while it's an interesting discussion, there's no real solution to this issue. No one is accusing the refs of being consciously biased. Making them aware of an unconscious bias and any expectation of them consciously making a correction is only going to screw things up in a big time way. I agree with the poster who said that 4% racism is pretty damn good by American standards.

as a parent, I agree with the general tone of the article. However, when it comes to bacteria I'm dubious about just how good that innate ability of humans to calculate the differing risks of infection really is.

I read of another similar study in which the researchers evaluated the concentration of bacteria on surfaces (floors, countertops, etc.) in the homes of people who cleaned frequently and those who cleaned infrequently (i.e. bachelors). The concentrations were much higher on surfaces in the homes of frequent cleaners. The compulsive cleaners were apparently continuously re-inoculating their surfaces with fresh batches of bacteria while the slobs were allowing bacteria to die off through neglect.

Another study found that wood has some degree of antibacterial properties, which seems to have been reflected in the study mentioned in this essay. So, it's possible that a french fry dropped on the boardwalk might actually be safer bacteriologically than one dropped on the freshly mopped kitchen floor. There'd probably be sand on the board walk fry though.

rcolescott wrote:

"In the case of the melamine contamination, I agree with the author who said "if you put a poison in tea, don't blame the tea." We already have plenty of rules and regulations here in the US to deal with criminals. Let's hope our trading partners take the appropriate steps to insure what they're selling us is safe, or we have every right to restrict trade until they do so."

Two things... one is that it appears that the latest contamination episode had zero effect on our trading partner in this case. I read an article a few weeks back, likely in the NYTimes, where they sent a reporter to the factory in China where the gluten was manufactured. The workers there had absolutely no idea that a pet food contamination event had occurred in the U.S. because no one told them. And they were very open about the fact that the melamine was always added to the gluten and continued to be added to the gluten. Regardless of whether China has an FDA equivalent agency or not, it doesn't look like we can count on them to provide safe food ingredients.

Two... in China melamine has apparently been added to gluten that went into pig food for quite some time with no apparent toxic effects on the pigs. At one point in the aftermath of the pet food contamination, it was being questioned whether melamine was actually even the toxic agent. I haven't heard any thing further on that issue. Has anyone conclusively determined that melamine was the actual cause of death of the pets?

I did not mean to imply that because melamine doesn't seem to affect pigs that it could be assumed that it is safe for cats and dogs. I understand that a chemical could affect different animals differently.

By the same token, I don't think you can assume because one contaminant is identified in pet food and animals get sick or die from that pet food that the identified contaminant is by necessity the cause. There could very well be another unidentified contaminant that may be the real cause. In at least one article I read that possibility was conjectured.

The fact that melamine doesn't seem to affect pigs may have led people to think there may be a second contaminant, perhaps wrongly. However, without some real toxicological proof we could also be wrong about melamine. After all, a company that would adulterate food stock with one chemical might do it with multiple chemicals.

I have still not read an article that conclusively identified melamine as the toxic agent. I was merely wondering if I had missed a study or report that proved melamine was toxic to dogs and cats.

did Dr. Kotb assume that the woman who asked about being penetrated from behind was inquiring about anal intercourse? Perhaps the caller was just asking for advice on how to get her husband to try another position. Culturally, that might be a delicate topic. Penetration from behind is not obligatorily anal intercourse.

Youth baseball is fairly resource intensive if you go the whole nine yards with cleats, gloves, uniforms, bats, balls, and a well equipped field with decent batters cage and dugouts, etc. However, I can't see that as being much of a factor with regard to interest from black Americans since youth football is even more resource intensive and they obviously have a significance presence in football.

I totally buy the economic argument. But, I also suspect that the lanquid nature of baseball just doesn't appeal as much to today's kids--black or white. I don't know who said it but I read the quote somewhere, "Football is who we are. Baseball is what we were." I know KK (King Kaufmann, not Keith Knight)has written before that baseball, based on attendance figures etc., is as popular as it ever was, but it sure don't feel like it.