BS: Smithfield Hams

Subject: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:16 AM

American Rights at Work (Liz Cattaneo) just sent me an email describing conditions at Smithfield's plants (500+) injuries in 7 months) and physical abuse of pro-union workers. Does anyone work for them? Is there another side to the story?
My list of boycotted companies and products is becoming unwieldy.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:23 AM

I can't judge until I know more about the situation, SINS. And since "Smithfield" is a generic name for hams produced in a particular area of Virginia as well as the name of a packing house I'd like to know which is meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:27 AM

Sins, if you and I were to sit down and detail the abuses of workers that occur in these plants, we would both be in tears. It isn't just hams. I remember a turkey kill plant I was organizing. The workers hands would get so cold, working a full shift, and repetitive motion, that I would walk through the parking lot and see men and women, sitting rubbing their hands and crying. The bosses were so production oriented that people were afraid to go to the bathroom. They would be followed and timed. Finally, many of the women took to wearing adult diapers so they didn't have to leave the line. Often these were immigrant workers, legal and illegal, and the employer would take advantage of that.

The Jungle isn't just a novel. It is real. It is sad. It is an abomination. And the fact that we continue to elect lawmakers who spit in the face of workers rights borders on sinful. Our answer to a lack of workers rights, and to wretched working conditions in other countries seems to be to compete with them for the worst conditions.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:34 AM

I agree, Mick. I just want to know which plant.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:39 AM

Smithfield Packing Plant in Tar Heel, NC.

Mick,
Organizing unions can't be the only way of fighting this kind of abuse. Boycotting products hits manufacturers in the pocketbook.

Blue Diamond Nut Co has been abusing union workers for years so I don't buy their products not Hershey's who is their biggest customer. But the truth is, I suspect, that I would be hard-pressed to find a food ingredient company that isn't abusing workers given that so many of them use migrants or immigrants with few choices as workers.

So, does anyone have the other side of the story at Smithfield?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:46 AM

Washington Post:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/08/03/usdom11575_txt.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:48 AM

Mary, one of the fundamental aspects of organizing is to expect folks that believe in ethical treatment of workers to support them by not purchasing the product. The problem is getting folks to do that when there is no organized structure to promote the boycott. With no structure the message to the company is fuzzy.

If you but think back over the years, there have been so many attempts to get folks to hit them in their bottom line, but Americans (as well as other countries) have lost their sense of right and wrong. They don't want to think of the damage to people, and families, as long as they get the best price.

This is about organizing. The organizing was a response to the conditions these folks were forced to endure. The other side of the argument is that the employer wants to be able to pad its bottom line at the expense of the worker. Simple as that.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:57 AM

As Rapaire said, Smithfield hams are hams from Smithfield, Virginia, not hams made by the Smithfield company. The article posted by SINSULL specifically refers to a plant in Tar Heel, NC so, by definition, it does not produce "Smithfield" hams.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:02 AM

Mick,
Where do I find a list of companies who protect their workers (whether unionized or not) so that I can support them by using their products?
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:06 AM

Guys....... the company is named Smithfield. They produce Smithfield Hams and other foods. What the hell are you saying?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: MMario
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:10 AM

"Smithfield" hams - as a *TYPE* of ham must be produced within certain localities in order to be labeled "SmithField ham" - otherwise they are a "smithfield style ham" or some other euphimism. the Smithfield company seems to have weaseled around this by naming the company "Smithfield"

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:36 AM

Mary, THIS is a starting point from a union perspective. I am on the road right now, but I am sure that if I had time I could Google up a list based on other criteria.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:37 AM

Smithfield Foods
The world's largest producer of pork products and recent purchaser of the ButterBall turkey line.
Offices in NYC, plants worldwide.

Their NC plant was recently raided by imigration inspectors. 75 illegal workers were rounded up and fired. A strike followed on November 17 which has ended with guarantees of no retribution against strikers.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:37 AM

MMario, you are correct, of course. But this is very obviously an issue relating to the company.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:29 AM

Sinsull, in answer to the original question. There is one thing the company has done that has meant a lot to some very traumatized people, if I recall correctly (it may have been Gwaltney but I'm pretty sure it was Smithfield). A Virginia plant gave immediate employment to a bunch of Bosnian refugees. Tough ugly jobs, but simplistic work to keep body and soul together while they worked on the language barrier problem, and now they have transitioned into building trades etc. Between church sponsorships and employers like this, a lot of new starts for people who desperately needed them.

Which does not excuse them from any of their bad policies. But since you asked...

And I agree, we stupid consumers need some lists to work from. For example, I know Eggland's Best doesn't feed their chickens chickendoo, so I buy their stuff.   

But I don't know which bacon producer is a decent corporate citizen, if any.   The only weapon we have is to reject a product, based on hard information.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:33 AM

Yes. They also came through with turkeys for poor people at Thanksgiving and hams for Katrina victims.
I guess I should have specified that I wanted the other side of the labor story. Are any of their workers satisfied and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:03 PM

Gwaltney is owned by Smithfield.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:43 PM

Being able to market a ham as "Smithfield" requires that the ham be processed in a certain way, isn't that correct. I do not believe a genuine Smithfield ham can be marketed as such unless it is processed in a specific area of Virginia. I could be wrong though. I was once.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:07 PM

...........geeziz.....................Would y'all take the Smithfield Ham thing and blow it out your ass?   Sins was asking about the company and policy, etc. Whether they can use the name or not according to tradition is moot because like so many others, that tradition has left the building.

Sins, like you, my list has become unwieldy and sorrowfully it has become difficult to have the courage of my conviction without the money of my conviction as well.

Could y'all just read the preceding posts? This is getting to be an issue with me. In all kinds of threads it seems that people post without regard to what has been said by others. Although that has happened for years, here at the 'Cat it was minimal by comparison to other sites. Now it seems that we have lost that "tradition" here of the simple courtesy of acknowledging what has been previously stated.

And then again......fuck it. Who cares? Rant over. BP lowered.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:33 PM

Yes. Smithfield Hams are hams made in a specific area of Virginia. I may have confused you all with the title of my thread.
Smithfield Food Company is the world's largest producer of pork and beef. This is the company with a history of employee abuse.

A boycott would mean checking the manufacturing code on a Smithfield Ham to know if you have the right company.

Yeah. Spaw I find it fascinating that most of the people who post to this thread are more concerned about protecting the integrity of a Smithfield Ham than the abuse of the workers who produce them.
SIGH

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: MMario
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:35 PM

well - 'spaw - Doug probably read the preceeding posts , just like I did and saw that there appeared to be some confusions as to whether it was a plant producing Smithfield hams - or a plant producing hams belonging to the Smithfield company - and why there is a difference.

And it seemed as if Mick was asking why the hell people were making a distinction.

But that could just be the interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Bert
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:40 PM

You're right SINS, but the problem with a boycot is that I seem to be the only one doing it. It's good to hear that a few others have boycot lists to.

Maybe we should start a Boycot thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:45 PM

Well, I don't eat that much pork anyway -- hams or otherwise. And the ham we've been getting lately is from Vermont.

When you say "Smithfield ham" to me I think of the ham coming from a peanut-fed pig that has been locally slaughtered and then smoked and dry-cured. NOT something that comes from a plant.

I can support such a boycott. I'll even check the few pork products we do buy locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:45 PM

Gee we're sorry we posted. We thought this was a discussion thread. I suddenly feel the urge to boycott threads where innocent and well-intentioned replies are greeted with rants. Starting with this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: pdq
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:49 PM

Be a free-thinker: boycott all boycotts.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: MMario
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:51 PM

well - in regards to the workers rights - I'd have to ask - 500 plus injuries among how many workers? How many plants? What types of injuries? Under what conditions?

What is "abuse"? - does it include "being yelled at" which is now considered to be "cruel and unusual punishment" by some of our court systems? Details please. Until there are some there really isn't much TO discuss.

I'm not being unconcerned - but today's media can make mountains out of sand grains,let alone mole hills. And no, I am not condoning abuse of workers.

Mick - if you have details and can share them - please do! YOur example didn't even specify whether the turkey plant was one of Smithfields.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:56 PM

Sorry Mario......I just keep running into these though where it seems that no one is reading anymore. And Dougie.....sorry old friend if it came off directed at you.....not meant that way at all.

Feel free to boycott the threads anytime Guest! (read: fuck off)

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: MMario
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:10 PM

'spaw - I agree; it is one of my pet peeves as well; but sometimes it is a poorly expressed response to a particular comment; sometimes it is just that a particular part of the thread hits someones attention.

and sometimes it is just a person coming along and not reading - I've seen the SAME link posted at about 1 to two hour intervals several times. within minutes is understandable - several hours later is laxity. (usually)

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:30 PM

Recently somebody necro'd an old thread to provide an answer that had been given in the thread several years prior.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: LilyFestre
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:02 PM

We do our best to boycott the mass chicken and pork producers by growing our own. I don't abuse the worker TOO often *GRIN*

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:14 PM

Well, here, Sins, I'll stir the hornet's nest a little more.

My (possibly erroneous) understanding is that in addition to whatever abuses and strife are ongoing, there is an immigrant issue at the boil there. Apparently, they have employed a mix of legal and illegal immigrants. The plant seems to have enacted a very sudden and unexpected crackdown on illegal immigrants. This, as you may or may not be able to imagine, would cause great hardship and grief, and a ripple effect.

We can argue all day if you like about whether or not illegal immigrants SHOULD be working in this country. The fact is they ARE, everywhere, and our economy is very precariously perched upon their shoulders. Some people, governments and business are slowly seeing the light dawn.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:32 PM

I posted some links to stories about the abuse - beatings, arrests, firings for trying to unionize. Lawsuits abound trying to get settlements and Workers Comp for people maimed in plant accidents. The Washington Post has been following this story for years.


500+ injuries in a plant that employs 5500. I worked in the food industry and most plants had a chart showing how many injury free days the plant had achieved. Sometimes it went for years.

Dani,
That is a valid point. Does the company knowingly hire illegals? According to reports, Smithfield routinely accepts phony green cards, etc. and questions the validity only when they want to fire the employee. Does this company hire illegal aliens because they can take advantage of them or because no one else wants the job? If no one else wants the job - why? Safety? Low wages?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:49 PM

Can't speak for Smithfield, but LOTS of companies hire LOTS of illegal workers, not always intentionally. It's remarkably easy to be fooled by fakey-doo papers, and unless someone "cracks down", you might NOT know.

Then again, plenty of businesses could care less: the money they save offsets whatever puny fines they may have to pay if they are busted. Some companies are infamous.

I know of communities of people who share social security numbers; it takes a while to get caught, in which time you could put away some money and take care of yourself and your family for a while.

Not surprisingly, an employee on thin ice is not likely to complain about working conditions.

The flip side of all of this is that there are not (in my opinion) enough people who are willing to do these kinds of jobs that many Hispanics, especially Mexicans, both legal AND illegal, are doing now. As many of our immigrant ancestors did, they work like dogs, don't (for the most part) make trouble or ask questions. They are grateful for the work, however hard, dangerous and insecure it might be.

It is a big and complicated issue not easily solved or even tackled by the kind of knee-jerk legislation we've seen in recent years.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:46 AM

Meantime I sent a note to the CEO of Smithfield asking for their side of the story. No response. Guess it won't be ham for the holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: MMario
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:49 AM

yup - that's an excessive rate of injurie allright.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:43 PM

(if this works)here's an article from our local "independent" rag:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40768

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:09 PM

Well here's more sorry shit from the world of "Corporate Greed"

Nestle is another company that should join the ranks of those that are to be boycotted. Their infant formula violates UN rules regarding the international codex of infant formula. Their water plants use water that's been contaminated. Their formula has been found to have high levels of bacteria after manufacturering. Their policies of distributing in Africa, specifically in South Africa also violates UN rules. It is freely distributed throughout hospitals to new mothers who are told after experiencing any difficulty that the standard & better alternative to breast feeding is to use infant formula. The deceptive marketing of Nestle's infant formula is a cause of great health concerns to infants born wherever these marketing policies are being practice which is throughout Africa. This has nothing to do with how they treat their overseas employees which is awful, seeing as it's more a matter of generations of children being unfairly targeted as victims of corporate greed. Google Nestle & infant formula & you'll find a host of information.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM

Yep, MMario you are right. That's what I thought. Spaw: no problemo!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 12:54 PM

Update on local events regarding Smithfield. Issue seems to be getting some traction!

Dani

http://www.wral.com/news/10454117/detail.html

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:47 PM

As a member of the Solidarity committee of my union, I forwarded the first link to the union president and the head of the committee. Response is that we will be supporting the efforts to unionize and secure rights for the workers.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:26 PM

On Friday, December 15, PBS 's NOW with David Branaccio will be airing a special in depth investigative report on Smithfield shining a light on the cruelty visited on these courageous workers and their struggle. To find out when it will be airing on your local PBS station check out www.pbs.org/now/sched.html
. This will undoubtedly prove to be a worthwhile excursion from the Holiday hustle and bustle.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM

I was putting some food orders in today for all the holiday parties we're catering.....

"Smithfield hams, that's what we carry".

Guess I'll have to do some shopping around ; )

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:59 PM

We won!

UFCW Community Supporters

Dear friends and supporters,

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has reached an agreement with Smithfield Foods, and this December, workers at Smithfield's Tar Heel, North Carolina, plant will have the chance to vote in what we believe will be a fair election.

On behalf of all of us at the UFCW, we would like to thank you for your tremendous show of support for the Tar Heel workers through the years.


Here is the official joint statement we issued last Monday:



Joint statement of Smithfield and UFCW

The parties have reached a settlement of the lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. The essential elements of the settlement are as follows:

1. Smithfield and the UFCW have agreed on what both parties believe to be a fair election process by which the employees at Smithfield's Tar Heel plant can choose whether or not to be represented by the UFCW.

2. Smithfield and the UFCW have agreed to establish a Feed the Hungry Program to be jointly funded and administered by the UFCW and Smithfield.

3. The UFCW agrees to end its public campaign against Smithfield.

4. The parties have agreed there shall be no further public statement about this settlement until the election referenced in paragraph one above has been concluded.



We are pleased with this agreement, and the workers in the plant are very much looking forward to a vote. At this point, and in keeping with our agreement with Smithfield, we ask that you join us in suspending any Justice@Smithfield related activities.



Thank you for your support. As we move toward an election, you can learn more at www.ufcw.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:09 AM

Wasn't the Smithfield plant where they had the huge immigration raid last year?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:34 AM

There are many Smithfield plants, and they, like other meat and poultry processors, have been targeted by raids. The Tar Heel, North Carolina plant was one of those - there apparently were allegations by union organizers that plant management itself instigated the raid.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:14 AM

Do you have to prove you are legally in the country to join the union?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:50 AM

No. You have to prove that you are legally in the country in order to apply for a job at these packing plants. By allowing illegal aliens to work in the plants, owners have been able to force them to work extra hours without overtime pay in unsafe conditions with the threat of firing if they complain. Owners have also employed underage workers in unsafe conditions. When one of these illegals is hurt on the job, they are screwed - the company will do nothing and the victim risks deportation if he goes to the police.

The agreemnet is that the workers will be allowed to vote for or against unionizing.

A union will make it near impossible for employers at these plants to continue to hire illegal aliens. It will force them to pay a fair wage and provide safe conditions, disability for workers injured on the job, and probably higher prices to the consumer.

In many cases the illegals who were arrested in these plants were long-time employees with excellent work hitories. BUT both they and the employer were breaking the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 10:16 AM

There's some indication that the authorities are finally going after management. It seems to me like if they don't do that, everything else they do is kind of pointless.

                Further, if the management had to pay immigrants fair wages and benefits, and carry accident insurance on them, and keep safe working conditions, I don't think the rank and file citizen would be nearly as upset about all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:19 AM

There was an article on NPR in the past couple of days about a labor leader who is going after illegals in a positive way. He is inviting them to join the union he recruits for. This non-discriminatory approach creates jobs and a new environment for both the illegals and the legals. It creates an environment for the improvement of conditions for all workers and potentially creates a better environment in the home countries of the illegals as their expectation of a better life gets communicated to their families and friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:17 PM

Can somebody illegally in the country join a labor union. And if they can, what are the liabilities to the union?

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 04:26 PM

And guess whose name pops up in the news as the possible source of the swine flu pandemic? My old friend Smithfield Ham which has been polluting a little town in Mexico for years with fecal waste from pigs. A few months back a "strange illness" befell the inhabitants and led to pneumonia in infants. Two died. It was written off as an outbreak of bacterial pneumonia. But one child's sample shows the presence of Swine Flu and now the infants may be exhumed.

This can't be good publicity. They have a nasty record in the states too. For years they dumped fecal waste into Virginia rivers and finally had to pay a hefty fine.

I watch with interest. Important to note: Smithfield is a TYPE of ham. Not all Smithfield hams are produced by the Smithfield Ham Company. And so far there is no evidence that pork products cause the illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 08:52 PM

No reliable agency (CDC, etc.) has identified the point of origin of the swine flu virus.
Several 'conspiracy' net sites have blamed the Smithfield's operation, but without evidence.

Very large livestock feeding operations are a blight, granted, but unsubstantiated accusations serve no purpose.

I try to get products that are locally produced if I can find them.

Smithfield is a major producer of turkeys (Butterball and Carroll's are two of the brand names).

It has acquired several major food producers, thus markets also under the names Cudahy, Morrell, Farmland Foods, Stefano, Armour-Eckrich, Cook's and others, and in Europe as Smithfield, Campofrio, Animex; in China as Maverick, in Mexico as Granja Carroll and Norson; also other names worldwide. Some 53,000 employees.

Also produces hogs under a variety of company names.

Also produces "200 gourmet food products" under a variety of names.

Smithfield

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: number 6
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 09:06 PM

CBC reported on Smithfield today ...... Interesting article, regardless if it's ground zero or not.

Swine Flu ground zero ?


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 06:29 AM

Sometime in my life (I think my teenage years) my family stopped using the term Smithfield Ham when we wanted what was a tradtionally reared (peanut fed) and smoked "Smithfield" ham and started calling them Virginia hams. Maybe because when the Smithfield company went global the hams were not the same.

A 1926 Statute of Virginia (passed by the Virginia General Assembly) regulates the usage of the term "Smithfield Ham" by stating:

Genuine Smithfield hams [are those] cut from the carcasses of peanut-fed hogs, raised in the peanut-belt of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of North Carolina, and which are cured, treated, smoked, and processed in the town of Smithfield, in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So what happened? How is it that the description Smithfield can be used on hams not produced in Smithfield? Is there a peanut belt in Mexico now?

Labor at Smithfield Packing -
As of April 2006, Smithfield had approximately 52,500 total employees, 22,500 of whom are covered by collective bargaining agreements. At Smithfield's pork plants, 18,000 of the approximately 31,800 employees are unionized—about 56%. The U.S. Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Board have found that Smithfield has engaged in a systematic pattern of labor rights violations.

Meat is murder in more than one sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Smithfield Hams
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:24 AM

snork! I think I want to change my mudcat handle so as not to be confused with Smithfield hams.