UN recommendations on beef and climate change have no teeth

Let me confess before I get into the substance of this topic, that I like beef. I like McDonald’s. I like a fillet. Now it’s also true that representing Atlanta and representing literally, the home of Chick fil A, the dwarf house and I also like Chick fil A sandwiches. But deep down, there’s nothing like a good cheeseburger. And that’s why I think is grand irony almost verging on humor, like vaudeville, that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is expected to come out in favor of less beef for Americans and Australians, but more beef for poor countries. The reasoning is that we have what they call overconsumption. 

Now, you have to ask yourself, was this a gathering of vegetarians? Would they advocate more tofu? What exactly is on their head? But the whole notion that we’ve created these multinational organizations, they go to fancy places, in this case to Dubai, stay in fancy hotels, usually at least four star because after all, you don’t become an international bureaucrat in order to suffer. They gather around in conference rooms, where they know they’re really important because they’re in the conference room. And they sip tea or drink coffee or have something stronger, and they chat in meaningful ways using very advanced words. And then they render their judgments, which by the way, they may or may not personally follow. 

So that’s why you have, for example, all of these celebrities who are in favor of lowering carbon, unless of course, it’s a private jet. In which case, they take the private jet, because after all, there has to be some kind of offset, they can claim that they don’t take seriously their own rules, as they apply them to them. So now I have, of course, the American AG, the Australian and the British in the Brazilian cattle growing. These are the three great cattle growing countries. And they’re staring in disbelief. 

I have a hunch that nobody at McDonald’s headquarters in Chicago is sitting around going, oh my god, what are we going to do if people decide to listen to the United Nations and not eat beef? Could this be the beginning of the end of the quarter pounder?  I doubt very much if you’re going to find anybody at Outback Steakhouse, with its famous Australian cheese fries, saying, you know, we need to find a whole new approach because after all, our friends at the United Nations aren’t happy with us anymore. 

But it’s an example of how our money gets wasted hiring bureaucrats to lecture us about what we are allowed to eat. It’s just one more example of why you have a worldwide rebellion underway against the establishment, against the bureaucrats, and against all of the petty activities that interfere in our lives telling us you know, you really shouldn’t have a gas stove. Or you surely really shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car that has an internal combustion engine. 

Now you just go down the list. And now they’ve reached a new zone. And they want to lecture to us eat less beef; now, if you may remember the Chick fil A the famous Chick fil A billboards that say eat less beef, and have cows but it’s actually a Chick fil A advertisement. And I’m confident that people at Chick fil A are pumping up and going, Yes, this is great. Why don’t we make sure that that UN agreement goes out everywhere. Let’s get people to question what will happen. The minute you start eating enough chicken, there’ll be a new UN report come out that Americans are over consuming chickens, but that asparagus is really good for you. I think it’s time to recognize a lot of this international stuff is baloney paid for by the American taxpayer. We got to cut it off, save the money and avoid the irritation.