Ignorance is No Excuse
I realize this movie came out long ago, but last night I finally got to see Fast Food Nation.This morning, Tam, a long-time OILF reader, sent me this article.
Coincidence? I think not.
Few weeks ago, Becky told me of a mutual friend who was eating some meat and bit into a shell casing. After the movie last night, Husband was visibly nauseated - and no, it had nothing to do with me in a nightie and everything to do with the graphic images of cows shocked, slaughtered and chopped up.
Becky and Husband both said the same thing.
"Doesn't that make you sick?"
The answer, quite frankly, is no. Not anymore.
Sixteen years ago it made me sick. So sick, in fact, that I decided to give up meat and refrain from eating in places like Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc. (The list of places I won't go is so much longer than local establishments I will frequent.)
Never. Felt. Better.
And so my children are being raised with an awareness I didn't have until college. They don't know what the carcass of a dead animal tastes like. And I hope they never do.
How we eat effects not only our waistline, but our community, our people, and our planet. Don't dare try to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, because I no longer participate in our Fast Food Nation, I no longer feel sick when confronted with images of cruelty, suffering, and unhealthy, disgusting food options. I feel sad. But that's all.
Make no mistake - if you eat meat of any kind, you are participating in the 1) suffering of animals; 2) exploitation of workers, and 3) profound harm toward our planet.
Bon appetit.
posted by kate @ 10:22 AM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Even though my view of the Book of Genesis (as opposed to the CD of Genesis- an altogether different thing), as with most of the Torah/ Bible/Koran, is that it is a story written by folks trying to understand God/life/meaning instead of God Almighty's dictated text, I believe Genesis is "true" (if not necessarily factually accurate). With that preface, check out God's treatment of animals before and after the Flood: before the Flood, people were to eat plants, and not animals; after the Flood, animals were to fear people and people would eat them. In a perfect state, people wouldn't eat animals, and animals wouldn't fear people. Easier for me to understand C.S. Lewis' distinction between Narnian talking animals and non-Narnian pack and food animals after that. Vegetarianism is the better way. Maybe, someday, I'll have the guts to try it.
Voyeur:
An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Circumlocutory observers wonder about the exploitation of any worker that provides any food for others.
Dr. Cleve Backster is appalled at the ignorance of the masses.
He proved, through the use of a polygraph machine, that plants have emotions, too. Predominantly boredom, but haven't we all.
Just google his name.
Aw, and here I was hoping we were also going to mention the mess created by big agriculture, from petrochemical fertilizer runoff creating a dead zone in the Gulf the size of Wisconsin to the insane water consumption, the recent upswing in corn production not for food but for fuel in a double-subsidy grab (ag and fuel), and maybe the plight of the folks employed to tend this ConAgra giants, forced to handle dangerous chemicals and live in substandard housing.
"If you eat, you are participating in the 1) massive overconumption of chemicals and petroleum 2) exploitation of workers, and 3) profound harm toward our planet."
In a way, we're kind of like termites feasting on our own house. I'm going to give up eating :-)Oh, what got into me today? I just felt like being difficult. Big Smile :-)
Chase reminds me of my past.
I spent years of effort and study to train my ex partner to not eat.
Painstaking attention to detail was required on my part to obtain this level of conditioning.
Just as I was expecting accolades for my acheivement, my ex partner died on me.
Wasted days and wasted nights.
I would like to thank all vegans and vegtarians out there. For your choices mean there is more for me.
I have absolutely no problem with the "suffering" of animals raised specifically for their meat. (These aren't pets, after all.)
Now, I will say that exploitation of workers is a subjective term. The American economy is such that if anyone doesn't like their jobs, they can find new ones. We don't have slavery and there is nothing forcing anyone to do anything they don't "want" to do.
So, thank you again. In honor of this post, I will head to Outback for dinner and order a nice, medium-rare sirloin.
Mmmmmm.
C’mon Jim.
Real meat lovers go for the New York Strip medium-rare.
Along with that, those of us who consciously exploit the rest of the world in as many areas as we can, order Long Island Ice Teas, cheese fries with extra sauce, a blooming onion and a loaded bake potato.
Since I get subsidized housing, transportation and health care and pay no taxes, I figure it is owed to me. And I know others are looking out for my welfare daily.
And for that I am thankful. Otherwise I would be slim and trim, eating the meager plants I can grow on my subsidized housing balcony.
Jim - A person with your voting record not caring about the suffering of animals? (No matter how they're raised - they feel pain just the same. Our intent makes no difference.) Color me surprised.
And thinking that people who are trapped in low paying jobs where sometimes they lose limbs and then the company spends a ton of money to get out of paying more in workman's comp benefits should simply "find another job"? From a conservative? Shocking.
The lack of compassion toward just about anyone and anything is sad. Taking an inordinate amount of joy in contributing to said suffering is sad, too. But none of it's shocking.
Enjoy your sirloin.
Clean and meat-free since 1989! To be honest, were I hungry enough, I'd cheerfully slaughter and eat anything or anybody. But I've never been hungry enough in a place where I couldn't make a vegetarian choice. Eating dead animal parts is absolutely unnecessary, very hard on the planet, causes horrible suffering, and, like any form of violence, desensitizes the meat-eater to the suffering of others. Oh, and meat eating has been indisputably shown to cause heart disease and cancer, which I find appropriate somehow, although it is less than charitable of me.
Speaking of less than charitable, what kind of an ass-hat thinks that plants, which lack a nervous system, could have emotions? Do they teach nothing in school? Antagonistic and ignorant non-vegetarians drag this chestnut out with great regularity, as if even were this true, it would in some nihilistic way justify their thoughtless daily cruelties.
"Make no mistake - if you buy anything of any kind, you are participating in the 1) suffering of animals and/or people; 2) exploitation of workers, and 3) profound harm toward our planet."
There, fixed that last paragraph for you.
Ya know, I'm really starting to get annoyed at the "Shock and Awe" tactic. I don't appreciate it when an anti-choice person shoves a picture of a supposedly aborted fetus in my face as I pass by a woman's clinic and I don't appreciate it when animal rights activists shove pictures of abattoirs in my face, either. Far from making me want to eat less meat, it makes me want to eat more to show that one unthinking, reactionary gesture deserves another.
I never thought I'd freaking us The Janice Dickenson Modeling Agency (yes, I watch crap television sometimes, stop judging me) as an example for anything other than the impending collapse of Western Civilization, but on the last show Janice called all her models in and had them watch an animal snuff film from PETA. The minds of the poor little models were simply blown and they couldn't fathom how such cruelty could exist in the world. What's more, they couldn't understand how one of their own would continue to wear fur even though THEY HAD JUST SEEN A VIDEO AND NOW WERE EXPERTS ON THE ENTIRE SUBJECT!!!
Models. Experts. Yeah, right.
Anywhoo...
Janice declared her agency "fur free" and the models stripped down to their skivvies (except for one lone dissenter who the rest of the models ganged up on) to protest fur and support PETA.
Mind you, no one said a damn thing about the makeup or leather they use in their photoshoots or about 100 other items derived from animal byproducts and/or testing. I guess you can't horrify a model too much in one day, though. Might give them wrinkles.
But that's the thing. These models were intentionally horrified, emotionally manipulated, and then used to support an organization that they knew virtually nothing about. The tactic disgusted me almost as much as the snuff film.
Make the argument rationally or admit you only have an emotional basis to stand on. While I don't agree with Bittman's article, he at least makes his argument without the cheap theatrics of Fast Food Nation.
Maybe I'm idealistic, but I don't think there's the shock and awe tactic being used here. Idiotic models notwithstanding, can we even *be* shocked anymore?
I don't like pictures of fetuses being shoved at me either, but that's not the reason I'm pro-choice. Just to stick it to the pro-lifers. No, I think there are reasoned arguments to be made - both for and against these topics - and I come out where I come out *despite* the wackos on my side.
I don't belong to PETA. I would never throw blood on someone wearing fur. And I'm not easily manipulated. Fast Food Nation didn't use cheap theatrics to make a point either. What's wrong with showing what happens and letting others make up their own minds?
But, by the way, can we please be honest about the impact on others and our planet? Eating locally grown veggies and fruits isn't the same as buying a burger from McDonald's.
Trying to pretend it is may make us feel better as we dig into the burger, but it doesn't make it right.
At least Jim was *honest* about his choice.
Good one quackerjono.
Us dummies just bring attention to the propensity of sordid and sensational subjects, point out the hypocrisy one finds in any industry, bring along an ass-hat reference to the more-than-a-few who really think plants have emotions, mock over indulgence in any extreme and exaggerate unhealthy eating habits.
I think you got them all.
It is absolutely true that no consumer's hands are even close to being entirely clean. But is this fact any excuse to just give up and ignore or celebrate the suffering and environmental damage one's thoughtlessness causes? I don't think so, and I have done a lot of thinking on this subject. I don't even think there is much real hope for relieving a lot of suffering, not in the USA, but I do remember times in my life when I was the subject of crippling ill-use and cruelty, and how much a little kindness or even just the decision not to pile on more pain meant to me. How much more could compassion mean to dumb beasts without hope of defending their broken, abused bodies? Why not do what you can every day to mitigate suffering caused by thoughtlessness? Or you could just criticize and demean people who care about something larger than their appetites & addictions and are bringing cruelty out of the shadows and into the disinfecting light of day. Such ass-hattery is easier than thinking and feeling. And more manly, too!
We are certainly in the right sandbox for criticizing and demeaning. Assbags of the week should know.
Because they are called out.
Manly and womanly.
En-garde!
And keep your foil up.
And tip your ass-hat to the lady.
Ok, I've given this some thought, and there no good answers, only better answers.
Pain is constant. Suffering is constant. As humans it is at our core, we experience pain, and we suffer. Why should plants and animals be above pain and suffering. They shouldn't. However, needless suffering is another story. Death at our hands is another story. I like the story Jerry Clower, or Lewis Grizzard told of the pig with the wooden leg.
Man: "hey man what happened to that ugly pig over there."
Farmer: "That's a special pig man. That pig saved our house from a fire. Woke me and mamma up. Dragged the young 'uns to safety. Don't talk bad about my pig."
Man: "So, is that how it lost it's leg."
Farmer, "No man. With a pig that special, you don't want to eat him all at once!"
BTW, I am new to vegitarian scene. Only been since June 28, but I like it so far.
Kate,
I don't see how someone - anyone - in the United States can be "trapped in their jobs." No one is trapped in a job.
People can be trapped because they have obligations and required a minimum level of take-home-pay to meet those obligations. But are you telling me these "exploited" workers in unsafe jobs live in such communities where the "best paying" jobs are killing animals for a living?
I have compassion for people who are truly victims, not those who willingly subject themselves to situations. Are things "hunky-dory" in slaughterhouses? Hardly. These are some of the hardest jobs out there.
(NOTE: In one of my former jobs, I was a butcher, but have never slaughtered an animal.)
Perhaps I live a double standard where abusing a dog is inhuman but slauightering a pig for food is not. But to me, the intent is the difference.
Hamlet said it best: "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: "
I would suspect that most of the trapped-ness in the first world has more to do with unexamined assumptions and unchallenged values than any external circumstance. I suspect that people who are very poor,very oppressed or very handicapped in the developing world have restraints that are much more real than ours.
Jim - did you seriously quote Hamlet? I thought you guys just regurgitated Fox pundits. Well. Color me surprised.
"...there is nothing either good or bad..." How convenient - coming from a guy who would have gladly voted for Ronald Reagan. Twice. If you hadn't been in diapers at the time.
Maybe it's the Jew in me, but I don't give a rat's ass about intent. There are people who actually believe they're making the world a better place as they slaughter those of a different ethnic background. What the hell do I care why they're doing what they do? It's the action that's wrong, not any goddamn belief.
You are living a double standard, but, like always, at least you're honest about it.
"But are you telling me these "exploited" workers in unsafe jobs live in such communities where the "best paying" jobs are killing animals for a living?" That's exactly what I'm telling you.
I know. Your white boy ass can't fathom it.
Like I said, at least you're honest!
Yes, I quoted Hamlet. And Occam's Razor is a friend of mine.
I wasn't in diapers during the Reagan presidency, but was too young to vote. (How's this for a surprise, I've never voted for a Republican for president in the general election.)
----
Meh. We'll never convince each other... but this was an interesting read:
And more manly, too!
Ever so glad you recognize my viral, steaming masculinity, Caleb. Now I must run and drink my dinner as I've embraced vegetarianism by replacing at least two meals a day with martinis...unless that's being cruel to juniper berries?
Ta!
I recognize a "viral [sic?] , steaming" pile when it is served up to me, as well as the workings of a wet brain. Hope you are kidding about the booze. And the viruses.
Kate:
I havn't eaten meat since I read that article. I don't miss it and the thought of eating it makes me feel sick. I have lost 4 pounds. I tried to email you via this website, but it came back.
This movie was sick overall. I do believe, if im not mistake, there was a brief clip of hot girl nudity though. Typical of someone like me to remember that part.
Jim Johnson's first post cracks me up.. and i agree.
My wife swore off beef after this movie. The boycott lasted about 10 days.
Now after work i will be off to my home to enjoy some 90% lean cow. :-)
Laurasleanbeef.com
Sold at Super Target. Best I have ever eaten.
Post a Comment
<< Home