<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Eating babies is wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu,  4 Dec 2008 20:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22689</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22689</guid>
		<description>EAT BABIES 4EVA!

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EAT BABIES 4EVA!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22688</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2004 22:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22688</guid>
		<description>YES, I'VE CONSIDERED ...

HANG ON ...

Yes, I've considered it. But on a low-profile site like this the odd comment on an old post isn't any great burden. As a general rule I'd rather leave comments open and give people who find my entries via search engines the chance to contribute. (The one exception to that rule is, of course, &lt;a href="http://soreeyes.org/archives/000335.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;the infamous Oprah post&lt;/a&gt;.) If the level of comment spam rose to the point where I was having to spend too much time deleting comments on old posts then I'd reconsider, but (touch wood) for now MT-Blacklist has done a pretty good job of stemming the tide. (It helps to be a pretty low-profile, low-volume weblog. I completely understand why the authors of &lt;a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/" rel="nofollow"&gt;busier&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/" rel="nofollow"&gt;weblogs&lt;/a&gt; than mine have adopted a different policy.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YES, I&#8217;VE CONSIDERED &#8230;</p>
<p>HANG ON &#8230;</p>
<p>Yes, I&#8217;ve considered it. But on a low-profile site like this the odd comment on an old post isn&#8217;t any great burden. As a general rule I&#8217;d rather leave comments open and give people who find my entries via search engines the chance to contribute. (The one exception to that rule is, of course, <a href="http://soreeyes.org/archives/000335.html">the infamous Oprah post</a>.) If the level of comment spam rose to the point where I was having to spend too much time deleting comments on old posts then I&#8217;d reconsider, but (touch wood) for now MT-Blacklist has done a pretty good job of stemming the tide. (It helps to be a pretty low-profile, low-volume weblog. I completely understand why the authors of <a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/">busier</a> <a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/">weblogs</a> than mine have adopted a different policy.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Farber</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22687</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2004 12:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22687</guid>
		<description>John, have you considered the notion of cutting off posting comments after, say, three months?  Just a thought.  Although I admit there's considerable comedy effect to leaving them open.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, have you considered the notion of cutting off posting comments after, say, three months?  Just a thought.  Although I admit there&#8217;s considerable comedy effect to leaving them open.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Farber</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22686</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2004 12:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22686</guid>
		<description>I AM TOTALLY FAVORING EATING BABIES!  THEY ARE YUMMY WITH BARBECUE SAUCE, OR MAYBE SOME PEANUTS!  LET IS ALL NOW USE MORE CAPITAL LETTERS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I AM TOTALLY FAVORING EATING BABIES!  THEY ARE YUMMY WITH BARBECUE SAUCE, OR MAYBE SOME PEANUTS!  LET IS ALL NOW USE MORE CAPITAL LETTERS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DANA</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22685</link>
		<dc:creator>DANA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 23:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22685</guid>
		<description>EATING BABIES IS TOTALY WRONG!A POOR LITTLE BABY WHAT SO EVER DID NOTHING WRONG!ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BURN IN HELL FOR THIS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EATING BABIES IS TOTALY WRONG!A POOR LITTLE BABY WHAT SO EVER DID NOTHING WRONG!ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BURN IN HELL FOR THIS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marie</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22684</link>
		<dc:creator>Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Feb 2003 03:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22684</guid>
		<description>YOU KNOW WHAT BABIES ARE YUMMY AND I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT EATING THEM DONT MATTER AS LONG AS ITS YUMMY!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YOU KNOW WHAT BABIES ARE YUMMY AND I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT EATING THEM DONT MATTER AS LONG AS ITS YUMMY!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22683</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2003 21:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22683</guid>
		<description>Yes, I've heard the theory about the wok and stir-fry before. Sounds plausible enough to me.

It makes you wonder what odd beliefs East Asians have about &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; eating habits...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;ve heard the theory about the wok and stir-fry before. Sounds plausible enough to me.</p>
<p>It makes you wonder what odd beliefs East Asians have about <em>our</em> eating habits&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Girvan</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22682</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Girvan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:16:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22682</guid>
		<description>And, of course, the Chinese are well-known for eating strange stuff by our standards.  A long time back I remember reading - can't remember where - a believable analysis of why. It came down to climate, population and highly variable food supply; you couldn't afford the luxury of not eating, say, gristle, fat or duck's feet, and you needed to keep dried food for lean times. The economy argument explained other stuff, such as the invention of the wok and stir-frying (very fuel-efficient if there's not much to burn) and the pig toilet (extreme recycling).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And, of course, the Chinese are well-known for eating strange stuff by our standards.  A long time back I remember reading - can&#8217;t remember where - a believable analysis of why. It came down to climate, population and highly variable food supply; you couldn&#8217;t afford the luxury of not eating, say, gristle, fat or duck&#8217;s feet, and you needed to keep dried food for lean times. The economy argument explained other stuff, such as the invention of the wok and stir-frying (very fuel-efficient if there&#8217;s not much to burn) and the pig toilet (extreme recycling).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22681</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22681</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the link to your Straight Dope posting.

It sounds very much as if on the one hand we've got an artist from a culture where the taboos about cadaver material are, as you noted, significantly different to those in the west. As the Snopes article pointed out, with reference to rumours of fried fetus being on the menu:&lt;blockquote&gt;Our knowledge of the existence of cultural differences (even if we don't know exactly what those differences are) helps prepare the soil for wild rumors like this one to sprout in, because this tidbit of "information" seems to fit so well with what we think we know about a deeply mistrusted foreign culture. One could not successfully kite the same tale about Canada, for instance, because folks would immediately reject it as wholly false. But set it in China, and it begins to sound if not plausible, at least possible. The Chinese treat bodies of executed wrongdoers as piles of recyclable parts lying there for the taking; why wouldn't they view aborted fetuses as something that could be added to a lunch menu?&lt;/blockquote&gt;Throw in a TV channel with a documentary to promote (not to mention a desire to regain a reputation for being 'edgy' and 'out there') and a bunch of reactionary tabloid newspapers and you have all the ingredients for a good three-day wonder in the media.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link to your Straight Dope posting.</p>
<p>It sounds very much as if on the one hand we&#8217;ve got an artist from a culture where the taboos about cadaver material are, as you noted, significantly different to those in the west. As the Snopes article pointed out, with reference to rumours of fried fetus being on the menu:<br />
<blockquote>Our knowledge of the existence of cultural differences (even if we don&#8217;t know exactly what those differences are) helps prepare the soil for wild rumors like this one to sprout in, because this tidbit of &#8220;information&#8221; seems to fit so well with what we think we know about a deeply mistrusted foreign culture. One could not successfully kite the same tale about Canada, for instance, because folks would immediately reject it as wholly false. But set it in China, and it begins to sound if not plausible, at least possible. The Chinese treat bodies of executed wrongdoers as piles of recyclable parts lying there for the taking; why wouldn&#8217;t they view aborted fetuses as something that could be added to a lunch menu?</p></blockquote>
<p>Throw in a TV channel with a documentary to promote (not to mention a desire to regain a reputation for being &#8216;edgy&#8217; and &#8216;out there&#8217;) and a bunch of reactionary tabloid newspapers and you have all the ingredients for a good three-day wonder in the media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Girvan</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22680</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Girvan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22680</guid>
		<description>I saw all but the beginning (missed because I was also watching Independence Day). To cut a long story short, the artists featured seemed to have the same concerns as artists anywhere (politics, mortality, gender, some shock value) but were working from a cultural position that's ... well ... less squeamish than the West about animals and body parts. I've posted a fuller account &lt;a HREF="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&#38;postid=2798529#post2798529" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw all but the beginning (missed because I was also watching Independence Day). To cut a long story short, the artists featured seemed to have the same concerns as artists anywhere (politics, mortality, gender, some shock value) but were working from a cultural position that&#8217;s &#8230; well &#8230; less squeamish than the West about animals and body parts. I&#8217;ve posted a fuller account <a HREF="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&amp;postid=2798529#post2798529">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22679</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22679</guid>
		<description>I did a bit of googling for information on the subject myself before posting my last comment on this post. It looks very much as if the whole subject is tied in with a persistent blood libel against the Chinese. I noticed that in the Straight Dope thread you linked to somebody posted a link to a &lt;a href="http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;Snopes article&lt;/a&gt; which points out that this story keeps popping up every few years, and offers some reasoned explanations for the popularity of the notion. You'd think I'd know by now to check Snopes before believing this sort of thing.

Incidentally, I didn't get to see the documentary. Did it shed any new light on the topic? I have to admit that I was dividing my attention between working at my PC and watching the pretty explosions in the last half hour of Independence Day. If they ever make a sequel to Independence Day their first task should be to explain how exactly civilisation on Earth survived given that a)&#160;several major cities had a 15-mile spaceship fall on them, and b)&#160;the destruction of a mothership that size should have had pretty much the same effect on Earth as the &lt;a href="http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Ewok Holocaust&lt;/a&gt; did on Endor.

I did see the earlier programme on Mao's Children, which turned out pretty much exactly as I'd expected: people who are doing very nicely thank you claiming that "politics isn't important" and they're as free as they could wish to be, or suddenly going very vague when asked about topics like internet censorship, whilst the government does its' best to ensure that foreign journalists don't see the prostitutes or the political prisoners or the poor bastards working in factories without the benefit of union representation. Mind you, I did note that the fashion designer who was interviewed near the start of the programme was apparently choosing her words carefully: if the subtitles were an accurate translation, she said something to the effect that she'd never been stopped from doing anything she wanted "in her business." Was this her way of pointing out that her life outside the business was another matter?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did a bit of googling for information on the subject myself before posting my last comment on this post. It looks very much as if the whole subject is tied in with a persistent blood libel against the Chinese. I noticed that in the Straight Dope thread you linked to somebody posted a link to a <a href="http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm">Snopes article</a> which points out that this story keeps popping up every few years, and offers some reasoned explanations for the popularity of the notion. You&#8217;d think I&#8217;d know by now to check Snopes before believing this sort of thing.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I didn&#8217;t get to see the documentary. Did it shed any new light on the topic? I have to admit that I was dividing my attention between working at my PC and watching the pretty explosions in the last half hour of Independence Day. If they ever make a sequel to Independence Day their first task should be to explain how exactly civilisation on Earth survived given that a)&nbsp;several major cities had a 15-mile spaceship fall on them, and b)&nbsp;the destruction of a mothership that size should have had pretty much the same effect on Earth as the <a href="http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html">Ewok Holocaust</a> did on Endor.</p>
<p>I did see the earlier programme on Mao&#8217;s Children, which turned out pretty much exactly as I&#8217;d expected: people who are doing very nicely thank you claiming that &#8220;politics isn&#8217;t important&#8221; and they&#8217;re as free as they could wish to be, or suddenly going very vague when asked about topics like internet censorship, whilst the government does its&#8217; best to ensure that foreign journalists don&#8217;t see the prostitutes or the political prisoners or the poor bastards working in factories without the benefit of union representation. Mind you, I did note that the fashion designer who was interviewed near the start of the programme was apparently choosing her words carefully: if the subtitles were an accurate translation, she said something to the effect that she&#8217;d never been stopped from doing anything she wanted &#8220;in her business.&#8221; Was this her way of pointing out that her life outside the business was another matter?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Girvan</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22678</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Girvan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2003 00:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22678</guid>
		<description>It's a fairly messy saga.  &lt;a HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=57161" rel="nofollow"&gt;The Independent&lt;/a&gt; reported as suspected ritual satanic abuse an image that quickly tracked down (see &lt;a HREF="http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Rotten.com&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17157.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;The Register&lt;/a&gt;) to this Zhu Yu rather than anything illicit. The site www.chinese-art.com (a high-quality site about contemporary Chinese art exhibitions) has a feature, but it's currently down ... bandwidth probably swamped. Briefly, he's part of a group whose art uses cadavers for frozen tableaux, as well as other weirdness such as implant surgery performance art and the usual Damien Hirst line in inflated dead horses and such like. However, the story has since been complicated by association with long-standing unverified tales of wholesale baby-eating in China. There's a current &lt;a HREF="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&#38;threadid=153448" rel="nofollow"&gt;Straight Dope thread&lt;/a&gt; on the subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a fairly messy saga.  <a HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=57161">The Independent</a> reported as suspected ritual satanic abuse an image that quickly tracked down (see <a HREF="http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701/">Rotten.com</a> and <a HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17157.html">The Register</a>) to this Zhu Yu rather than anything illicit. The site <a href="http://www.chinese-art.com">http://www.chinese-art.com</a> (a high-quality site about contemporary Chinese art exhibitions) has a feature, but it&#8217;s currently down &#8230; bandwidth probably swamped. Briefly, he&#8217;s part of a group whose art uses cadavers for frozen tableaux, as well as other weirdness such as implant surgery performance art and the usual Damien Hirst line in inflated dead horses and such like. However, the story has since been complicated by association with long-standing unverified tales of wholesale baby-eating in China. There&#8217;s a current <a HREF="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=153448">Straight Dope thread</a> on the subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22677</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2003 16:50:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22677</guid>
		<description>I wasn't aware of the earlier coverage of the story. It looks as if the old Usenet joke works on the web too: the quickest way to get the right answer is to post the wrong one and wait for someone to correct you.  :-)

It certainly sounds like a case of Channel 4 working overtime to generate publicity for their China Season. Which is a pity, since it looks to be pretty worthwhile anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wasn&#8217;t aware of the earlier coverage of the story. It looks as if the old Usenet joke works on the web too: the quickest way to get the right answer is to post the wrong one and wait for someone to correct you.  :-)</p>
<p>It certainly sounds like a case of Channel 4 working overtime to generate publicity for their China Season. Which is a pity, since it looks to be pretty worthwhile anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Girvan</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22676</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Girvan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22676</guid>
		<description>You do know the details? This is quite an old story that's been on rotten.com and The Register (in fact I tipped off The Register when they cited a daft Independent story about the photos being investigated by UK no-brainer child abuse experts who hadn't even done a web search). Zhu Yu is an artist who, like a number of others, uses corpse material for his installations. Personally I think this is really pukey, but given that the said display involves photo-stills, I'm not convinced that he is genuinely a cannibal. His work has been openly featured on chinese-art.com for a couple of years, and I think he would have been jumped on long since by the Chinese authorities if he were doing anything against their local jurisdiction. The issue seems to be that (like Von Hagens and BodyWorlds) he's doing something against British practice regarding sourcing and use of cadaver material. The rest, I'm sure, is publicity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do know the details? This is quite an old story that&#8217;s been on rotten.com and The Register (in fact I tipped off The Register when they cited a daft Independent story about the photos being investigated by UK no-brainer child abuse experts who hadn&#8217;t even done a web search). Zhu Yu is an artist who, like a number of others, uses corpse material for his installations. Personally I think this is really pukey, but given that the said display involves photo-stills, I&#8217;m not convinced that he is genuinely a cannibal. His work has been openly featured on chinese-art.com for a couple of years, and I think he would have been jumped on long since by the Chinese authorities if he were doing anything against their local jurisdiction. The issue seems to be that (like Von Hagens and BodyWorlds) he&#8217;s doing something against British practice regarding sourcing and use of cadaver material. The rest, I&#8217;m sure, is publicity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22675</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22675</guid>
		<description>You know something, it's a shame that Channel 5 (sorry, "five") are moving up market a bit. I'm fairly sure that at one point in their history they could have been persuaded to televise that.

Come to think of it, perhaps it's not too late. If they'll do a "celebrity enema" reality TV show, is "Widdicaged" really beyond them...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know something, it&#8217;s a shame that Channel 5 (sorry, &#8220;five&#8221;) are moving up market a bit. I&#8217;m fairly sure that at one point in their history they could have been persuaded to televise that.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, perhaps it&#8217;s not too late. If they&#8217;ll do a &#8220;celebrity enema&#8221; reality TV show, is &#8220;Widdicaged&#8221; really beyond them&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Coates</title>
		<link>http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22674</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Coates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:40:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soreeyes.org/archive/2002/12/30/eating-babies-is-wrong/#comment-22674</guid>
		<description>My feeling is that they should lock widdecombe in a cage and force-feed her babies until she stops complaining. But that &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; be a niche opinion...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My feeling is that they should lock widdecombe in a cage and force-feed her babies until she stops complaining. But that <i>could</i> be a niche opinion&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
