It Might Not Be A Kodak Moment.

       There is some great new legislation being introduced into law in some states. I especially like the ones that make it illegal to take any pictures of any farming operation. In other words if a farm operation is breaking the law, you'd better not try to force them to stop by taking pictures and using those pictures to prove the farm is breaking the law. Now who would be in favor of that kind of law? Well, these farms that are breaking the law, they might want to stop people from exposing them. Anybody else? No?
       Oh! Wait! I know some other people who would want such a law. State legislators who are getting huge donations from such agribusiness, that's who. After all, it's not a question of public health or animal cruelty or breaking the law, it's about people trying to prove any of those offences. The idea of these laws seems to be to keep the public from knowing whether or not the food they buy is safe and if the animals producing this food are treated humanely. After all, who says the food we eat must be safe and the animals must be treated humanely? Oh, the same government that won't let us know if things are not right.
       If you ask me, I'd say the government is a bit confused. On the one hand farms can't break the law and on the other hand nobody's allowed to prove a farm is breaking the law. I'm not suggesting the government should have inspectors at farms, but then they do have inspectors. The thing is, they don't have enough inspectors so it should be a good thing to have a whistle-blower where and when they don't have inspectors on site.
       Why is the government mad at whistle-blowers for taking the pictures they must have to prove mistreatment? Did you forget that state legislators get huge sums of money from agribusiness?