Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Eat meat -- Trust me

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    Credibility And Virginity By Charlie Reese Monday, January 5, 2004 What President Bush does not understand (don t worry, I m not going through the whole list)
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Credibility And Virginity
      By Charlie Reese
      Monday, January 5, 2004

      What President Bush does not understand (don't worry, I'm not going
      through the whole list) is that credibility, like virginity, cannot
      be recovered once it's lost.

      He thinks it's unimportant that he took the country to war based on
      the false claim that Saddam Hussein had amassed large amounts of
      chemical and biological weapons and was on the verge of handing them
      to terrorists. His attitude is: "Hey, what's your problem? We got rid
      of a bad guy."

      Well, the problem is that now any American who believes anything the
      Bush administration says without a ton of proof to back it up is a
      fool. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Like a
      lot of old sayings, it's a basic truth. Do you really think an
      administration that would lie about reasons for going to war won't
      lie to further its re-election efforts or to cover up other blunders?

      I know that for a lot of young people, Watergate and the Vietnam War
      are now "that real old stuff," as a baby sitter once described any
      history that had occurred prior to her puberty. But for many
      Americans of that generation, it was their first exposure to
      wholesale lying by the federal government. My own first exposure had
      occurred in the 1950s, when I caught the U.S. Department of
      Agriculture in a pack of lies about imported fire ants.

      So, do you think the Bush administration is telling you the truth
      about mad cow disease? I don't. The Bush administration says that the
      discovery of one case of mad cow disease poses a minimal risk. Well,
      what exactly is the minimal risk of a disease that is 100 percent
      fatal and incurable? "Minimal," when it comes out of the mouth of a
      bureaucrat, is a code word for acceptable. In other words, a few dead
      Americans are an acceptable price to pay for preserving a
      multibillion-dollar beef industry. That's fine, unless you happen to
      be one of the dead ones.

      If the risk is so minimal, why are they trying to recall all of the
      meat? They have told us that the most dangerous parts of a sick cow
      are the spinal cord and brain, and that these were "left out of the
      food chain." Do you think slaughterhouses debone cows with surgical
      precision? That'll be the day.

      The human form of mad cow disease is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob
      disease, or CJD. Did you know there are about 300 cases of CJD in the
      United States every year? Did you know that clusters of CJD have
      occurred in: Pennsylvania in 1993, Florida in 1994, Oregon in 1996,
      New York in 1999-2000, and Texas in 1996? These cases were all
      classified as "sporadic," which sounds to me much more like semantics
      than science. Usually, clusters of disease are indicative of an
      environmental factor.

      Laura Manuelidis, section chief of surgery in the neuropathology
      department at Yale University, conducted a 1989 study that found that
      13 percent of people who died after being diagnosed as having
      Alzheimer's disease actually had died of CJD.

      "Now people are beginning to realize that because something looks
      like sporadic CJD, they can't necessarily conclude that it's not
      linked to mad cow disease," she told United Press International.

      There is no good tracking system for CJD, and obviously no good
      tracking system for cows with mad cow disease. Think about this: If
      you're a cattleman and you find a sick cow you suspect of mad cow
      disease, what is in your selfish interest: to report it and lose your
      whole herd or shoot it and bury it? If you're a bureaucrat in the
      USDA, what is in your self-interest: to tell the truth and have the
      agribusiness lobbyists howling for your scalp or to follow the
      administration line? I'm not saying that altruists don't exist, but
      they are rare birds in the human flock.

      As of now, hamburger I don't grind myself and all other processed
      meats are off the menu. I would advise you to take the same steps.

      Otherwise, one day, you might hear the president say: "Hey, what's
      your problem? We preserved the beef industry." There are some things
      I aspire to, but being part of the acceptable price for achieving
      somebody else's political and economic goals is not one of them.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.