And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

Tool "Disgustipated"

Also, Plutarch was famous for his biographies, not sonnets. I think the other letter was right that the reviewer was thinking of Petrarch for the sonnets. However, Plutarch did write a long discourse on food, with such chapters as "WHAT IS THE REASON THAT HUNGER IS ALLAYED BY DRINKING, BUT THIRST INCREASED BY EATING?" and "WHETHER WINE OUGHT TO BE STRAINED OR NOT."

-----project gutenberg

Regarding vegetarianism, I think the crying over animals is sanctimonious crap, the diet is mainly healthy with some exceptions, the ecology is speculative, and please spare me the philosophy.

I'm always amazed that people will say Hitler was a vegetarian without doing any research. The answer is fairly well documented here:

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

He ate sausages. His cook said his favorite dish was squab.

Many vegetarians have failings. But if Hitler must be placed among vegetarians or meat-eaters, the meat-eaters get him.

These letters are predictably veering off the rails, and quite early, which is great entertainment.

Open a discussion about a book which explores the history of vegetarianism, and there will be hundreds of people replying that "Meat is delicious." It's fully mandatory, like some fundamental law of online discussion. To those people: what does feel like?

Laura Miller gives a hell of a book report, and there's plenty to think about. I might even pick this up, if only because I shelve my books by the Author's Name Paired With Unrelated Book Title Featuring Same Name, and I need something to stick next to my copy of Tristram Shandy.

"The Bloodless Revolution," or just the idea that Salon reviewed it, will drive some people completely batty - those people who are unwilling to examine the current status quorum from any alternate perspective.

The evolution of morality could make your lifestyle seem cruel. But you won't be around to care. And hey, don't let those future insults get to you - they're only words after all. Let the enlightened ones marinate in their holy morality, you get to suck marrow from your teeth in the new dark ages.

From a statue standpoint, your Applebee's credit card bill might be part of some future bovine Vietnam Memorial. Or perhaps not. Either way, don't make vegetarians apologize for some ivy league, glowing-robe-wearing superhuman energy being from the meatless year 3000.

Thanks, Laura and Salon. Top-level stuff.

"Are vegetarians the moral, peace-loving, cruelty-free enemies of the meat-eater? Or a bunch of kooks living in la-la land?"

Both.

And they are boring, which is even worse.

I don't care what people eat, just don't blather on about it.

Some like meat, some don't. Next.

Those dirty amoral creatures! They should be ashamed!

Really, no books or even articles need to be written about it. Would you domesticate and ride human beings even if there were other animals available, just because you liked the slow pace, or thought it would provide a bit more conversation? If the answer is no, you shouldn't be riding horses either.

"Neigh. Everything else is mob mentality."

--Mr Ed

Here's the best argument for vegeterianism.

It's more fun.

I thought I would keep up the originality and tone of this poorly thought-out article.

I can understand everyone's point of view on this subject, even 7th level vegans (don't eat anything that casts a shadow), but I LOVE meat. It is delicious and good for you. That said, I have a real problem with 'meat factories' where they line cows up in cramped stalls with automated shit-scrapers to clean the floor and an endless cycle of feeding and milking, then off to the slaughterhouse for a slug in the brain-stem. I have a moral problem with the chicken warehouses. I do not, however, have a problem with a cow that has been fed and cared for all his life, then goes off to the barn for a slug in the brain-stem. And yes, I have killed and dressed my own meat before.

That shows the subjective and cultural judgments which are pretty rational.

meant to say 'irrational.'

Activists, on the other hand, know different. They count on the evolution of morality. Recently, Adam Hochschild's fascinating "Bury the Chains" chronicled the means by which a group of committed 18th-century idealists convinced their fellow citizens in Britain and America that slavery was an intolerable wrong.

That's a huge gripe for me. That view is popular with wanna-be activists, much less popular with historians.

Many "activists" lionize past activists most often for their zeal; rather than pragmatism or the good fortune of larger historical context. It encourages the notion that anyone zealous enough will make a great activist, when very often they lack the strategy or historical timing and just create divisions and promote the "digging in" of political opponents.

"Vegetarian Activism" i.e. the active promotion of vegetarianism has little to do with mild increases in vegetarianism, and probably has more of a negative reactionary effect than positive pro-vegetarian effect.

Vegetarianism exists mostly for reasons that are technological, with spiritual/moral and historic components. Nutrition options, society specialization, super markets the disconnect from the slaughter, are technological impetus. Some moral reasons are ancient, but the additional research into intelligent species and many other developments are technological.

It's also highly subjective. For example, many people enjoy hunting and feel the hunt and slaughter connect them to the land and maintain ancient traditions. When vegetarians think of "rednecks" doing so, they're not very sympathetic. But when it's Native Americans in sacred rituals, they're often much more sympathetic. That shows the subjective and cultural judgments which are pretty rational.