I wrote a comment on a New York Times opinion piece this morning, that they simply will not publish. Maybe it was because I expressed my self in a manner that could be taken seriously, or that hit a nerve with the 'editors' (those people at the NYTimes that sanitize everything).
So here's the goods.
Over the past few days, there has been a bit of a kerfuffle about a few eggs. Five hundred and fifty million eggs to be precise. And along with the reporting, there are comments about how the Brits have been vaccinating their chickens to fix their salmonella problems, and how well that has worked.
The fact that the FDA has not been able to be effective at implementing healthy change in the food industry (leafy vegetables, beef, eggs, etc) is leading to some comparisons with other countries that have effective solutions in place, and asking why they haven't been implemented in the US. Like this Brit chicken vaccination program.
Well, it would take me too long to list all the reasons it doesn't happen in the US. I have many suspicions. Lobbyists for the food industry? The vast criminal enterprise that is the American political system today, corrupted at every level from small town through to federal levels, unmonitored, without oversight of any kind, and no legal consequences even when misconduct is discovered?
This is not a new tale. It has been going on for years. A President can sell weapons to terrorists in Iran, and use the profits to buy weapons for other terrorists in South America, but he will not be impeached for it. But God forbid he protects an infatuated girl's honor, and his own incredibly bad taste in women, by hand-waving on whether or not he had sex with her, and he will be full-on impeached!
Now that we know where American priorities rest, and that they have nothing to do with the welfare of Americans or the law of the land, may I draw your attention to this craven lack of courage on the part of the New York Times.
You can find the New York Times article here. "Why Eggs Became a Hazard"
The author suggests that "probably" thousands of people have been sickened. Oh, now wild conjecture replaces reporting and statistics. OK, this is par for the course, particularly on Faux News. Seems to be catching on at the NYTimes as well.
OK, the article continues, pretty much as expected, a dreary history of neglect and foot-dragging that has become an American hallmark.
I like the comments. They are usually entertaining.
The very first comment caught my eye. Apologists for George W. Bush are absolutely everywhere, lying in wait for every issue that is raised, immediately jumping into a denialist position whether it makes sense or not. (This has something to do with being a Believer, and not allowing yourself to be confused by the facts.)
So the first comment, from a Mr. Gleason, said "Once again, George W. Bush is glad he is no longer President. He surely would be blamed for the salmonella outbreak."
To which I fell on the floor laughing, and wrote the response below. When I sent it to the New York Times, they wouldn't publish it. So here it is, for you to read.
"Now I saw John Gleason's comments about how George W. would be blamed for this whole fiasco, but there is no way! George W. never did anything! That's how we know he can't be blamed!
All of us Republicans are profoundly against regulations, because they push up the price of everything. We are also profoundly against the whole concept of Government health care, and that includes health care for chickens!
What we all know is, if you give chickens guns, they can regulate themselves! If they suspect something going wrong, or an unhealthy looking neighbor, they can shoot first, and ask questions later. Kinda like a Sarah-Palin-style neighborhood watch.
I am in television, and all this publicity for chickens has been setting us to thinking there is a whole new revenue angle to this chicken thing. My company is looking into several new chicken franchises, such as "Chicken Smackdown" (a wrestling show), "Who You Callin' Chicken?" (a combination quiz/reality show where the chickens get to answer questions, and the dumb ones get to beat up the winners), and several other winning ideas that I can't talk about here.
Now this is the beauty of the free-enterprise system. If we can keep the Government regulations off the chicken and egg market (what came first? LOL), then the extra money the chicken farmers make off these television shows will bring the cost of chickens and eggs down to the point where they are almost free! (And one of these shows is likely to be a chicken humor show, because everybody knows us Republicans have a great sense of humor. LOL)
Now isn't that better than pesky regulations? "
OK, now this is just me, but I thought this needs a little bit of humor and a little less frothing at the mouth.
I look forward to your comments. Tell me if you like or dislike, and if you dislike this, I really need to hear from you so I can understand why anybody would be upset by this response.