What is not sustainable at all are the so-called mega farms. Yesterday there was a report, I think the origin of the study was the UK, although I’m not sure, which said the big 20 multinational industrial livestock companies emit greenhouse gases that make up three-quarters of the carbon dioxide emitted by Spain. But of course they find a town In an uninhabited part of Spain And they planted 4,000, 5,000, or 10,000 heads of livestock there: they pollute the soil, they pollute the water, and Then it is exported normally. It is poor quality meat, produced from the abuse of animals and has a massive and disproportionate environmental impact.
We will be merciful. It’ll be because it’s Kings Week, but we will buy from him a Alberto Garzon Explanation of his statements in Watchman. The minister and leader of the United Left says he wanted to talk about the big farms, their impact on the environment or the different business models in the livestock sector. And to prove it Post a Tweet Which reproduced the paragraph in question, with its full data for the English newspaper.
The problem is that your explanation almost makes you worse than before. Because before listening to their arguments, we can imagine that there is simply an ideological background, that of a far-left consumer minister who wants to end big business. We now know that it is pure and cruel impotence.
Look at these two sentences and imagine an interior minister in any country saying one and the other:
- “Cybercrime is a problem that has worsened in recent years and we in the European Union must put in place new measures to confront it”
- “Cybercrime In my country It is a problem that has been getting worse in the past years and we have to devise new measures to confront it.”
Anyone knows that what we believe in either case has nothing to do with it. In the first, we all focus on the topic (“cybercrime”) and relate the data to general thinking about a global phenomenon. In the second, what catches our eye is the place complement (“In my countryAnd we all think what it means is that they have a particularly serious problem, so it’s best not to go or do a lot of online business with companies of that nationality, because it’s not safe at all.
In addition, if it happened to the Minister of consumption Associate your words with “export”The play is complete. The consumer in Stuttgart, Birmingham or Nantes clearly has no idea whether the meat they buy in the supermarket comes from a large farm of 10,000 head of cattle (which apparently does not exist in Spain, by the way.) or from an eco-farmer of those who They appear in TV commercials, wearing a straw hat and hand-feeding cows (we suspect this picture isn’t very realistic either). Imagine the reaction of a British newspaper reader, who found an interview with a Spanish minister saying that some of his exports were of very poor quality: that man would never pick up a tray of Spanish chorizo or sirloin again in his life. For two reasons: (1) Because he believes that if a minister confesses something like this in an interview.. what will be the reality? (2) Because if you do not have the possibility to distinguish between a good Spanish source and a bad Spanish source, it is better not to risk it.
Those Who They totally get it, they are cultivators, who know that their sales depend on their public image and what their customers think. A man whose export order has been canceled does not relax knowing that all his papers are in order or that he meets all animal welfare standards. Because even the most conscientious small farmers know that the purchasing manager of the British company that has been buying their meat for years will not read the ministry’s statement, nor the minister’s explanations on Twitter, nor will he listen to the gatherings where left-wing journalists acquit him…what a purchasing manager can read Watchman. What is found is a paragraph in which Garzon mixes “lower quality meat” with “Spain” and “exports”. Because, moreover, it is not the classic error in which a journalist distorts (or mistranslates) some words. Whether in the published version or in the longer version of the Ministry, words key code They are the same.
Anyone who lives in rural Spain knows that the interview was a huge mistake. Whether you are for or against big farms, these words are clearly detrimental to the livestock sector.
I call it “crap” because I decided to believe your explanations. And this is hard to believe, because we also believe that it is a new attack by the government and a member of the Spanish Communist Party on businessmen in a sector with which they have no sympathy. An attack went wrong and forced him to retreat. But today I will not go there. I will pretend to accept the official version.
The second derivative of the argument has to do with Spanish press, handed over to the government to extremists on the border on the caricature. This is also their job.
It is in fact unbelievable that we are discussing this issue at this point, but it seems that it must be done: part of the minister’s job is to explain himself well in interviews. And in asking for forgiveness when he errs. Or resign if the mistake is too big. If Garzon had reacted as he should and apologized, I don’t think he would have had to resign, although it’s a huge mistake (the good news is that not many people read interviews with an unknown Spanish consumption minister in a British newspaper). Now I am not clear: being stubborn is the reason why they are angry with you.
However, the Journalists on duty from the Spanish left They are determined to move the goal again. In fact, they came out in a hurry to defend Garzon, with a force that would not have come this far had it been a translation error by the English journalist. here Country, here Evol, here Franchino: All the same, repeating that this is manipulation (again, file fake news which they alone determine and follow).
Yesterday, for example, I came across some tweets Data collected by farmers’ organizations against large farms. Organizations that criticized Garzon this week. The central argument these days is that ranchers are incoherent for attacking the government with this issue, which they have also protested in the past. But what bothered the farmers? macrogranjistas s microgranjistas It’s stupid statements. This upset them because they know they can do a lot of harm.
This manipulation of the left is very blatant To expect one to turn against them. But I’m not sure. They have such a mastery of the media, especially televisions, and it is they that characterize the discourse, that one already senses that in a few months we will continue to talk about when the far right invented an attack by Garzon on the Spanish ranchers. “Spain”? He has a joke, but sometimes these ministers seem to only use their country’s name for what they shouldn’t. He could have said “in the state” or “in this country” or “in the union of historical states” or something like that. This error may be the same, but at least Google search engines, when someone says “poor quality meat” will not associate it with our farmers.
“Creator. Devoted pop culture specialist. Certified web fanatic. Unapologetic coffee lover.”