Did y'all see this? "My Beef With Vegetarianism"

[Duppers]

"My Beef With Vegetarianism" by Daniel Lazare, posted January 18, 2007
(February 5, 2007 issue of THE NATION.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/lazare

The flawed review of "The Bloodless Revolution" begins with its title, but it does highlight vegetarianism as a political movement.

Your thoughts?




Only the willfully ignorant and the greedy call themselves Republicans. -d

[LeftyMom]

1. I haven't read the book, but if it says Hitler was a vegetarian, somebody didn't do their research

as he was quite fond of sausages and capon and only intermittently followed medical advice to pursue a vegetarian diet to treat his problem flatulence. However, promoting the idea of his self-sacrificing "vegetarian" diet was politically expedient, both in the hope that the population would follow (times were lean even before the Reich imploded, it's part of how he rose to power to begin with) and because being seen as pure and ascetic put der Fuhrer beyond question and above reproach.

If this guy wanted an excuse to eat organic/free range/whatever "happy meat" and indulge his selfish foodie tendencies, he ought to have picked up The Omnivore's Dilemma instead, he'd have found precisely what he wanted.

[Duppers]

2. indeed

Propaganda is every where, isn't it, Lefty?! I haven't read the book either, but I'm less than enthused with this review in The Nation.

High honors for this statement: "Vegetarianism is most fundamentally about the importance of not taking life other than under the most extreme circumstances."

But what follows that sentence is not logical reasoning, but laughable poppycock:
>>
But cruel as it is to kill an ox or a pig, nature is even crueler. A tiger or wolf does not knock its prey senseless with a single blow to the forehead and then painlessly slit its jugular; rather, it tears it to pieces with its teeth. Freeing an animal so that it could return to its natural habitat meant subjecting it to a life of greater pain rather than less. This was disconcerting because it suggested that animals might be better off on a farm even if they were to be slaughtered in the end. There was also the fact that human agriculture created life that would not otherwise exist. If people stopped eating meat, the population of pigs, cattle and sheep would plummet, which meant that the sum total of happiness, human or otherwise, would diminish. This was enough to persuade the Comte de Buffon, a freethinker and naturalist, to declare in 1753 that man "seems to have acquired a right to sacrifice" animals by breeding and feeding them in the first place.
>>


It's too early in the a.m. for me to discern the reviewer's sentiments from those of Stuart's. Either way, I don't like the conclusions.

[Critters2]

7. What a load of BS!! Apparently the Comte de Buffon was a buffoon

among other adjectives.

Fewer animals to slaughter would mean less happiness in the world?! Unbelievable!

[Robeson]

3. I will preface by saying I have not read the book....

...from viewing the review, there seems to be some historical revisionism going on in the book, along with a large scoop of psychobabble.

The fact that he got the "Hitler Card" wrong is enough to make one question every other assumption the author may have made in the book. If he had done a precursory investigation into his existential assumptions, he could have simply turned to John Toland, who in his definitive biography "Adolf Hitler", states quite plainly, with references, that Hitler became a vegetarian because of the suicide of his niece, Geli. He did, however, eat the occasional liver dumplings after that act. (see "Adolf Hitler" by John Toland, pg. 256).

Now, I hate to question this author, without reading the book. But if one can find such an obvious glare in one of the authors points, I can only imagine how many more points could, as easily, be dissected.

[govegan]

4. The review stinks, and the book is no prize either.

I admit that I haven't read the book, but I subscribe to The Nation and have been steamed since I saw that atrocious, propaganda laced, review.

I plan to send them a letter as soon as I have a chance, hopefully in the next few days. The review, their tepid response to Kucinich announcing his candidacy for 2008, and that rather dull and uninspired piece they recently published about 9/11/2001 and paranoia (9/11: The Roots of Paranoia as they called it) all indicate that they (The Nation staff and publishers), like so many, like to read good news about their bad habits.

The author is probably a bit young to have taken on such a project, based on his bio info that I have been able to find. But the title is terrible!! Bloodless revolution! Give me a break. Vegan homo sapiens have always been around since the beginnings of recorded history and obviously before.

One aspect makes sense of sorts, in that the power of love is and always has been the primary revolutionary force in the world.

Ahimsa frightens the oligarchs, plutocrats and neo-fascists.


"Each outcry of the hunted Hare
A fibre from the Brain does tear.
A Skylark wounded in the wing,
A Cherubim does cease to sing.
A Game Cock clip'd & arm'd for fight
Does the Rising Sun affright.
Every Wolf & Lion's howl
Raises from Hell a Human Soul." -- William Blake


How could they print that old canard about Hitler embracing vegetarianism? FOOLS!

Anyway, I did take heart with their issue that focused on food. In this case, a bad book was reviewed by someone with a rather tenuous grasp on reality -- probably from too much "reality tv". The same reviewer probably views Chimpy & Cheney as Christians and would be happy to point out the abundant propaganda that testifies to their great religious faith.

[Duppers]

5. His writings discredit THE NATION! LTDs are needed.

Govegan, I agree with your opinions here 100%, and take exception to only one thing you said.
Daniel Lazare, the well-known idiot, is actually 56. He has contributed many articles to The Nation.
From a 2001 wedding announcement:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DE5DC...

I'll be joining you in a letter writing campaign to THE NATION. I'm pissed.

[govegan]

6. Awesome ... yes letters are called for and needed

I meant to refer to the author of the book, Tristram Stuart, not the author of the review. I guess that wasn't quite clear.

Anyway, here about the author of the book:

Tristram Stuart graduated from Cambridge in 1999 with a double first in English, winning numerous academic prizes. Since then he has been a freelance writer for Indian newspapers, a contributor editor/researcher on a book about Himalayan nomads, a project manager in Kosovo and, most recently, a prominent critic of the food industry.

He has made regular contributions to television documentary, radio and newspaper debate on the social and environmental aspects of food. The Bloodless Revolution is his first book.

You can view a photo of Stuart to verify his youth at http://www.rooms-hire-locations-lectures-debates.co.uk/public_debaters_speakers_lecturers/vegetarian_india__Tristam_Stuart.htm