Adorable foie gras on the move.
courtesy of cornichon.org
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Go fuck yourself.
Again, though, protesting foie gras is consistent with working to change the larger system of meat production in this country. Why can't it be that NARN's protests at Lark do not take away from other efforts, but instead actually supplement those efforts?
I understand why Lark is probably over these protests. Still not sure though why you guys at the Stranger are so irritated by some folks protesting an hour a week in front of a restaurant, and why you consider it such a wasted or counterproductive effort. Is it simply because some people, you know, actually care that much? Or is it because, in your heart of hearts, you know they might be right?
It's time for another infusion of new blood at this poor paper . After a few too many years at this, these writers tire of the novelty of sharing the cool things they've found with their readers and instead set themselves up as arbiters of all their readers are supposed to think and do.
That's what I'm talkin' bout! Your internet comment "Go fuck yourself" directed toward those nutty animal rights people shows them who's boss.
I for one appreciate your anonymous insults hurled at those wimps. Their moralistic and delusional interest in standing up for helpless animals who can't speak for themselves has earned them all the scorn you and the Stranger can dish out.
I also believe that you should take that energy and go even further to stand up to protect and defend our meat-eaters' rights and freedoms! Put that fightin' spirit into action and go get a job at a pig slaughterhouse tood-sweet, mr. manly man!
I think that protesting his connection to factory farming practices would have a much larger impact on decisions the chef and the behavior of the community.
I've sold John meat and like him a lot.
There's a number of inaccuracies in this article - whether about Wooly Pigs (most of Wooly Pigs' operations are now in IA) or pork production in general.
I recommend people read this book if they want to understand pork production better: http://www.amazon.com/Hog-Ties-What-Abou…
If you read that, it won't be so clear who the good guys or bad guys are - but you'll have a better understanding of a very complicated system.
I'm not qualified to speak about foie gras and whether or not it is inherently cruel. Pigs are fundamentally different: http://woolypigs.blogspot.com/2008/11/ap…
Keep on calling NARN and protesters misguided and wasting their time is so condescending and getting really repetitive. Citing supposedly factual references of "humane foie gras" as if there is such a thing, using a foie gras producer's own website on the other hand, just shows that you're only interested in turning a blind biased eye as usual.
As it's been stated before on all these Slog threads, don't tell us what or how to protest.
Thanks Stranger "writers" for shining a light on this hypocrite chef though.
I think when people force their values on others, wether it be ideas about food, politics or religion, it's distasteful and wrong.
Everybody is in charge of themselves.
"Mauritania struggles with love of fat women; Government trying to change desert culture that force-feeds girls.."
"In Mauritania, to make a girl big and plump, ‘gavage’ — a borrowed French word from the practice of fattening of geese for foie gras — starts early...Mint was 4 when her family began to force her to drink 14 gallons of camel’s milk a day. When she vomited, she was beaten."
Dude, it's WRONG to forcefeed ANYTHING or ANYONE.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141550/
By the time Mint was 10, she could no longer run. Unconcerned, her proud mother delighted in measuring the loops of fat hanging under her daughter’s arms.
“My mother thinks she made me beautiful. But she made me sick,” says Mint, who suffers from weight-related illnesses including diabetes and heart disease. "
I think when people force their values on others, whether it be ideas about food, politics or child abuse, it's distasteful and wrong.
what a piece of shit journalism as usual
you couldn't get a job writing anywhere else but this pathetic college newspaper
read denn, schneider, kauffman, leson, dutton, you freshmen.
\beer-bonged
First off, you apparently need to go back to biology class, SausageFingers. It's *fowl* not insects. If you're going to knock them down a few notches, then it should be applied across the board. In that case "neanderthal" would be quite charitable for you.
And what makes you think the folks of NARN aren't involved in the "bigger issues?" Have you asked them? Animal rights people are often involved in human social justice campaigns, because our compassion has no boundaries as to species.
And why don't we direct the question at *you*? What exactly are *you* doing besides criticizing people that care about anything? If you haven't bothered to poke your head out of your own self-absorbed life and actually take a stand against something, then you have no right to criticize us. "Go fuck yourself" indeed.
As usual, I'll dumb down my dialog when dealing with fundies. The "insects" reference was facetious*. I am well aware that geese are not insects, but thanks for the info.
As for whatever else NARN spends it's time on, no, I didn't go ask them. My time is more important. The article is about geese, and that's where my comments are directed.
As for what I'M doing...
http://www.ivaw.org/
So blow me.
* 1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious
Farmers treat animals the way they do because it's profitable. Small farmers have a much harder time staying profitable against the giant CAFO's so they are forced to cut even more corners, which almost always comes at the expense of the animals.
I've seen pregnant animals full of worms with open sores on their body which the farmer fully intended to send to slaughter. I've seen animals endure broken limbs which have gone weeks without veterinary attention. The examples are endless.
I'm not saying that factory farmed meat is somehow more humane or well regulated at all. My point is that there is no alternative in this industry which is "humane" or "animal friendly"
The problem is the principle of commodification on which the animal industry is founded.
Good Riddance! Fattened Liver for all!! YUMMY!
Regarding your use of Sonoma Foie Gras' website as evidence that they humanely produce their product, I would draw your attention to the following press release issued by the Peanut Corporation of America *after* hundreds were already sickened by salmonella-tainted peanut products:
"PCA uses only two highly reputable labs for product testing and they are widely used by the industry and employ good laboratory practices. PCA categorically denies any allegations that the Company sought favorable results from any lab in order to ship its products."
Do you really think it's good journalism to take an industry or business at face value? The fact that you still refuse to take into account any evidence to the contrary regarding foie gras production is disheartening.
There's a reason for that.
Undoubtedly your time is very important. It is certainly important to be an anonymous jackass on the internet. Keep up the fight, brother meathead.
Guilty as charged, douche.
the saddest part is the macho posturing on the internet from people who lay awake nights afraid of every shadow and sound. real tough, aren't they?
Why aren't they moping back and forth on the sidewalks in front of every KFC in town if their lives are centered on the war against poultry abuse?
What happens to chickens on their way to the Colonel is way, way more disgusting than anything that happens at Sonoma Foie Gras. Or haven't they seen the videos?
If I have to plow my way through a bunch of wrong-headed vegans, (and I will be checking for leather belts) on my way to dinner i am going to be PISSED. So watch out, you pasty, mopey idiots! I will be able to easily shove you out of my way, because my diet makes me stronger than you!
Maybe the real reason NARN singles out Lark is that in order to eat there you have to have a job.
If I am going out to dinner and I have to plow my way through a bunch of pale, mopey vegans who want to shove their philosophy down my throat until my liver swells up, I am going to be PISSED!
really, in the end, this article was weak, and you self righteous f*cks on both sides suck. a few good points, but mostly play-ground style "no, i'm right"
and, apparently, i ain't got nothing important to do, as evidenced by me joining in this whine fest...WOOPEEE!!!
Uh, would you mind coming down here where the real outdoors is and telling this to the cougar that mistook my neighbour's horse for a vegetable?
I'm a vegetarian myself. Other people eat meat. Yay for diversity! Boo for animal cruelty. But, there are predators, so there must be prey. Myself, I caaaarrreeeefully sneak up on carrots and then POUNCE! They're MINE! ALL MINE! Does fois gras HAVE to be made from FATTENED livers? Can't they be made with plain livers that are a by-product of the poultry industry? ADD fat if you need it. Add goose fat, duck fat, chicken fat, Rosanne Barr fat, I don't care.
Granted, force feeding is wrong, too. Trust me...abusive babysitter...2 year old me...milk and vegetable soup I didn't want. Not pretty when puked back up, or spewing as said babysitter beats you for puking on the floor.
And to the little girl with the rape fetish…grow up and take a debate class or buy a book about logic. You obviously have issues that I can’t help you with in this forum. But I do have a sociology degree and a 9 inch cock, so whatever your issues are I’m sure I could get you past them.
This article illustrates that there is some heavy lifting to be done and that ultimately what is bad for the animals (abhorrent cruelty) is bad for the us (lagoons of shit contaminating ground water etc).
It is EASY to get angry about foie gras. It is much HARDER to take a wider look about what factory farming is doing to the animals that we eat, own bodies and the world that we live in. And this laziness to get involved with tough issues such as this by the overwhelming majority of people really pisses me off.
So ultimately it just makes me sad when the handful of people that are motivated enough to actually do something choose such an easy route.
If you're going to be a sarcastic ass, at least try to be witty and less cliche.
Maybe if you weren't such a moralizing prick, you'd notice my "go fuck yourself" was in response to a blanket statement that Seattle should be a vegan city. I'm probably just as opposed to giant agribusiness as you are. Thing is, I hate social engineering just as much as animal rights violators.
So, to clarify, my "go fuck yourself" can be extended to Margaret Mead-worshipping-ideologues yourself, NARN, and Micheal Vick.
God, you are such an ass. That's about the most imature, logically-impaired argument I've heard since third grade.
Fucking reverse-misogynist.
You're trying to claim that humans have pointy teeth because we "naturally" eat meat but that claim is supportable only if you ignore all the related primates (and other mammals) who also have pointy teeth yet don't kill other animals or eat meat. You're cherry-picking the evidence.
The same can be said for forward-facing eyes. Lots of non-predators have the same features, and lots of predators have eyes on the sides of their heads. The takeaway lesson is that nature is more complicated than these simple slogans that are constantly trotted out to "prove" that meat-eating is "natural".
Why not look directly at the health effects of meat instead of trying to indirectly deduce what is "natural"? The direct damage that meat does to your heart and digestive system has been very well documented. If you'd rather ignore science, be my guest. Smoke too, if you like, and take your seat belt off. Just because you evolved that large brain doesn't mean you have to use it.
Do better.
Jess put forth the assertation that if you have the equipment (teeth) you should use it, and that since humans have been killing and eating animals since ancient times, that makes it ok. Ergo men should use their equipment (cocks), and the subjacation of women is acceptable since it has been done since ancient times. You don't have to like my point, but it is a logical extension of what jess said. Stop for a minute and think before you lash out with your petty insults. It just makes you sound idiotic.
-----------
Yep, same is probably true about our appendixes...nothing is sexier to potential mates than useless internal organs. Or, wait, perhaps appendixes are leftover biological relics that once served a purpose (perhaps to digest bark).
Why do you think pronounced incisors attract more mates, ensuring their survival in the gene pool? It's because they serve a biological purpose by making their owners better adapted at hunting and eating. The better a predator is catching prey (with sharp teeth, big muscles, etc.), the more likely he'll attract a mate and pass on his genes.
Sorry, but teeth are not useless plumage. Name me one biologist who would argue to the contrary.
This is going to sound a bit fucked up, but just for the sake of argument...Back in Lucy's time, it wasn't really rape, now was it?
Trust me, not condoning rape. Just saying that socialization made forced intercourse an obsolete mechanism for procreation. However, soy beans have not made vegetables a palateable alternative to meat...at least for me.
(Happy 200th birthday, Mr. Darwin! Sorry for all the douches who exploit you for their personal agendas.)
Well, I don't know about you, "comrade," but if that's not neo-Marxist terrorist Muslim "social engineering" talk, I don't know what is! Social engineering vegan wimps! How dare they actually care that these animals are treated cruelly -- like you, Nic, I'm so pissed!
Anyhow, see you at the slaughterhouse, nic (the man)! With love, your slobberingly meat-devouring fan,
When you take that pussy/ironic tone in a post you undercut the ability people have to take you seriously. If you can't be straight forward and sincere you're obviously just another hack that jumps from cause to cause based on cheap emotion. Your obfuscation is an obvious sign of your own lack of belief in your own mental acuity. If you act like you think your a douche with a bellow average IQ why would anyone else think different?
Just something to think about. Oh, and sit up straight for a change, douche.
I get the point you're trying to make, but you do realize Darwin wasn't a biologist, right?
"A vegan talking about farming is a bit like a castrati criticizing a whore-house."
Ha, wit is still alive in Seattle. Very funny.
Before him, studying life was a hobby for amateurs called "naturalists" who mostly chased butterflies and made lists. He began his career doing just that, but by the time he was done he had transformed the field. Darwin made biology into a first class science.
It seemed simpler to reference the founder of modern biology's observation that the sexual dimorphism of primate teeth functions to impress mates and intimidate rivals, rather than start naming the hundreds of biologists who later confirmed and expanded Darwin's original work.
But thanks for playing.
Are you nic's SO? Color me jealous! I'm bedazzled by your verbosity and astute analysis of this situation.
BTW, "your" is not the same as "you're," which I believe you intended -- but hey, even the brightest among us can make that mistake.
Thanks for the reference to "bellow average intelligence" -- pretty subtle reference, dear becca, to a famous author, Saul Bellow, on one of his average days... I imagine his IQ wasn't too bad on an average day. So thanks!
I bid you and nic adieu, dear becca, as I slouch toward the slaughterhouse -- dreaming of my heroes nic, becca, and the flowing blood of many, many delicious innocent animals,
oh, that's right. It gets eaten by another animal.
Why aren't animal rights activists (and vegans whose rejection of meat stems from a moral imperative to not promote animal pain and cruelty) out there in the forests and savannas and oceans putting a stop to animal-on-animal cruelty?
oh, and one more question:
what sort of life form is a "human"?
is it an animal?
Thanks for not being hypocritical.
At least you have the wherewithal to admit that eating other sentient creatures equates your ethics and morality with the most base of behaviours; behaviours which man's ability to overcome through his 'superior' brain and civilization supposedly set him/her at a level above the beasts.
The fact that we aren't omnipotent doesn't excuse us from taking responsibility for our own deeds in our own backyard. The fact that the universe will never be perfectly fair or free of cruelty is not a license to make it worse.
Especially for something as petty as gluttony. Don't you people think of anything besides stuffing yourselves? Is that all you're good for?
Thank you! http://www.narn.org/foiegras/
I thought I saw a lone vegan protester there but I couldn't be sure, as he kept hiding behind a lamppost.
35th St. Bistro
709 N. 35th St.
Seattle, WA 98103
Tel.: (206) 547-9850
YES!
I lived a mile down the road from a foie gras farm in France. I visited there often because the farmer and his family were so friendly, and their dinners were unbelievably.
If you've never been to a real foie gras farm, I suggest you do so. There will not be a cage in sight. The barn doors are wide open. The animals have the run of the place. And three times a day, you'll see all the ducks and geese converging on the same spot, their heads in the air. Why? Because they've learned that that's where they will be gorged. The farmer doesn't even need to touch the animal, except to help guide the tube down its throat.
I say again: THE ANIMALS DON'T EVEN NEED TO BE TOUCHED. And after about ten or twenty grams of feed are given to the animal, the tube is gently extracted and it goes on its way. I'll say it again: THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS GIVEN TO THE ANIMAL IS PROPORTIONATE WHAT A HUMAN CONSUMES AT A GRAND SLAM BREAKFAST. THAT'S IT.
Compared to a battery farmed pig, or good forbid, chicken (most of whom will never see the light of day) a foie gras duck or goose lives a charmed life. But facts would just spoil their little protest or whatever.
This is both nonsensical and contradictory. Either we have superior brains and can act differently than animals, or we don't and we act just like every other beast on the planet.
Human. Beings. Are. Beasts. There's nothing special about us, a 5% difference in DNA between us and the common ant. Our 'superior' brains have done more to wreak havoc on this planet than anything else. Hell, the entire backbone of the vegan clothing industry is built upon complete dependence of petrochemicals! So fuck off already with your high horse. The day vegans start sewing their own palm frond clothes instead of wearing fabrics synthesized from oil production that has had a greater environmental impact than all the foie gras farms on earth put together, THEN I'll start listening to your hypocritical asses.
Those who look around at all the evil in the world and, rather than conveniently say it's all hopeless, instead decide to take action to address some part of it are not hypocrites. People like that are in fact the only reason there is any good in the world at all.
I can't fathom why, after NARN said they had no intention of seeking the impossible (a vegan city), everyone keeps pretending that is what they are trying to do. Their point was that they set their sights on realistic goals. A grown up would respect that, not deliberately misread it to make snotty, childish wisecracks.
NARN's own website indicates their purpose is to attempt to be practical in their activism. Persecuting a local restaurant and a local chef is more satisfying because you can put a face to the person you are fighting against. Or perhaps it's practical because NARN perceives geese as more sympathetic animals than pigs.
Seems like these vegans ought to take a class in supply chain management. I mean, isn't it also a little impractical to sabotage the restaurants that attempt to support humane ranching, etc? If you take issue with a supplier in particular, that's one thing. I applaud people who want to do something, but it's important to think about possible unintended consequences.
"In an attempt to expand animal cruelty criminal laws to cover the treatment of livestock, a Seattle-based animal rights group has filed a lawsuit arguing that existing laws give industry undue control over how animals are housed and slaughtered."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/4009…
Actually it is force feeding. They put a funnel down the throat of the animal and force it to eat. That's why it's so unethical. The point of the force feeding is to make the liver of the goose as fatty as possible because apparently it tastes good that way. I wouldn't know as I'm a vegetarian.
Not forcing my ways on you, but people should, IMHO, be aware of where their food comes from and how it's produced. If you are aware of what is involved in the production of foie gras, and you still want to eat it then go right ahead. It just makes me wonder what your other values are like.
I'm pescatarian (Yeah, a pretentious word but it's all I got. It means I eat fish but no other meat), although I don't eat fish that often. I don't think it's immoral to eat animals. I'd eat others besides fish once in a while if they were allowed to lead decent lives before they became my food, instead of being crammed into small crappy spaces, subject to pain and disease. Industrialization fucks everything up, from animals' lives to peoples' diets, and countless other things.
Plus, although individual needs vary, people don't need to eat meat everyday. Eating meat is really tied into a sort of fashion statement identity thing (although you could say the same about other diets but I digress) or some idea about masculinity and power. Hmm. Okay, back to the topic.......
I do think it's cruel, and therefore immoral to force-feed geese to create pate. Still, focusing their efforts on Lark doesn't seem like a good strategy for NARN to pursue because they're not targeting the true source of the problem--industrialization of food production--and they're making more enemies in the process. (No, that's not me telling NARN what they should protest, but rather critiquing their strategy). Here's what's happened in reaction to NARN's protest: Lark is getting lots of publicity and people are eating pate out of spite (the latter of which is kinda dumb really) and writing vegans off as a bunch of radical flakes (Which is not true).
On the other hand, we are talking about the issue and that's meaningful.
Fascist, heal thyself.