Thursday, October 4, 2007

Condi's Loss Is Our Curse

We're* not pacifists, you know. Indeed, some of us are quite feisty. I could have joined the military with a clean conscience in 2002--except for the part where I'm a 4F asthmatic with lousy eyesight who was medically unfit for the State Department. But that had nothing to do with my tofu-loving ways.

* Technically, I'm not a vegetarian: I eat humanely raised and killed meat. However, given the difficulty of locating such meat, and the expense of buying it, this is generally a distinction without a difference. Moreover, I was a vegetarian at the time of the Iraq War's inception.
[Emphasis added]

Condensed McArdle: "I'm vegetarian and pro-military, but I'm not vegetarian."

Does this mean that McArdle actually applied for work with the State Department? Good Lord. Imagine McArdle gladhanding a Miss Arab pageant winner: "It seems to me that you are festively plump. Can I pinch?"

Now, about the "difficulty of locating" meat produced in an humane, Temple Grandin-approved manner: um, hello, Whole Foods? A cynic might conclude that McArdle is kinda vegetarian because she's too lazy and cheap to support humane, sustainable producers. Oh, wait, I'm a cynic.

brad adds:
Wal*Mart workers don't deserve humane existences, but the cows, pigs, and chickens Megan eats do.
And yeah, there's only 3 Whole Foods stores in DC. How is Megan possibly going to afford Whole Foods, which admittedly is expensive, with the general lack of hidden costs to their goods, and her $25 Red Bulltinis?
I once was a veggie who worked for animal rights. But a combo of several factors ended that phase of my life. For one, I love meat. Sorry cows, but you're tasty. For another, PETA is a goddamned cult, run by asshole opportunists who have no sense of decency.* Finally, human rights kinda matter more to me.
Megan's position here is a dilemma I encountered often. How does a selfish rich... unpleasant woman pretend she's moral? Make a big deal about what she does, and doesn't, eat. She can look at a sea otter and say "ohyouresocute, I'd never eat you" and feel like a good person. U go girl.

*- I mean Ingrid Newkirk and the leadership. The rank and file are a mix of good people with good intentions.... and folk like Megan, trying to make a show of their altruism.

Clem redirects:

19 comments:

Fishbone McGonigle said...

If there's anything I love, it's hearing a glibertarian bitch about how much something costs.

Fishbone McGonigle said...

And yeah, she could have joined, if only . . . but would she have joined?

t4toby said...

I've got a Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage for you, Maggie....

ManOnBlog said...

PETA is a goddamned cult, run by asshole opportunists who have no sense of decency

For fuck's sake, can we please call a moratorium on PETA bashing amongst us free thinkers for a while? You guys are like the moral equivalent of Jason Alexander's character in "Shallow Hal" where he breaks up with gorgeous babes due to one toe being slightly too long. Christ!

brad said...

Right, because finding Newkirk's rhetoric and tactics offensive and misguided in major ways is just quibbling.
So the answer to your question is no.
Ingrid is who she is, and the rest of us have both right and reason to take issue with her.

ManOnBlog said...

You hate Newkirk and so indulge in generalized PETA bashing - that's real helpful.

My point is someone mentions PETA on ANY progressive blog and EVERYONE piles on. I have yet to see anyone refrain from giving PETA a swift kick in the ribs, much less stick up for them, on any lefty site. I'm fucking sick of it.

It's like the irresistible lefty urge to genuflect to the right's hatred of Michael Moore. Drives me nuts.

55 billion animals killed each year - a literal apocalypse of the animals - and all you guys can do is sit around arguing personality politics. Well excuse me.

Clem said...

Hello Manonblog,

Go fuck yourself.

Yours truly,
Clem

Fishbone McGonigle said...

I have yet to see anyone refrain from giving PETA a swift kick in the ribs, much less stick up for them, on any lefty site. I'm fucking sick of it.

I'm sorry to hear that. Too bad PETA has pretty much brought all that abuse upon themselves.

You guys are like the moral equivalent of Jason Alexander's character in "Shallow Hal" where he breaks up with gorgeous babes due to one toe being slightly too long.

This is idiotic, for reasons that should be obvious.

brad said...

Except, of course, that I specified I wasn't bashing the rank and file of PETA, but rather the leadership.
I, like any other sane human, believe that the animals we eat should be treated with respect and kindness before becoming tasty food.
But they are going to end up food.
Btw, plants are also alive.

ManOnBlog said...

clem & fishbone:

Ouch! I guess I hit a nerve. As with the morality of slavery, I hope (for long-term sake of the animals) that history will not be your side. And I don't say that with any relish whatsoever. Live long & prosper.


brad,

You seem like a reasonable guy & I really appreciate your comments over at S,N!. But to attack those who are trying to do the right thing (PETA, not me) in this open forum because they don't conform to your lofty expectations - well, all you are doing is empowering the enemy.

Seriously, aren't we better than this?

p.s. Where do you get off comparing the eating of plants to the premeditated torture & killing of animals? What kind of fucking grade school argument is that? I expect better from you...

brad said...

For the final time, I'm not using a broad brush, I'm taking issue with Ingrid essentially hijacking a worthy issue for her own personal purposes. Or rather I mentioned having issues with her as an aside, which I clarified 5 mins or so after the fact to make extra clear I was only taking issue with her.
I'm comparing plants and animals because they're both a form of life. Plants may not be intelligent, but they're more responsive and aware than you probably realize. Life is life is life. Ending it is regrettable, but the nature of our existence means we can't just eat rocks. Where you and I fundamentally diverge is over the killing of animals. I'm also against what you, pretty rightly, call torture.
I'd also be in favor of America as a whole eating a great deal less meat, both for health and environmental reasons.
But Ingrid encourages a cultlike attitude of us against them, and is very, very dogmatic and uncompromising. She acts like a born-again Christian. That is why there's such a strong reaction against her on the left. I think she harms her own cause, both via the rhetoric and ad campaigns she promotes, and because she associates with those folk who take it too far, into destructive and/or violent acts, like ALF.
Ingrid is a zealot, and I, by instinct, will pretty much always stand against zealots. Even when their cause is just they go too far, either in rhetoric or action.

Fishbone McGonigle said...

No nerve touched, manonblog. It was just a pretty, really poor analogy. I mean, it might apply in some situations, but I can't see how it would apply here. That's what I meant by calling it "idiotic."

And you have to admit, PETA has brought a lot of their image problems on themselves. Or maybe you don't. But that won't change the fact that it's true.

M. Bouffant said...

Speaking for myself (& not for my co-bloggers here, apparently) I'm often in favor of destructive acts, but that's just nihilist me.
As for violence, "I'm non-violent, but if you touch me, I'll break your arm."
Just sayin', as they say.

ManOnBlog said...

brad & fishbone:

Fine, knock yourself out qualifying it after the fact, but I'm sorry, "PETA is a goddamned cult" - them's fighin' words to me.

FWIW, my wife is a member of PETA, so I peruse the magazine now and then. I've never seen anything radical in it, and I've looked pretty closely for that. The public face of PETA, as presented thru their publication at least, is fairly tame, and I get no sense that the organization nor their leaders posses a radical agenda.

But on-line I read all kinds of second-hand shit about PETA, from sources that seem to have an agenda of their own, a la: "For one, I love meat. Sorry cows, but you're tasty." My working theory is that people know deep down that huge numbers of fairly intelligent animals are suffering horribly, but they don't want to ruin their day by dwelling on it, or otherwise soil their beautiful mind with such a revolting concept, so they lash out at the messenger. Not knowing you, I have no idea how well that particular shoe fits you, but these sorts of things are difficult to control for in one's mind.

I'll leave you guys so you can throw another puppy on the barbie and get back to your discussion of how Megan is such a big meat hypocrite.

freddybob said...

i'm going to have to pull you up on your argument brad. that's wingnut logic you're using, boy. "i stopped being a vegetarian because PETA are bastards" sounds suspiciously like "i became a conservative because some mean liberals were big old meany meanbags to me" im not sure how other people being assholes has any bearing on your decision to eat meat.

brad said...

How's about you educate yourself about the actual issue, then?
Look into Ingrid, and the leadership. You're basically faulting me for not being as uninformed as you are.

brad said...

Huh?
PETA had nothing to do with why I resumed eating meat. I like eating meat, and I wasn't good at balancing my diet properly without it. I didn't even know what I know about PETA now when I stopped.

brad said...

Ok, fine, I guess I was a little lazy in that construction. Still, I resumed eating meat for purely personal reasons. Politics were not in play.

Clem said...

I thought PETA was run by Alicia Silverstone's publicist. Huh.