News

Dog Meat Still on the Menu in Northern Thailand

Consumption of dog meat is tied to traditional beliefs and old habits despite being a social taboo in many areas of Thailand.

CHIANGRAI TIMES – Despite social taboos about eating dog meat, its consumption in parts of Thailand is a tradition that’s still thriving. Consumption of dog meat is tied to traditional beliefs and old habits despite being a social taboo in many areas of Thailand.

In parts of Chiang Mai, gaeng shadow is a northern delicacy equivalent in popularity but superior in taste, according to some food critics, to shark’s fin soup.

Dog Meat dishes are eaten at home on special occasions or in select eateries and are not widely available.

The central ingredient in the soup is meat of a black or dark brown dog, hence the name “shadow”. The clear broth is cooked in spices and chilli paste to overpower the natural, strong odour of the meat.

More men than women consume the soup, which is believed to be an energy booster and an aphrodisiac. It is mostly eaten during cold weather.

Malnourished children are also fed the soup, which is thought by some northern families to avert stunted growth.

A former chief of Mae Wang district of Chiang Mai said that despite the deep-seated beliefs associated with dog meat consumption, dishes are eaten at home on special occasions or in select eateries and are not widely available.

Communities are sensitive to the growing resistance from many sectors of society opposed to the eating of dogs, which are considered a loyal pet.

The former district chief is a native of Ban Thung Suiew in another Chiang Mai district called San Pa Tong, where dogs are still on the menu. The fact that he speaks on condition of anonymity illustrates his nervousness in going public on the subject of cooking and eating dog meat.

He admits he sometimes orders dog meat specials at his favourite food stall in Ban Thung Suiew. The dishes are cooked in black earthen pots believed by residents to help preserve the nutritional goodness of the meat. The dishes are ordered with an assortment of locally brewed ya dong liquor.

Eating dog meat is part of a tradition passed down through generations in some villages in Chiang Mai, especially in Ban Thung Suiew, Ban Pieang in Mae Wang district and some remote villages in Doi Lo district.

The dishes are mostly prepared in the cool season. Many families said the dishes keep them warm at night when the mercury drops to single digits.

The ex-district chief said most adults in the villages tasted dog meat in their early years. However, eating dog meat is now frowned upon by youngsters educated in the city who have been taught to have zero tolerance for consumption of pet animals.

“They think alike and now they are decrying the very culture they were brought up in,” he said.

The source said other common dishes made of dog meat are pad krapaw (stir-fried meat with basil leaf) and nuea kem (meat jerky).

For several decades, Tha Rae village in Sakon Nakhon was well known as a trading hub for dog meat. That changed two years ago after many public campaigns against dog meat consumption. Many Tha Rae restaurants stopped advertising their businesses and became rather secretive about what they offered customers, according to a local food critic.

As news emerged of the smuggling of thousands of live dogs to Vietnam, Sakon Nakhon’s chamber of commerce encouraged dog meat butchers to cease their trade, which some officials claimed was giving the province a bad name.

Previously, fresh markets in Tha Rae were filled with dog meat, with more than 10 major butchers dominating the trade.

Innards hanging at stalls were a common sight as shops displaying the sign Nua Hong Teh (Meat for the Emperor) did brisk business. Popular dishes included slow-boiled stew, the multi-herbal om clear broth and grilled meat.

Some residents remember a time when vendors raced to the supply trucks to get the best cuts of dog meat.

Although dog meat is eaten mostly by the working class, its price has been rising over the years. For them, dog meat dishes are reserved for weekend get-togethers with friends or special celebrations.

Care for Dogs Foundation look after abandoned dogs at the foundation’s shelter facility in San Pa Tong district of Chiang Mai.

However, preparing dog meat is more complicated than it looks, according to a butcher. It needs experienced and highly skilled cooks to know the correct quantity and variety of herbs required to get rid of the meat’s strong odour.

The meat of black dogs is the most sought after by customers, who believe it has more aphrodisiacal properties than meat from other dogs. But as black dogs are harder to find, many eateries make do with meat from dark brown dogs.

Tha Rae has been watched closely by authorities for the movement of dogs through the area. Some dogs exported illegally overland to Vietnam are strays netted from the streets.

In Sakon Nakhon, dogs are put in illegal pounds serving as transit facilities for dog trafficking. The dogs are exported live and bound for slaughterhouses in Vietnam.

According to the Chiang Mai-based Care for Dogs Foundation, too many dogs end up on the streets because owners abandon them.

Some have cancer, kidney problems, parasites in their blood, inflammation of the uterus or skin diseases, said Antima Khuttiwung, the foundation’s coordinator.

Apart from catching stray dogs on the streets, illegal traders also steal or buy dogs from villagers.

The foundation houses 190-200 dogs in its shelter. Dogs are also put up for adoption.

Care for Dogs therefore has a growing number of cases that are likely to stay at the shelter for the rest of their lives if they do not find that long awaited new home. As well as taking the space that possibly other homeless dogs could use, the long term cases cost money to keep and are therefore a drain on resources.

We would like your help. Can you sponsor a puppy, a dog, an individual who’s character is described and photographed for you to recognise and appreciate.

Care for Dogs “Sponsor this Dog” program offers the sponsor an opportunity to support named individuals and in return, we will provide a formal certificate in recognition of your commitment and publish details of your support on our website.

Sponsorship can even be a gift to someone for a birthday or special time.

It’s easy just visit our shop and take a look at the special features we offer regarding sponsoring, take a look here … or do it the traditional way by doing a pay pal or bank wire transfer, how just click here …

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP