San Diego Polar Bears versus Fox News

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4124069/zoo-taking-political-stand?category_id=86861

Fox news thinks it's too controversial for the San Diego Zoo to talk about the rapid loss of polar bear habitat due to receding polar ice because "some people don't believe" that climate change has anything to do with people. These creatures are pretty much doomed--there's no way to reverse what is already happening rapidly enough to maintain the population, and it's very likely I will see polar bears extinct in the wild in my lifetime--but hey, let's not be ALARMISTS.

If there is a problem with two causes, one of which we have absolutely no control over and the other which we, the human race, control, wouldn't it be wiser to just give it a go, try to make that positive impact, and err on the side of safety? If it turns out we're wrong, what have we lost? Some investments, yes, but those investments have positive side-effects: more independence from the global oil market, a healthier environment, new jobs in new industries. How is that a bad idea? And, really, there are still people that don't believe that human industries have negative environmental effects? Who are these people? And what the fuck?

I love the part where the interviewer tries to make the case that since the bears can live in San Diego, then rising temperatures shouldn't be such a big problem, right? Oh, so, so wrong: I thought your problem was that you didn't think global climate was changing, sir, but this seems to indicate that you kinda secretly maybe acknowledge that things really are going wonky, weather-wise, but you'd rather just not do anything about it, doesn't it? Oh, yes, polar bears can adapt to heat, if you can just completely rewire their instincts (to seek out high-fat meals of seal and walrus to build up heat-retaining blubber, to hunt on ice, to completely change their historic ranges--which adds additional problems, because people live in the places where the bears would move to) and provide them with air-conditioned houses which they may retreat to when the heat gets too much for them. Yes, terribly practical. Much more reasonable than, I dunno, selling your fucking Range Rover and cutting back on the beef.

Oh, Iorek Bjyrnison, you miserable, gorgeous bear. Come whack some sense into these people.

"The Hump" Closes, Caught Serving Whale Meat

It's hard to believe that the illegal whale trade is happening in the U.S., but this Santa Monica restaurant's name seems to almost flaunt it.

http://www.tonic.com/article/dedicated-animal-activists-prompt-a-santa-monica-restaurant-to-close-for-serving-illegal-whale-meat/

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/03/20/13303406-ap.html

Recent interest in the trade in whale and dolphin meat is probably entirely due to the success of The Cove, but I'm not complaining. It feels good to see something finally fall on the side of the non-human, even if it's as small as the closing of a restaurant.

this is why we're fat

I could say more about the utter nonsense of the situation, and relate it to the government's bitching and panicking over the obesity epidemic, as well as to the incongruity with subsidizing things that make us fat while talking about universalized health care as if we mean it (even that is stretch), but I think the graphic speaks for itself.

Also: dairy is heavily subsidized; lactose intolerance is low in people of European descent and shockingly high in people of Native American, Asian, and African descent. Equality my ass.

ugh

Just learned that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was pushed through Congress partially by the Center for Consumer Freedom--the amorphous "nonprofit" behind such charmers as HumaneWatch. Immediate headache; more later.

bunny bourguignon: it's not so easy

“Today is a somber day because we are going to be killing rabbits,” she said. “But I am always psyched after slaughter because I’m like, now I’m going to eat.

The New York Times today is running this piece on a "rabbit-killing seminar" held in a parking lot in Brooklyn. Full of puns and admonitions like "don't tell the kids!", it's portrayed as yet another way for people to get to know where their food comes from. The paper acknowledges that a lot of the ambivalence towards eating rabbits is due to the fact "the country never quite got past the pets-or-meat problem" with rabbits, something not as prevalent when you're talking about chicken or turkey. Rabbits are popular with kids, kept as pets, and images of Peter and Bugs are icons of childhood. And now they're the new trend on foodie menus.

The question of whether teaching a class full of nervous urbanites how to break rabbit necks in a city parking lot is a good idea is a difficult one. The article emphasizes that most rabbit isn't factory farmed since the animals themselves are so delicate and the demand for the meat is still niche. The idea is for people to raise these animals themselves as they are an "easy" one to keep in the city (anyone who has ever smelled rabbit piss might disagree), easy to kill, easy to butcher, and delicious to eat. A rabbit living in back of someone's co-op does probably live a considerably better life than a factory-farmed broiler chicken, so it's a question of degrees. If you absolutely refuse to quit eating meat, then isn't it better to take responsibility for the lives your appetite demands?

It's the theory/praxis line I come up against frequently: in theory it should never be right to kill an animal. In practice, if people are lining up to learn how to snap bunny necks they're probably pretty committed to their omnivorous diet, and this has got to be better than buying ground beef at discount prices, right?

But there's still a lot of vacillation, even in the people who participate. The idea of forcing yourself through the slaughter of an animal as a sort of trial by fire which, if you survive, absolves you of future concern for the ethical demands of your diet is the opposite of productive in my mind, because if you have ethical concerns about eating meat in the first place it means that, somewhere in you, you realize that there's probably something wrong with it. The effort and ritual of learning how to slaughter and butcher your own animals gives you something else to think about, and doesn't actually involve changing your diet.

And let's be honest: people who are "committed" to ethical meat sources don't make much of a change. Maybe you spend a bit more on the Sunday roast, but when you're out to eat, do you demand the server prove to you that the cow in your burger didn't suffer? Do you exclusively patronize establishments that exclusively serve locally-sourced, compassionately-killed meat? What about the pepperoni on that slice of pizza you're gobbling down at bar time? What about when you visit your folks in the Midwest and the only options for dinner are Outback and the Olive Garden? Are you a vegetarian then, or does your concern for the lives of the animals you eat only extend to a convenient twenty-mile radius around Manhattan?

As Michael Pollan (very revealingly) says in The Omnivore's Dilemma, "How far do I take this... before it ruins my meal?"

Articles like this seem to be appearing more and more often--in the NYT particularly--and they seem to universally end on a note that acknowledges the sense of ambivalence that's almost inevitable to this kind of facing-the-animal-you-eat endeavor. This one is no different.

“When I was the first person to volunteer to break the neck, it all seemed so easy and emotionless that I didn’t realize until after I’d done it that I was shaking,” she said.

But she recovered quickly. After all, there was a rabbit to dress.

Ms. Lippert still has the pelt, the head and the feet. They’re in her freezer, awaiting the taxidermist. But she doesn’t have the boyfriend.

“He ended up leaving me for a vegetarian,” she said.

an exercise on the phrase "humane slaughter"

suggested yesterday by a fellow student.

humane slaughter

kind massacre

compassionate mass murder

understanding killing

sympathetic execution

tolerant annihilation

lenient extermination

merciful liquidation

kindhearted decimation

gentle carnage

tender butchery

benign genocide

benevolent slaying

humanitarian bloodbath