So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."
With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.
Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak [Happy New Year].
-- President Obama
It is a bit remarkable how small acts can be so important, showing a certain respect and effort that can mean so much. We know this from our daily lives. Though some people who would know such things suggest Obama's message is an important act, we need not give too much credit to be appropriately respectful. We are obviously just talking about a single gesture. Still, this is the sort of thing he meant when he talked about engagement -- it does not mean being naive or a lapdog. It does mean engaging with nations, particularly ones that aren't going anywhere, and reaching out. And, doing so in a way that shows understanding and respect of their culture.
Reminding them, and us, that we are of a "common humanity," too precious to have a policy dominated by war and war-like attitudes. Talking about small gestures, the now no more ban on foie gras in Chicago -- joining California and many European countries (plus Israel) -- is ridiculed by a Salon piece reviewing a book on "The Foie Gras Wars." The Chicago measure surely was more interesting to most people as a reflection of local politics than as a push to stop restaurants from selling a controversial delicacy. But, the review -- even for someone who doesn't care about the issue -- is best seen as a biased case of bad journalism.
The article doesn't start off on the right foot, the very first sentence telling us the stuff (which I never tasted to my knowledge) is "truly, indisputably, delicious." Are you kidding? How can we take someone who starts off like that totally seriously? Besides, we are talking about fatty duck or goose liver here, right? I have tasted normal liver -- it isn't as horrible as some make it out to be, but it wasn't "truly, indisputably, delicious," and I doubt foie gras ("fat liver") is somehow uniquely special either. I also am not a big proponent of lard. Anyway, after finishing drooling, the author notes:
It's undoubtedly true that some farms use inhumane methods, like caging the birds in tiny, individual cages that cause them pain and distress, but when foie gras is produced the right way (the way Hudson Valley does it, for instance) it's simply not torture.
The author, however, does not actually discuss how "the way Hudson Valley does it." The review also does not say some compromise can be reached, where only product from those HV-like nirvanas can be sold. The result is that many animals are needlessly harmed, the good (a minority? who knows from such coverage) covering the bad. It quickly quotes one critic to suggest she simply cannot admit reality, but a quick search led me to some who question (one with video) how grand Hudson Valley does things. The video, for instance, shows many birds in a single cage, roughly handled, and so forth.
And, the fact the birds do not have a gag reflex or normally might gorge before long flights does not suggest artificially doing it via feeding tubes for our benefit does not hurt the birds. The author (and opponent) of Farm Sanctuary also discusses the process, involving force feeding ducks and geese to unnatural levels, and any credible review would actually spend a paragraph or two truly putting forth that side. Not saying things like:
They're being waged by vegans who believe that all meat eating inevitably involves torture but who are smart enough -- and disingenuous enough -- to focus on a product the average person might never eat, one that can easily be portrayed as a decadent luxury enjoyed only by fat cats who could not care less about animals.
Many movements receive their core power from true believers who realize that the best they can do are small steps that might lead to bigger ones down the road. It is not "disingenous" to take such a tack, nor is it left to crafty vegans. The impossibility of tacking bigger fish, if the true vegans will pardon my metaphor, underlines why it is not hypocritical or anything to tackle this while factory farms churn out eggs, meat, and so forth. And, there also can be degrees of harm, and force feeding for a delicacy involving fatty livers quite arguably might be different than mass production of meat or even use of the whole duck or goose. Next up, those who eat chicken, but find veal particularly distressing are hypocritical liars.
A regular reader of this blog does not share by views on eating animals, and obviously the matter of what is "torture" in this context, and what the appropriate path might be is a matter of much debate. And, the book in question might very well raise good questions, including supplying perspective of the production of this particular item, plus background on its long history. But, this is not helped too much by slanted articles that begin with insisting that obviously its so yummy, which is both debatable and a dubious way to open up discussion on what some think is a horrible practice. (Item: You can't deny child labor is so cute, especially when they sing while making all those clothes. ... Not that this would matter if it's cruel and all.)
Meanwhile, California recently passed a ballot measure dealing with treatment of animals raised for food. It is a small step, but one that is in the right direction.*
---
* Item: "Report: Energy Production Choking Bird Population ... The U.S. State of Birds report, released by the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, was requested in October 2007 by President George W. Bush. The report did not indicate whether one form of energy production is more detrimental than the other." That last bit would be useful to know.