BREAKING: Paul Pelosi Charged with hit-and-run after CA crash

Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy "Dancing Hands: Pelosi,was previously convicted of a DUI in 2022 and this one is worse.

The husband of outgoing Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi has been slapped with a misdemeanor hit and run charge by the Napa County District Attorney's office after a July 3 crash in Yountville, California.

The 86 year old faces the charge after allegedly striking a parked, unoccupied Tesla and then fleeing the scene without stopping to provide required information as the law demands. Pelosi is set to make a court appearance in connection with the misdemeanor charge on August 14. He is charged with violating California Vehicle Code section 20002, a misdemeanor charge which requires drivers involved in collisions resulting in property damage to stop and provide the information required by law.

He is additionally charged with the infraction of making an unlawful turn.

The Napa County District Attorney’s Office does not typically issue press releases regarding misdemeanor hit and run cases involving only property damage. However, this release is being issued because of the significant public and media interest surrounding this case, said the office in their statement.

The Napa County DA's office answered the question of why they were not currently charging Pelosi with a DUI after this latest infraction. They stated that "The District Attorney's Office has an ethical obligation to file only those charges that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence.

No evidence indicating that the defendant was driving under the influence was presented to our office. Accordingly, there is no evidentiary basis to file or prove a DUI charge in court.

"In 2022, he was convicted "based upon an automobile collision and driving under the influence arrest on May 28th, 2022." He was not made to appear in the courtroom at that time, instead filing plea forms. He "pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Injury. Based upon the plea, Judge Solga dismissed the second charge of Driving With .08% Blood Alcohol Level or Higher Causing Injury in the interests of justice."

As a result of the infraction, Pelosi was sentenced to summary probation for three years, a term he has only just completed. He was made to pay a fine of less than $2,000, [the ice cream in his freezer costs more] made to serve 5 days in jail, and made to "submit to a blood, breath, or urine test if requested by any law enforcement officer or probation officer if suspected of driving with a measurable amount of alcohol."

Additionally, he had to pay the victim about $5,000 in restitution for medical bills and lost wages, had to complete a DUI program for three months, and could not operate a car that did not have a "certified ignition device" for the period of one year. Why is he allowed to drive at all after his horrible record?

Pelosi has been grappling with car crashes for much of his life and killed his brother in a car wreck when he was just 16 and his brother David was 19. In 1957, he lost control of the vehicle he was driving, his brother in the passenger seat, and flipped into an embankment. The two were on a joyride after Pelosi had picked up his elder brother from his girlfriend's house.

"David John Pelosi, 19 ... was trapped under the light car driven by his brother when it flipped over on Skyline Highway a mile north of Crystal Springs," read a newspaper report on the crash. It went on to say that "David warned young Paul, as the car neared a tight curve near the dam: 'This is a bad stretch–better slow down.'"

But it wasn't as if that could stop him years later.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Civilization Is Once Again Asked Whether Aggression Carries Consequences

Two American service members were killed Saturday in an Iranian strike on Jordan, according to U.S. Central Command. A third American remains missing. It is a grim reminder that the Iranian regime continues to conduct itself as it has for decades, treating violence not as a last resort but as a preferred instrument of statecraft.

These are the first confirmed American combat fatalities resulting from Iran's attacks on Jordan this week. Four additional U.S. troops were evacuated to Jordanian hospitals for treatment and have since been released. CENTCOM stated that the names of the fallen will not be released until 24 hours after their families have been notified.

The attacks extend well beyond Jordan. In recent days, Iran has struck America's partners throughout the region. Kuwait reported that an Iranian attack hit a power generation and water desalination facility, igniting a fire and forcing critical infrastructure offline. A child in Qatar was injured by shrapnel. Bahrain also came under attack. This is not the behavior of a nation seeking stability. It is the behavior of a revolutionary regime that has spent decades exporting instability wherever it can.

The United States has responded by intensifying strikes against Iranian military targets, particularly around Bandar Abbas, the regime's principal strategic port on the Strait of Hormuz. The city is not merely a commercial center. It houses Iran's naval headquarters and serves as a vital hub for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the regime's military operations.

CENTCOM also confirmed the destruction of the surveillance tower at Chah Bahar Shahid Kalantari Port on July 16, an installation with clear operational significance.

"The destruction of the tower directly degrades IRGC’s ability to coordinate attacks on innocent civilian crew members," CENTCOM said.

The statement reflects a simple military reality. Modern conflicts are won not only by destroying weapons but by dismantling the command structures that direct them. Surveillance and communications infrastructure are force multipliers. Removing them limits an adversary's ability to wage war.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reinforced that message by sharing images of American troops and declaring that "Iran does not control the SoH," referring to the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, the consequences of the conflict are increasingly being felt inside Iran itself. Reports indicate that the regime's Energy Ministry has instructed residents to reduce electricity consumption during peak hours after attacks on energy facilities disrupted the power grid across southern provinces. As so often happens under authoritarian governments, ordinary citizens are left to bear the costs of decisions made by leaders who remain insulated from the suffering they create.

The latest escalation follows Tehran's announcement that it would no longer honor its interim peace agreement with the United States. That decision has brought predictable consequences. History offers few examples of regimes abandoning diplomatic commitments while simultaneously escalating military aggression without inviting a forceful response.

President Trump summarized the strategic dilemma in stark terms during a July 14 interview.

"The only way you can negotiate with these people is through strength," Trump said. "And the only strength is military strength."

Whether one agrees entirely with that formulation or not, recent events have reinforced an uncomfortable truth. Peace cannot be sustained by wishful thinking alone. It requires the credible willingness to confront those who believe violence carries no meaningful cost.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Cori Bush's Comeback Tour Features Maoist Who Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

Politics is often described as the art of strange alliances, but former Rep. Cori Bush has apparently decided subtlety is overrated. Her campaign trail now includes a self described Maoist anti-Semite scumwafer who openly defends Hamas and Hezbollah, cheers the desecration of the American flag, talks about "unmaking" America, and casually wonders, "What's wrong with throwing molotovs at a police station?" 

Apparently the only thing missing from the résumé was "villain in an 80s action movie."

Bush, who is trying to reclaim Missouri's 1st Congressional District after voters showed her the exit, recently appeared at a campaign event standing beside Christopher Winston, better known online as "BlackRedGuard." Winston has spent years posting revolutionary rhetoric that makes the average college radical sound like Fred Rogers.

Among his greatest hits, Winston mocked leftists who distance themselves from terrorist groups, all while not actually participating in terrorist activities himself because he's a coward.

"If you say sh-- like 'I don't support Hezbollah/Hamas' and call yourself a leftist you lame. All power to all the resistance. Peace through the sword."

That is certainly one way to test the limits of the phrase "mostly peaceful."

Winston has also declared, "Do not fix America. Unmake it." Because rebuilding a nation from scratch has worked out so well every other time Maoists have tried it.

Not content with merely rooting against America, Winston also celebrated attacks on one of its most recognizable symbols.

"I applaud the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of the slavery and genocide which built America. It should always be desecrated in that way." Obviously he's a fool who refuses to acknowledge how slavery was abolished in America, while much of it still goes on in the Middle East while he refuses to discuss that tidbit.

Perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious moment came during a 2024 interview when the dangerous dolt was asked why a committed Maoist would bother hanging around the Democratic Socialists of America.

His answer skipped the usual talking points about organizing and solidarity.

"Well, it's obvious why I'm a Maoist in the DSA. There's a lot of naive young white people to brainwash."

It is rare to hear someone describe the progressive recruitment strategy with such refreshing honesty.

When the discussion turned to political violence, Winston asked:

"What's wrong with throwing molotovs at a police station?" As long as someone else does the molotov chucking.

A cohost nervously suggested that might destroy the organization. Winston's response was even more revealing. 

"That's why we want the masses to do it."

Most political campaigns ask volunteers to knock on doors. This one apparently prefers firebombing tutorials.

Cori Bush's campaign had an opportunity to explain Winston's role, whether he was invited, or whether she even knows him. Instead, it responded by sending reporters a Fox News story about Joy Behar defending democratic socialism, apparently hoping everyone would become distracted before asking follow up questions.

Winston's admiration for Bush has hardly been a secret.

"Yeah, I'm a Maoist ultra with dreams of riding into power on a tank like Fidel and Che but in the meantime Cori Bush is the best congressperson right now and we need to back her."

It takes genuine talent to make "I'll settle for Cori Bush until the communist revolution arrives" sound like a campaign endorsement. He might as well have said, "You can hold your nose and pull the lever as long as you vote for Bush."

Bush's orbit has also included anti Israel activists, defund the police advocates, and organizations linked to some of the most radical elements of the American left. At this point, finding another extremist attached to the campaign is about as surprising as finding a pink-hair vegan at a Whole Foods.

The truly absurd part is that none of this appears to be a deal breaker for the activist class. 

Imagine the media reaction if a Republican candidate posed beside someone praising political violence or openly admitting he wanted to brainwash young people. Every cable network would interrupt programming with a weeklong democracy emergency.

Instead, Bush campaigns beside a Maoist who defends terrorist groups, applauds flag burning, jokes about Molotov cocktails, and literally says he joined the DSA because there are "a lot of naive young white people to brainwash."

The remarkable part is not that he said it. The remarkable part is that everyone around him seems to have nodded politely and kept handing out campaign signs like useful idiots

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Carville Says Networks Should Have Aired Trump Speech So America Could See What CNN Sees Every Morning

James Carville has finally solved the mystery of why the legacy media should carry President Donald Trump's speeches live. Not because Americans deserve to hear their president. Not because voters can make up their own minds. No, according to the Democratic strategist, the networks should have aired it so viewers could receive the proper Commie News Network approved diagnosis.

Appearing on CNN's The Situation, Carville lamented that ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the usual suspects deprived America of what he considers must see television. Others might call it "reporting the news."

"I would advise them to attack CNN, attack ABC, attack NBC, attack MS NOW, because they didn’t air the speech. And I think the President of the United States acting loonier than a tune is newsworthy. I don’t think we should have hidden that from the American people. I think it should have been blanket coverage of it. He’s literally off his rocker, and there’s no other way to describe this," he told Wolf Blitzer.

That is quite a pivot. Just hours after the media collectively decided Trump's remarks on election security were too dangerous for public consumption, one of the Democratic Party's loudest strategists complained they should have broadcast every second of it.

Apparently censorship is only a bad idea when Democrats think it will help their polling numbers.

Carville is the longtime Democratic strategist and Bill Clinton campaign advisor. He is known for his blunt, combative style, and some of the statements he has made in the past, have sparked backlash for being classist and even misogynistic and dismissive of women's claims. He has also been quite dismissive toward fellow Democrats.

In 1998 the made what is known as the "Trailer Park" comment: “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” (or “you’ll find plenty of women to accuse Clinton of sexual harassment”). This statement was made at the height of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and Monica Lewinsky 'Oral Office Scandal," as some have called it.

But even prior to that comment, there was the "Bimbo Eruptions" in his handling of the 1992 campaign. While he didn't make a direct quote along these lines about Bill Clinton's affairs and sexual misconduct during the presidential race, he was a central figure int the Clinton "war room" where aides (Betsey Wright, specifically) used the term "bimbo eruption. This was criticized as slut-shaming and derogatory toward women. Carville and his team had to deal with damage control.

In 2017 Carville referred to Hillary Clinton as "a little bit like the guy who killed his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan." This came soonafter Clinton's 2016 election defeat to President Trump. He was criticizing her for blaming external factors (such as FBI Director James Comey’s letter and Russian interference) rather than taking full personal responsibility.

The last example I'll give is when, in 2024, Carville called to "kill the woke." In interviews around the 2024 election cycle, he stated that the party had to “kill the woke” or move away from progressive cultural priorities to focus on economic “kitchen table” issues. This obviously provoked strong backlash from progressive Democrats and activists, who viewed it as a betrayal of social justice causes, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equity priorities. 

So James Carville is a tad touched in the head.

Wolf Blitzer looked slightly confused by the sudden outbreak of consistency and asked, "So you think we should have given him more publicity? Is that what you’re saying?"

Carville eagerly snatched a fly near his face, popped it in his mouth, and replied, "Absolutely saying that, I’m absolutely saying that. I think the decision not to air that speech by CNN and other and other networks is not being what’s really newsworthy, and that this guy’s gone."

Translation, Americans should have been trusted to watch the speech, as long as they arrived at the same conclusion CNN had already prepared for them.

Carville then continued his medical evaluation from the comfort of a television studio.

"He knows he’s going to lose, but he couldn’t explain what he was trying to do. He couldn’t execute it. Literally, the guy was literally crazy. And he just rehashed everything."

It was an impressive performance from a political consultant insisting the media should air a speech only because he was certain viewers would hate it.

The irony is hard to miss. For years, the press has insisted Americans cannot be trusted to hear certain arguments because they might be persuaded. Now Carville is arguing they should hear Trump's speech because they definitely will not be persuaded.

At least someone on CNN accidentally admitted the obvious. If Trump's speech was really as unhinged as Carville claims, why hide it? 

The only thing stranger than refusing to air it is demanding it should have been aired only after deciding in advance what everyone was supposed to think about it. That is less journalism and more Mystery Science Theater with a newsroom budget.

Journalism is dead.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

CNN Refuses To Air Trump's Election Speech After Producers Mistake Journalism For Vampire Rules

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” --Mark Twain

ABC, NBC, and CNN all decided America simply could not survive the horror of hearing President Trump speak without a panel of nervous commentators interrupting every eight seconds. Apparently, allowing viewers to hear the president's election interference address unfiltered would trigger an extinction level event for democracy . . . or perhaps their own credibility.

The speech covered something that Washington has insisted everyone ignore. America's election systems remain vulnerable. Massive voter databases have been compromised. China allegedly gained access to information on at least 220 million Americans. Beijing also reportedly financed propaganda efforts through American journalists during Trump's first term.

Naturally, CNN concluded the real national security threat was letting Americans hear about any of it.

Instead, the network sprinted away from the speech like it was carrying a subpoena. This is, of course, the same network that spent years enthusiastically promoting the Russia collusion fantasy, a story that consumed the better part of Trump's first presidency before collapsing under the weight of its own fiction.

Remember when election interference was the greatest threat to civilization? Back then, every Facebook meme was apparently a Kremlin special forces operation. Fast forward ten years and election interference has magically become a conspiracy theory because Trump is talking about it. Funny how that works.

The Compromised News Network's Brian "Mr. Potato Head" Stelter accidentally summarized the entire media business model in one remarkable quote.

"Some network executives felt it would be dangerous to just air Trump's speech live, in full, unedited without knowing what he was going to say ahead of time. That's where we are in America."

Dangerous? What the heck is he talking about and how did he conclude that nonsense?

Since when did hearing a speech without a newsroom translator become hazardous? Americans somehow survive congressional hearings, award shows, and college commencement speeches every year. Surely they could endure twenty minutes of President Trump without requiring CNN to hold their hand.

The obvious answer is that viewers might actually make up their own minds. That possibility terrifies corporate media more than any foreign hacker ever could.

Mr. Potato Head continued.

"Trump's election lies led to violence."

That talking point conveniently skips over the inconvenient fact that Trump explicitly urged supporters to act peacefully and later called for the unrest on January 6 to stop. Those details rarely survive the CNN editing room because they interfere with the preferred narrative.

Curiously, none of this concern about "dangerous" speech existed while networks breathlessly reported Russia collusion claims, anonymous intelligence leaks that evaporated under scrutiny, or countless other Trump stories that proved spectacularly wrong. Apparently misinformation is perfectly safe, provided it comes with professionally lit studio cameras.

What CNN and the rest of the legacy media are really saying is simple. You are not qualified to hear information directly. You need licensed television experts to explain what you should think before your brain accidentally forms an independent opinion.

Then they insist there is no coordinated effort to shape public perception while ABC, NBC, and CNN simultaneously arrive at the exact same decision to keep viewers from hearing the President of the United States.

Quite a coincidence.

Nobody remembers these networks treating Joe Biden's speeches as too dangerous for public consumption, despite his remarkable ability to invent stories, confuse world leaders, or wander into verbal cul de sacs that left aides diving for the mute button.

In the end, America was reminded of several timeless truths. The permanent bureaucracy never really left. Questions about the 2020 election remain forbidden territory in polite media circles. The corporate press remains about as objective as a campaign commercial. Our election infrastructure still deserves scrutiny.

Yet these are the same people who assured us with straight faces that the 2020 election was the "most secure ever."

And they wonder why nobody believes them anymore.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

ABC and NBC Skip Trump's Election Security Address, Then Pretend Transparency Still Matters

If there was ever any doubt that legacy media still believes it should decide what Americans are allowed to see, ABC and NBC settled the matter Thursday night.

Both networks declined to air President Donald Trump's election security address on their broadcast channels, prompting Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to torch the decision on Friday. His reaction was difficult to argue with.

"How shameful is that?" Mullin said.

"ABC and NBC not carrying that. Why? What are they trying to cover up? Why wouldn’t they want to inform the American people? Why are they calling themselves a news outlet if they’re not actually trying to put the news out there?"

That is the question, isn't it?

Fox News aired the speech in its entirety. CBS carried part of it before cutting away. ABC and NBC relegated it to their streaming platforms, while CNN skipped the live address altogether. MSNBC aired only a portion before pulling the plug. Apparently, when the subject is election integrity and newly declassified intelligence, the gatekeepers suddenly decide viewers have seen enough.

Mullin also pointed out the glaring double standard. The same media outlets that enthusiastically repeated claims that the 2020 election was "the most secure election ever" suddenly lost interest when the Trump administration presented evidence it says raises new concerns.

"Two major networks didn't want to cover it? I think the question really should say why. Because they sure covered the other part of it when they were saying that it was the most secure election ever," Mullin said. "What facts did they have? Because they didn’t have facts. They were taking someone’s word for it. President Trump gave facts. Today we’re giving facts."

That inconsistency is impossible to ignore. When the narrative aligned with the media's preferred conclusion, airtime was unlimited. When information surfaced that challenged it, viewers were expected to hunt it down online instead.

During the address, Trump announced the release of previously classified intelligence that, according to the White House, documented vulnerabilities in voting infrastructure and foreign efforts to obtain American voter data. He also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish federal voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements.

Trump also blasted ABC and NBC for refusing to air the speech.

"They don't like the topic because they know how corrupt our system is, and they don't want to reveal it," Trump said. "They and others in the media are part of a plot. They want to continue this fraud for whatever reason. They want to keep it going. They want to protect the radical left. They can't have a great country, and that's true, you can't have a great country without free and fair elections."

Whether one agrees with Trump's conclusions or not, refusing to broadcast a presidential address on election security while claiming to be committed to informing the public is a curious editorial choice.

Trump also argued the networks should face regulatory consequences.

"Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses," he said. "They use our public multibillion dollar in value airways for absolutely no money."

That proposal runs into a legal reality. The Federal Communications Commission licenses individual local broadcast stations, not the national television networks themselves.

Still, the larger issue remains. Americans can decide for themselves whether Trump's claims are persuasive. News organizations are supposed to provide access to information, not act as referees who determine which presidential addresses the public is permitted to watch.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Sheldon Whitehouse Suddenly Became Mr. Due Process: here's why

Super Duper Over Achiever

There are few things more reliable in Washington than a Democrat discovering the importance of due process the moment the accused has a "D" next to his name. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse apparently decided it was time to audition for the role of America's foremost legal philosopher during an appearance with the Compromised News Network's Jake Tapper.

Asked about the implosion of Graham Platner's Maine Senate campaign, Whitehouse [who will never live in his namesake residence] suddenly spoke with the solemn wisdom of a man who had just wandered out of a constitutional law seminar. Funny how that works when you're one step above plankton. 

Platner resigned only after rape allegations from Jenny Raciot became public, despite Democrats somehow managing to overlook the rather noticeable issue of the alleged Nazi oyster farmer's SS tattoo. Apparently, for some people, that was not quite enough to raise concerns. Better late than never, we suppose.

The real tell came when Whitehouse brushed aside the first accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, who happened to be a Republican. Quite the coincidence. Fifield, who for some reason was Platner's former girlfriend, alleged emotional and domestic abuse, but those accusations apparently failed the Whitehouse Test for Credibility, which seems to involve checking voter registration before listening. Forget about Platner admitted to choking the chicken in an outhouse, the left didn't care because he was their 'man.'

Even more amusing is that birdcage liner known as The New York Times managed to produce a story that centered on Fifield while somehow glossing over additional allegations and evidence she had provided. CNN later corroborated Fifield's claims, and Politico reported what the Times somehow missed, namely that Platner had also allegedly sexually assaulted other women. It turns out there was quite a bit more to the story than progressive media gatekeepers initially cared to acknowledge.

Then came Whitehouse's favorite line. As a former prosecutor, he assured viewers that due process matters.

That's almost as believable as a box of used car salesmen.

This is the same Sheldon Whitehouse who enthusiastically joined the political demolition derby against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, complete with endless theater about "boofing," lurid insinuations, and accusations that never produced evidence sufficient to support the central claims. The media spectacle rolled on anyway, because due process apparently takes an extended vacation whenever the target is a conservative.

To this day, there remains no evidence that Christine Blasey Ford ever met Kavanaugh.

Amazing how Whitehouse's legal standards can stretch farther than a campaign promise.

The Babylon Bee is reportedly considering naming Whitehouse its 2026 "Selective Outrage Lifetime Achievement Award" winner after judges praised his remarkable ability to discover principles only when they become politically convenient.

Small standards. Small consistency. Same old Washington.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Taco Bell Introduces Authentic "Runs for the Border" Experience, CDC Confirms It Was Perhaps Too Authentic

ATLANTA, AP, Taco Bell customers across five states have reportedly discovered that the chain's slogan now comes with a stopwatch after federal health officials confirmed that lettuce from Mexico was the source of a widespread cyclospora outbreak.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified shredded iceberg lettuce served at Taco Bell locations in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia as the culprit behind an outbreak that turned drive thru visits into drive by emergencies.

The CDC warned consumers not to eat the lettuce, while countless customers admitted that warning would have been much more helpful before lunch.

A Food and Drug Administration investigation traced the lettuce to a single supplier, whose identity remains secret, presumably because witness protection now extends to produce distributors.

"FDA is working with the supplier of iceberg lettuce to determine if potentially contaminated shredded iceberg lettuce remains on the market," including in other states, the CDC said. "Taco Bell has committed to stop using any lettuce from the supplier identified by FDA's traceback investigation."

Translation, somewhere in America, a warehouse full of lettuce is being interrogated under a bright lamp.

Federal investigators have been tracking the outbreak alongside public health officials as infections continue climbing. More than 30 states have reported cases this year, pushing totals beyond the previous U.S. record of roughly 4,700 infections set in 2019.

Public health experts insist the illness is usually not life threatening, a comforting message delivered to people currently memorizing every restroom location between home and work.

Earlier this week Taco Bell announced it had "voluntarily and temporarily removed limited ingredients at select restaurants as a precautionary measure. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and follow the guidance of public health authorities."

Translation again, the lettuce has been placed on administrative leave pending further investigation.

Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that causes watery diarrhea "with frequent and sometimes explosive bowel movements," according to the CDC, making it perhaps the only government description that requires no embellishment whatsoever.

Officials say the parasite spreads through food contaminated by fecal matter, often from irrigation water. Somehow this fact still failed to convince people that ordering "extra lettuce" might not be the healthiest life choice.

Experts attribute the growing number of cases to climate change and improved detection methods, because in modern America every story must eventually arrive at climate change, even if it first makes several urgent stops at the restroom. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans have developed a simpler theory, perhaps restaurants should ensure the lettuce is not imported with complimentary parasites.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet