I was out of town last week and recovering from the trip (sleeping) over the weekend. thus the scarcity of blog posts. I set to early today all filled with an idea about Sinead O’Connor most recent meltdown and the time she ripped the Pope’s picture on Saturday Night Live and tying that to the current unfathomable “Pope”. At the time of the picture rip, my feeling was whatevs, if you belong then don’t be disrespectful / if you don’t belong then your opinion is invalid. Now, with the advent of this globally politicized Pope, I’m rethinking the infallibility angle and so I am now less inclined to disapprove of a little papal photo ripping.
Lots of things happened last week but now that I’m home and recovered (no longer sleep deprived), this is the one outstanding moment:
The hotel where I usually stay has a free breakfast buffet with two stacks of newspapers at the entrance to the buffet area. The paper on the left is the Wall Street Journal and the paper on the right is USA Today. Someone had mixed up the piles and I grabbed USA Today by mistake and realized it as soon as my eyes hit the print. It wasn’t until I read the first sentence of the article that caught my eye and realized that the message in the headline was quite different. The gist of the story was that after a 2 year review of 900 separate studies on genetically engineered crops, the conclusion was that they did not cause any increase in disease or damage to the monarch butterfly population, and were safe for humans and animals to eat. But the headline blared FRANKENFOOD. Biased much?
So now there’s an undercurrent of sadness that people who read this article will only remember the word frankenfood and not get the message that there’s no such thing as frankenfood. And also that the Sinead O’Connor Pope picture incident happened almost 25 years ago and not a single person that I work with today would understand what I was talking about.