Hysterical.

Leaving aside for a moment the blatant partisanship of networks like those owned by failed presidential candidates and those who show that nepotism also comes in blue, I'm applauding such networks' willingness to set aside the pearl-clutching ideology over humanity's entitlement to milk products just long enough to notice that people without access to a personal chef might need such things to feed themselves, even if it took a crisis of this magnitude for them to do so. Thank you for drawing attention to the link between farms and cities, and reminding me how much value the related adage still holds.

I am, however, not impressed by the coverage that's followed the briefings. If I'd only read the follow-up pieces from such networks, I'd be tempted to doubt my own perception. Now, I'm even more convinced of the dangerous, disgraceful nature of the pieces that are being published. I very much agree with that F, media.

Watching a network that doesn't use chyrons, cutaways, or commentary (to clarify, C-SPAN) leaves me with the impression of an ill-tempered man responding to people who are prepared to take his words in the worst possible way, which reflects poorly on both sides.

Couple of questions - if a particular state chooses to remain closed for business against the wishes of its people, is the president legally able to override that and bring it back to business as usual, given that it's medically safe and financially necessary to do so? (Is it related to what's in that legal brief?)**

What happened to "having to do with the subject we're talking about," or was it just more convenient to leave those words out of the related statement in order to portray someone as more power-hungry? He wasn't the one to leave those words out of a deliberately leading and repetitive question.

And let me add - what's wrong with charging a tentacle beast of a company more to use a delivery service, if that service is legally able to do so? Wasn't there another former candidate who floated an idea to require such large companies to pay more in order to benefit the infrastructure that they, as well as other citizens, end up using? Or am I restating this idea incorrectly? Then again, maybe it just sounds better coming from a person on the other side of the divide - that seems to be the pattern here.***

Now that my certainty in my choice of news networks has been refreshed, back to food. No wonder wet markets are still in use - viruses in pork, poultry, and now shrimp? Ouch.

** If I'm reading this correctly, the vice-president supports it. However, there are two other sides to the argument - constitutionally, it's a no because there isn't a national stay-at-home order to lift, only orders that vary between states; and from a public health perspective, the timing of the disease's spread varies from state to state, this is still a no. OK.

Glad I can still get my questions answered without having to deal with the screech. (Thanks, before I forget.)

*** This, I think, is considerably further to the right than the screech-fest, but if it's true, it's even more confirmation that dangerous and disgraceful are entirely appropriate words to describe the contentious theatrics that calls itself news. Ignore lies and people who blame others? You got it, lady.

(Just playing with stock photos.)