Why does the Sun-Journal even bother to post articles like this? The headline leads one to believe there is a fairly in-depth story being offered -- and indeed it's a topic that would make excellent material for a longish piece -- but when we open it we have -- four paragraphs that might act as a lead in a real article. That's it. Where's the rest of the story? You can't tell me a bylined AP article is four paragraphs long, basically restating the headline.
This begs the question: why did the Sun-Journal even bother with the story? The same thing happened further down, with an "article" on the release of 911 transcripts ordered released by the Maine Supreme Court. Headlines promising much, squib giving us a few empty paragraphs, and abruptly ending. It's something the Sun-Journal is notorious for. At least once in each paper, especially noticeable in the Sunday edition, we have articles that just... end in the middle.
Why bother? What is the point? If the editors don't think anyone really cares, why put the story or column out there in the first place? And to think, we're going to have to pay for the online version of this laziness.
Once more -- why bother?
Not again! Another catechism on the doctrine of the Neo-Luddite Church of Fear. Normally certain key phrases or code words in an opinion piece will flick a switch in my head and anything the writer says thereafter does not register. Some of these terms are "large multinational corporations" (and by extension "concentrated animal farming operations") "wealthy corporations" "tax breaks for the rich," etc etc ad nauseum. These key phrases and other like them tell me someone is simply parroting dogma they've been taught in their Enviro-Church's holy book. The switch must be broken, because this one really irritated me.
"Studies on GMOs have proven they cause many health problems, allergies, stomach problems and infertility." I want to know what studies "prove" these effects, most of which are vague psycho-somatic symptoms. Is the proof more vague pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of the kind used to "prove" alien astronauts built the Pyramids? Please cite these studies so I can read them myself and see if they "prove" anything of real value.
One of the most important tricks in the Enviro-Church's little bag is the impressive sounding phrase, "studies have proven", tossed out in the usually correct belief that nobody will ask them to cite the sources. I want to see the studies proving these assertions. Or it all so much more Chicken Little Nonsense (I suspect Chicken Little didn't come from a "concentrated animal farming operation")? All of this is utter nonsense from people who want to drag us kicking and screaming into some pre-industrial Utopia that never existed in the first place.
If you really truly want to know if you're eating food from a CAFO, it isn't that hard to figure it out. If you see a Purdue chicken in the store, I'd say it's a safe bet it didn't come from somebody's backyard brood.
This is a heckuva way to facilitate urban renewal. In the words of the inimitable Vince Lombardi, "What the hell is going on out there?" God forbid, is Little Canada next?