -- at Montana Quality Foods, Munsell's family-run packing plant, this die-hard Republican had no reason to doubt the integrity of the food-safety system. But that changed after the meat he ground for hamburger tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7, a potentially deadly pathogen found in cattle feces that sickens thousands every year.

Instead of tracking the contaminated meat back to its source, the USDA launched an investigation of Munsell's own operation in Miles City, Montana. Never mind that the local federal inspector had seen the beef go straight from the package into a clean grinder -- a USDA spokesman called that testimony "hearsay." By February 2002, three more tests of meat Munsell was grinding straight from the package came back positive in USDA tests for E. coli. This time, as he would later testify in a government hearing, he had paperwork documenting that the beef came from a single source: ConAgra's massive Greeley, Colorado, facility, which kills as many cows in three hours as Montana Quality Foods handles in a year.

Munsell fired off an angry email to the district USDA manager, warning of a potential public-health emergency, and adding that if no one tracked down the rest of the bad meat, "both of us should share a cell in Alcatraz." The agency moved immediately and aggressively -- not to recall meat from Greeley, but to shut down Munsell's grinding operation, a punishment that lasted four months.

Despite Munsell's continued whistleblowing -- to Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), national cattle associations, and his fellow meat processors -- the USDA failed to address the alleged contamination at ConAgra's Greeley plant. Then, in July 2002, Munsell's worst fears came true. E. coli-tainted burger from Greeley killed an Ohio woman and sickened at least 35 others. ConAgra then recalled 19 million pounds of beef, one of the largest recalls in history. (As much as 80 percent of the meat had already been consumed.)

"I want the world to know what the real policies are," says Munsell, driving through Miles City, a ranching town on Montana's eastern plain where the casinos compete with saddle shops on Main Street and the men don't take their hats off for much. "The real policies imperil the consumer," he says. "The USDA doesn't want that out."

Lanky, with thinning sandy hair, the 57-year-old Munsell speaks in a measured voice that barely hints at the fury he feels. Though his battle with the USDA has crippled his business, Munsell is now on the offensive. After months of lobbying, he persuaded Senator Burns to convene a congressional hearing in Billings last December, where Munsell testified on the failings of USDA inspections. Munsell also convinced the Government Accountability Project (GAP) -- the nation's leading whistleblower organization -- to investigate the USDA's handling of his case. In July 2003, GAP released a major report titled "Shielding the Giant: USDA's 'Don't Look, Don't Know' Policy for Beef Inspection." "The ConAgra-Munsell scandal," it concluded, "perpetuates a long-standing USDA pattern to blame the messenger and scapegoat the victims, rather than stand behind its seal of wholesomeness."

Why would the USDA willfully ignore a whistleblower and stand by as feces-tainted meat entered grocery stores? Two decades of federal reforms have left more and more regulation in the hands of the meat industry itself. "Agribusiness runs the show" at the USDA, says Tony Corbo, a food-safety lobbyist with the watchdog group Public Citizen.

In 1998 the USDA stopped testing for E. coli at the company's Greeley facility, saying internal safeguards were sufficient. While tests continued at small plants like Munsell's, the USDA allowed big packers to conduct their own in-house tests. Indeed, according to the congressional investigation of the ConAgra recall initiated by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), 33 in-house tests conducted at ConAgra's Greeley facility in the month before the recall came back positive for E. coli contamination. ConAgra failed to alert the USDA. In a scathing letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman this spring, Waxman wrote that the USDA's policy of industry self-regulation "appears grossly inadequate to protect the public health."

Munsell has steadily been winning allies in his fight for reform. "This guy is the small businessman. He's done everything right," says Brad Keena, a spokesman for Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who has followed Munsell's case closely. "But because he's the middleman, his reputation gets ground into the problem of the larger company." (Swift & Co., which boughtConAgra's meatpacking operations last year, insists there is no conclusive evidence that the Greeley plant was responsible for Munsell's bad meat.)

To this day, the USDA maintains that it followed all of its own policies in regard to ConAgra and boasts of new safeguards that were put into place after the recall. USDA spokesman Steve Cohen also argues that Munsell never proved the source of the initial E. coli contamination and suggests that he "got a good deal" on the ConAgra meat. Munsell isn't rattled by such accusations. "He is simply grasping at straws," he says.

The negative publicity from the USDA's shutdown of his plant has proved fatal to business. This summer, Munsell put his operation up for sale, foretelling the end of a business that his father -- who, at the age of 84, still serves breakfast to the crew -- founded in 1946. But Munsell has no regrets. What haunts him is not his decision to go public, he says, but the fact that he almost decided to stay quiet, just to protect his own livelihood. "You know what it comes down to?" says the third-generation meatpacker, his steady composure beginning to crack. "My grandkids. The USDA could care less about the health of my grandkids."