Top 10 links of the week! A breezy ride through veganism! »
[your animal viral video of the week! I don’t understand what’s going on. Where is this? Is this like a private dolphin?]
I can tell you guys have big things to worry about but if you have time to care about the seal hunt, you should keep an eye on the Humane Society’s “Live from the Ice” reporting.
Yo, did you know there’s a debate about whether or not it’s ethical for vegans and vegetarians to eat mock meat? Me neither! This Dish is Veg has a post about it, read it and tell me what you think.
Some 20-year-old killed a cat to perfect her outfit for a Lady Gaga show. I don’t want to talk about it.
Treehugger has good news about the gorilla population in the Congo! Gorillas are just amazing. Like, you can’t not be amazed when you look at them. Plus, they’re nearly vegan (I hear sometimes they eat bugs)! They don’t eat cows and they still manage to be all strong and diesel.
If you didn’t get enough Laura this week, check out The Week in Vegan. She mentions Shakira, who rules. I’m sold. Read it and comment!
News gets cute this week: “Research shows that man’s best friend categorizes people as generous or mean by keeping tabs on how they treat others.” That’s how everyone’s dog knows YOU’RE the softy! Read all about it at the Daily Mail.
Read Ricky Gervais’ letter calling for the director of NIH to help 14 chimpanzees that have been sent to a research facility in Texas. Ricky Gervais is just the man. I don’t know what he could do to make me like him more but I think it would involve free vegan cinnamon rolls. Or roller-skates.
Wolves can’t catch a break. Groups are in the process of trying to de-list wolves as an endangered species in the Great Lakes area. The New York Times has the story. I’m getting fucking sick of this. It’s like, you almost wipe out a species and then after hard work, the species begins to flourish and then you want to kill them again. WTF?
Friends of Animals has a brief update on the wolf de-listing rider in the budget proposal. It’s on it’s way to the prez! Fucking awesome!
Going vegan for lent »
The New York Times has a recipe for those going vegan for lent—it’s the lovely baked beans with mint, peppers and tomatoes you see above. Raised a heathen, I don’t know much about lent other than what I learned in 40 Days and 40 Nights. It’s a very educational movie actually; I learned that date-rape is OK if the victim is male and that lent means you give up something you like for 40 days. Or do you give up something bad? I don’t know, I remember someone I knew gave up cursing, which is kind of a bad thing. I had a boss who gave up pretzels one year. Don’t know where pretzels fall on the good versus evil scale. But how common is it to go vegan for lent?
Here’s what my super secret source says lent is all about:
Lent is a time of sacrifice for Jesus. The traditional purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer—through prayer, repentance, almsgiving and self-denial—for the annual commemoration during Holy Week of the death and resurrection of Jesus, which recalls the events linked to the Passion of Christ and culminates in Easter, the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It also says that various forms of fasting have gone on during lent in different places throughout history including abstaining from meat and sometimes dairy. So I guess going vegan or vegetarian has a precedence. I have to say though that I don’t like this whole connotation between vegan and self-denial. It’s like saying not eating babies is self-denial! Well, sort of. You get what I mean! Or, maybe not. Well OK, it went like this: the other day I was saying something about not enjoying going to dinner parties where I can’t eat anything and my sister was like, “but you could eat something” and I’m like “um, no, nothing is vegan” and she’s like, “yeah, but you could" so I’m like, "yeah, and you could eat babies!” Or better still, I was like, “would you tell Jewish and Muslim peeps, ‘yeah but you could eat pork?’” Totally won her over! I’m serious; I gave up sarcasm for lent.
So, you see what I mean? It’s like saying not buying plastic bottles is self-denial. Besides, being vegan is fun! It’s a non-stop party! If you’re not a square from Delaware, somebody say, “oh yeah!”
In which the New York Times Magazine demonstrates they kinda hate vegans, but really love pretentious dudes who put weird shit in ice cream! »
The New York Times Magazine printed a 4,000 word
advertisement for article about Humphrey Slocombe that included some rather negative/poorly researched Vegansaurus mentions. I know standards for the NYT mag aren’t too high—look at the kind of folks they work with; But still, disappointing. Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor as a response and am going to publish it in full here because at this moment, I’m righteously indignant and can’t nobody stop me!
Aaaaannnnd so, without further ado:
My blog, Vegansaurus, was mentioned several times in Elizabeth Weil’s piece, “I’ll Take a Scoop of Prosciutto, Please” regarding Jake Godby, the proprietor of the alternative ice cream shop “Humphrey Slocombe.” Six paragraphs of the 4,000 word article were devoted to critics of the establishment, Vegansaurus foremost among them.
Intriguingly, although Godby’s opinion of Vegansaurus and the San Francisco vegan community were strongly conveyed, his critics were given no opportunity to respond to his assertions or the distorted history Weil reports as fact. Our review of Humphrey Slocombe was not linked in the article (although the link advertising Humphrey Slocombe demonstrates your content management system has this capability). Nor were any of the editors of Vegansaurus contacted for comment.
Had I been asked for comment, I would have informed Weil that, contrary to her assertion that our website “started” the “conflict” between Godby and the SF vegan community, community protests against Humphrey Slocomb’s indifference to animal welfare pre-dates my post on Vegansaurus. I also would have told her that I intended my review to be a partial defense of the establishment for offering vegan choices. I later amended the review after reader comments cataloged Godby’s history of aggressive antipathy to contentious eaters.
As the article itself notes without comment, Godby leaves meat in a vegan grocery as a form of recreation. Given how the article opts to demonstrate Godby’s distaste for vegans and vegetarians, it seems particularly irresponsible for the reporter to deny his targets an opportunity to offer their perspective.
We would also have been happy to offer our assistance as to the correct use of contemporary media terminology—she describes our website as a “vegan collective,” a term employed nowhere on our site. It’s an odd way to describe a publication, unless one is seeking to subtly discredit its authors by implying they are some sort of subterranean cabal, rather than a group of free-lance writers with a popular website. Would you refer to the the New York Times as a “news collective”?
It is great that she did take the time to meet the folks behind the twitter account Jasper Slobrushe, but couldn’t even take the two minutes to shoot an email our direction.
That at no point neither Weil nor the editors we presume examined this article before it appeared in print or online noted these points seems especially odd, given how many traditional journalists (though, to be fair, I do not know that either Weil nor her editors make this argument) argue that their work has more value that that of many folks who work exclusively online (aka bloggers) because the traditional folks ‘pick up the phone’ or ‘actually get comment from people.’
I am hopeful you can respond to my concerns,
A Founding Editor