To become a "man" means so many different things; each culture defining it differently than their neighbors. To the Maasai, a man is one who has reached sexual maturity, and shown the fortitude to bring honor to his father and his clan. The test is one of circumcision. This common practice, both amongst the Maasai and other cultures through the world, shows the warrior's true potential. Without it, he is not a man, but a boy. With it, he has the opportunity to enter the adult world. How he enters this world helps to determine his position within it. Should he flinch, he will be proven a person of small stature, and not worthy of the "upper class".

To prepare himself for this ritual, a prospective Maasai Warrior must prepare the knives with which the ceremony must take place. To not sharpen the knives sufficiently may jeopardize his standing within the community, as he may not be able to hold his body still during the entirety of the event. Thus, he must also protect the knives against those who might wish him ill; they could dull the knives and cause the same outcome. The ceremony itself must be done with the prospective warrior holding quite still, his gaze locked in just one direction. Water and paint are splashed on the participants face and head, as a way to distract him from the pain of a procedure done without the aide of local anesthetics. Once completed, the newly anointed Warrior is to rest in his bed, without the flowing blood spilling onto the floor. Any deviation from this practice will result in shame on him and his family.

The greatest examples of this in our society are the hazing rituals conducted at universities and schools nationwide. Often the participants are wishing to enter into an exclusive group, or to prove themselves as men amongst boys. These ceremonies often involve the painful humiliation of the participants, and are perpetrated with the kind of zeal that the Maasai Warriors show in preparing a new entrant into their ranks. While these ceremonies are looked down upon by those that are considered "adults" in our society, they are entered into willingly (if not eagerly) by many. As a society, we are always looking for ways to prove that we are "men", and at the level of those that we perceive as above us in the social hierarchy.

Although we do have the official ceremonies that allow us to embark on the path to adulthood different sub-cultures take a dim view of them. Most Americans will agree that graduation from school (be it highschool or college) and entering the work force is a sign that one has become an adult, and "man". Some sub-cultures look at that as only a part of manhood. Inner city youths that are not given the same opportunity to enter adulthood in the fashion that is most accepted by our society may look to become "men" by entering into gangs and finding violent ways to show those that can see that they are no longer boys. This self-destructive path is often the only one afforded to them, and like the Maasai, the only accepted path.

Should there be a universally accepted ritual to anoint a boy a "man"? No one person can say that. No one person can tell another that they have become a "man". Without the individual understanding what a man is, by way of education and the process of living and learning, no boy can truly become a man. Not even ritualistic mutilation or violence can change that.

----------------------------

The concern regarding Genetically Engineered (GE) foods has caused quite a stir over the last decade. In general, it seems to concern people that their food has been manipulated in ways in which they do not understand. For all of Joseph Mendelson's frantic whining about the dangers of GE food stuffs, he fails to back up his claims with any solid evidence, thereby showing a lack of understanding of the processes by which these new foods are created. I find it particularly unsettling that he cites numerous articles and surveys, without ever providing us an indication of where we can review this information. As such, I will be taking a number of his claims, and providing my own data to see where his claims fall short, and where he may have accidentally come across the truth. I have been careful to screen the data with which I am going to base my rejection or acceptance of his hypothesis to only reputable sites or those that are government controlled.

Within the first three pages, Mr. Mendelson tells us that we need to fear "fish genes [engineered] into tomatoes...pesticide genes in corn and other vegetables...and firefly genes into tobacco plants, causing the plants to glow...". (Untested, Unlabeled pgs 149-150) Some basic research into these claims shows that the Arctic flounder genes placed into the common tomato were a failed experiment (http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/foodag/feedme.cfm). So, no need to worry about that fishy taste when eating your bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches! OK, so how about glowing tobacco plants (anyone else reminded of Homer Simpson's "tomacco" crops)? According to Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962873,00.html) Mendelson nearly hit this one on the head! Yes, researchers at the University of California, San Diego were able to successfully create glowing tobacco plants. What evil scheme were they concocting to use the plants for? How about a better understanding of how genes work. Lastly, why don't we take a look at the pesticides that are purportedly being injected into everything from asparagus to zucchini. Well, it looks like our good friend has finally found some "facts" to work with. Yes, GE foods do have a genetic marker placed in them to help resist pesticides that would normally kill them, and allow for easier destruction of weeds and other pests. As the Australian government tells us "Wherever pesticides are used, insect resistance can occur and good agricultural practice includes strategies to minimise this." (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Genetically_modified_foods?open). So, where does that leave us so far? One actual fact, albeit a bit blown out of proportion, and two items in which Mendelson has forgotten to look up the rest of the data.

Now that we have established that Mendelson isn't reading beyond the headlines in the newspapers, why we take a look at the few "statistics" that he bothers to use. His citation of "37 deaths and 1,500 illnesses caused by consumption of the dietary supplement L-tryptophan..." as a result of genetic engineering are absolutely absurd. He cites the FDA as making such statements, but provides no way for us to verify this information. A quick search of the FDA website shows us that they did, indeed, recall certain Japanese dietary supplements containing L-tryptophan in 1989. Yes, they were linked to deaths. No, they were not linked to genetic engineering.

Well, then how about the 90 percent of Americans that support labeling of GE foods? Well, he's really close; 86% of Americans polled by Harris in 2001 did think the government should require labeling of GE foods. (http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0117-10.htm) But how many would avoid such foods? Mendelson tell us that "60 percent would" (Untested, Unlabeled pg. 156). According to a CBS poll, 65% of Americans think that genetically altering food is "right"! (http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/biotechnology/biotech2.cfm) That would leave far less than 60% as not wanting to have anything to do with these types of foods. So much for that "statistic".

Finally, I'd like to look at his take that our food industry is threatened, and that we will be forced to buy from a select few oligarchies. Wait, I'm sorry but I'm being told by the fine gentlemen of RJ Reynolds that I'm done with this paper.