So Sarah Palin shot a caribou on her lousy reality show. Killed it, butchered it, and stuck in her freezer. This is one of the least offensive things that Palin has done in the course of her political career. And yet it has Hollywood screenwriter Aaron Sorkin up in arms. In a hilarious and widely read rant on our beloved HuffPost, he tears into Palin for making a critter snuff film:
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
Well, bully for you, Mr. Sorkin. But it doesn't much matter to a dead animal how you felt about butchering it. It's just as dead.
That you would prefer an underpaid factory worker kill your dinner for you instead of doing it yourself does not make you morally superior to Sarah Palin. Killing an animal to eat is not a "Lottery-from-hell," it's the food chain. That you can choose to participate in the food chain without getting your hands dirty speaks not to your ethics, but to your financial privilege. No, wealthy Sarah Palin doesn't have to kill her own food in order to eat -- but millions of people do.
As for what you call "torture," have you ever been to a factory farm, where most of the meat Americans eat comes from? Livestock are generally kept in crowded, uncomfortable, and unsanitary conditions. They are deprived of natural social interaction with their own kind, fed subpar diets, and subjected to painful practices such as having teeth, tails or beaks removed without anesthesia. In sharp contrast, wild animals like the caribou Palin was hunting have the pleasure of living in their natural habitats, free from cages and steroids and cattle prods. A brief period of suffering at the end of a hunted wild animal's life is nothing compared to the daily torment animals endure on factory farms.
If you genuinely want to take a stand against cruelty to animals, start by identifying the real problems. It's not hunters. It's not Republicans. It's certainly not The Learning Channel.
Real perpetrators of animal suffering are the farming systems that reduce sentient creatures to profit margins, the social trends that reduce pets to status symbols and fashion accessories, and the cosmetic companies that reduce companion animals to laboratory test subjects. But most of all, they are the consumers who choose to look the other way.
Sarah Palin may not know the difference between North and South Korea, but at least she knows where that meat in her freezer came from. Here, Mr. Sorkin, are a few sites you can check out to learn about your own dinner:
And if it makes you feel any better, cocaine is 100% vegetarian.
This article first appeared on FishbowlLA.
Follow Pandora Young on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PandoraYoung
I think Sorkin fell right into this trap and I thank Young for calling him on it.
I understand and agree with Sorkin's point about Palin killing an animal for political gain. But I kept reading his piece and one theme kept coming up: Sorkin loves to eat meat but hates killing animals.
That position just doesn't sit with me. It bothered me that he was attacking the person killing the animal, yet he eats meat. Why not condemn a butcher, then? Both kill animals. One kills it so he can eat it; the other one kills so you can eat it. Either way, a person kills an animal for its meat. Someone who does it for themselves isn’t any more evil than someone who kills it for you.
I also had a hard time buying his argument that hunters must not be happy when they kill an animal. I guess by that logic, butchers should hate their profession, live in constant guilt, and despise coming into work every morning. As Young so deftly put it, I don't care, and neither does the animal, what you FEEL; the act of killing is what matters.
I eat meat, but I had a lot of vegetarians agree with this position. Thanks, Pandora, for countering what I thought was a very weakly argued position.
I am confused how pointing out the cruelties of animal farms is a prelude to a promising career in an of the above professions. Did you even read what Mrs. Young wrote?
Well, that'll teach me to scan (and post!) whilst tipsy. We animal people can get pretty indignant, eh? While I still enjoyed Mr. Sorkin's piece, sincere apologies to Ms. Young.
You crafted a fine, well written, specious argument: Mr. Sorkin should not criticize Ms. Palin's actions because there are worse offenders... Seriously, is that your argument?
I cannot speak for him, or you, but for me, I am upset and offended by the treatment of animals during industrial "processing" - AND - by Ms. Palin's willingness to kill needlessly for entertainment and possible political gain.
Mr. Sorkin wrote about the latter, and not the former, and you make it appear as though that omission negates his points, when in fact they are only related by the final result, as we all are.
I find killing animals, objectionable when done for entertainment; most hunters would not do it otherwise. However, it is necessary and understandable when it is the only way to acquire food, but Ms. Palin... really? She did it for other reasons, which Mr. Sorkin apparently, and I definitely, found unjustified, unnecessary, and yes, morally unpalatable.
I agree with you about the farm systems, social trends, cosmetic companies, and consumers, but disagree that hunters (as described above) are not part of the problem: It is not an either/or, it is a both.
Including those sites was a good attempt at education and enlightenment... thanks. But then you dent your credibility as a writer by that final non-relevant, childish, "got'cha" cheap shot at the end... moral superiority anyone?
Lawson Meadows
I do not care about the ease in which farm animals may live, having worked farms as a boy. They are bred to be meat, or workers. The meat is cared for to the extent that it will be sold, once butchered. The workers are cared for as due their status as valuable workers.
That few here understand either of those things merely highlights the ignorance, and hypocrisy, of the Left.
Semper fi
The two things I respect about you: a dislike for reality shows, and being a marine (I was Special Forces back when they were, and went through airborne training with sixty recon Marines - respect!) But....
The fact that you missed my point is troubling. I am not against hunting for the purpose of survival, but because the vast majority of hunters do so more for entertainment and the fun of killing.
I find the argument about eating the meat empty most of the time, but even if true, the idea that a person "gets off" on killing is simply wrong. The fact that you don't see it that way, well I guess we will not be running an escape and evasion course together anytime soon.
Farm animals are a separate issue, with only a vague peripheral relevance to Ms. Palin's actions. I would not have addressed them if Ms. Young had not tried to imply that because they are treated poorly and Mr. Sorkin did not complain about them too, somehow that negates his criticism of Palin's actions and motives.
Then we get to the politics: you don't know me. You made an assumption that I was not a gun tot'in, NRA support'in, conservative, and must be a hypocritical, ignorant, liberal. The truth is, I am a mix of both... a "republicrat" ... I vote my own mind. Besides, there is plenty of ignorance and hypocrisy on both sides, don't you think?
Lawson
There is nothing sick in enjoying the kill, or in enjoying the meat. The Commandments have NOTHING to do with animals.
Semper fi
But as her father said, "he's not going anywhere," after Palin had already entirely missed. Why did he say that? Why wouldn't an animal hearing a loud noise run away?
Your moral high horse is top heavy.
http://www.adn.com/2010/12/11/1599846/always-on-the-hunt-palin-shown.html
Your assessment is taken from another, who's assessment is questionable.
Semper fi