Letters to the Editor
-
Nothing gets Salon readers pissier and more fired up than an Anthony Bourdain article!
I am a vegan (which apparently makes me a masochist -- I would think that title would apply more to people who eat fast food and Macaroni and Cheese out of a box, but whatever) and I don't like PETA any more than I like ecoterrorists, abortion clinic bombers, and the like. These people try to frighten others into going along with their viewpoint, which seems to me like the refuge of those who don't have a good enough argument to convince people. As some other posters mentioned, they also go after the easy targets (i.e. the wealthy) with their potshots at fur and foie gras while ignoring leather and whatnot. That's never made much sense to me.
I've always thought that a nice way to please both the animal rights folks and the foodies would be to go back to smaller, free-range farms and shut down the big awful factory farms. Not only are the animals treated better, but they also apparently taste better. Everybody wins! These legislators who are trying to dictate how we live are banking on an ignorant populace to push these things through. It's not actual, properly done foie gras production that is the problem, but cruel, bottom-line-focused, mass-production modern husbandry. But then if we focused on the actual problems and focused on smaller, more sustainable farming practices, people wouldn't be able to get their shitty food so cheap. And that's what we seem to think democracy is anymore: cheap, bland crap for everyone.
-
PETA
"PETA resorts to extremes to draw attention to the plight of the voiceless."
OH, well then death threats, trespass, vandalism and assault are PERFECTLY fine.
And so effective and persuasive, too.
Say, I know. Maybe PETA could recruit of few kids for some attention-drawing suicide bombing runs. You know -- for the voiceless.
-
Animal haters unite!
Not a single person in the comments section said they were members of or represent PETA.
-
Re: Nothing gets Salon readers pissier and more fired up than an Anthony Bourdain article!
...except Ayelet Waldman.
-
Oh My!
Oh, Robert...Mr. Kuntz, what a crazy mixed up fella you are! PETA doesn't advocate these things. Vandalism? Trespass? Suicide bombers?? Golly! We have gotten way off track.
Once again you took one line and focused all your attention on that. I don't know if you've heard about the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act which basically can get animal rights activists who show up for a demonstration or protest arrested, tried and tossed in the slammer for up to three years should there be any disruption to the profit of those that are in the animal flesh business. A guy interviewed on Democracy Now! was sentenced recently to three years - based on a website. He didn't run the website, wasn't even a member of the organization. Check it out. The people who are sloppily providing the animal products get plenty of protection. But what about the animals? What about the billions - and that is no exaggeration - billions of animals that are being held in massive containment facilities, in darkness, in squalor? You guys are consuming that stuff - full of antibiotics because of the rampant disease and festering wounds, hormones to promote excessive growth. You are eating that stuff. And we wonder why we are dropping like flies with heart disease, colon and other intestinal cancers. Put the facts together! Foie Gras is a diseased liver. Yummy. What a delicacy!
Anyway, Robbie, if you go to the PETA website, and not the haters' rumor mill, you will see their "tactics". They wear costumes, they promote demonstrations - no where - NOWHERE - do they condone any kind of violence.
-
Foie gras...
...as Mr.Bourdain frequently points out is not exactly the point. There seems to be some kind of paradox at work here because my thoughts about this issue are coming from so many directions: 1)Bourdain is right when he says our culture is built on the dead. A conflict addressed from before Jesus to Joseph Campbell. We can't escape it so we justify it in miriad ways. 2)Most Americans are no longer immediately exposed to the slaughter of animals for consumption by themselves or their family. The effects of this can't be denied, from our reaction to death on the battlefield to the corner grocery. If life is cheap, it gets even cheaper when you don't witness it's demise. 3)What is going on with us when we have to start legislating behaviors that don't physically harm or have the potential to harm another human? (And I'm with Bourdain here: THERE ISN'T A GODDAMN ANIMAL ON THIS PLANET WHO'S LIFE IS EQUAL OR EVEN CLOSE TO A HUMAN'S.) Whew. If people are this stupid, we should start advertising abortion during Superbowl halftime.4) Why do we continue to allow these politicians to kill the small businessperson? This isn't going to effect Monsanto ect.. It's going to affect multiple smaller boutique farms in which the kind of agriculture/animal products that high-end chef's and purveyors thrive on...which leads me to 5) This is clearly another example of the all too American habit of snubbing our noses at anything that smacks of culture. Yes, for many of us this is a rediculous notion and that's why we are here reading Salon in the first place. We are smart,opinionated, and not about to burn a book. So why destroy an individuals' opportunity to experience the facets of other cultures? (And again,B. is right on with the french bashing) I haven't seen anyone picketing the Somali resturaunt down the street--and they serve goat.
Bourdain is once again aiming and hitting his target...except one: this doesn't smell like the crypt, it smells like the Lysol someone sprayed to cover the stink...
Thanks Salon, keep 'em coming...
-
It's very strange.
I'm a bit perplexed at the scorn people have toward the tactics of animal rights activists. Yes, Foie Gras is made an issue because it's one that is easy for people to understand, is particularly and visually cruel, and is one that does not affect a vast majority of people. So what? Those are standard tactics of any activist. You don't try to change everything at once--you go for the weakest links first. It doesn't matter if the issue is civil rights, abortion, or animal rights. There's nothing shameful about that.
Nor is there anything particularly illiberal about government regulation. The core of liberalism is that government can make a difference, and the government has certainly been involved in food regulation for all variety of reasons--ethical as well as healthful--for a very long time. We certainly don't have to go back to the Constitution looking for this; it's simply legal precedent.
It's strange how divisive an issue this is, and how defensive it makes people. Agree or disagree, certainly it can be debated on the basis of facts and ethical reasoning, rather than on bizarre (and usually incorrect) attacks on peoples' character or methods.