Through Whose Eyes?: Meatpacking, Videos, Justice, and Animal Cruelty

I'm getting ready to go on vacation (A REAL ONE!!) (aka: one in which I don't have to cook), but I wanted to note an event of yesterday: Officials with the USDA shut down a California meatpacking plant after animal rights activists gave the department a video that, they claimed, demonstrated "cruel" behavior on the part of packing plant employees.

I only found out about this when a reporter from the Los Angeles Times called me for a comment. We talked at length, thank god, because my experience is that people freak out when someone (me) doesn't instantly freak out when stuff like this happens. (Packing plant cruelty, I mean, not me answering questions.)

I told her what I believe:

The USDA shouldn't rush to judgment based on a video shot by animal rights activists (or locavores or any other activists who would prefer to shut down meatpacking plants). I mean, think about it: These activists shoot a video (undercover, of course), hand it over, and suddenly the plant's owners and employees are screwed. And unemployed.

Hello? In this country, don't we do the "innocent until proven guilty" thing?

But, you say, there was a VIDEO. Surely that's proof that something was amiss.

Nyet. Got a camera or phone that shoots video? Quick. Run outside and shoot a minute of action. Then load that vid onto your computer and start using Photoshop or a similar program to alter your original film. Make the sky dark when it's actually sunny outside. Erase the person sitting at the wheel of the car so it looks like the car is driving itself.

You get my (sarcastic) drift: Anyone can make any video present any image. Here's a nice (and relevant) example from the late, great Chris Raines.

In the case of this recent California video, the world's premier designer of humane slaughtering systems, Temple Grandin, agreed that it was at least  a bit misleading.

But forget the video for a moment. The larger point, as I told the reporter, is that "cruelty" is in the eyes of the beholder (which was also Grandin's point). In this case, the activists complained that they saw

 cows being jabbed, hit, electrically shocked and sprayed with hot water.

Ya think? It's a slaughterhouse and packing plant, for crying out loud. Workers there kill thousands of animals a day. I have no doubt that at least some of those animals, perhaps even all, are "being jabbed, hit, electrically shocked [or] sprayed with hot water." That's what happens in a packing plant, in part, of course, because the animals aren't necessarily cooperative.

But I'm also sure that people who work in packing plants eventually become utterly and completely inured to the feelings and pain of the thousands of animals who parade by them each day. That's the nature of the [human] beast.

Before you zip off an email denouncing me for being a cruel monster, please note: I don't now and never have advocated animal cruelty. But: if people are going to eat meat, then animals will and do die. Period. If you don't want this to happen, then you should a) not eat meat; and b) try to convince everyone else to do the same.

Whether vegetarian or devoted meat eater, we also ought to care about justice, and in this case, the plant owners certainly didn't enjoy anything remotely resembling justice. Bare minimum, the USDA ought to have independently verified the behavior of plant employees before they decided to throw them all out of work. I have no doubt that some packing plant employees behave badly, just as some human beings behave badly. But punishing every plant employee and the plant owners based on a few minutes of (again unverified) video hardly seems fair.

Put another way, and a lot more bluntly, one thing we humans possess is a rational mind. Why don't we use it, instead of submitting to emotion?

What Do We Want? Legal Pot? When Do We Want It? Now!

I'm busy being a step-mom and grandma this week (which means racing around cooking, cleaning, chasing grandson, and generally having the time of my life), so there's not much time for anything remotely resembling work. BUT: I want to note the publication of a new book: Too High To Fail: Cannabis and the New Green Economic Revolution. It pushes SO many of my buttons. (*1)

As readers of this blog know, I favor of drug legalization, and especially marijuana. (See, for example, this.)

I'm also interested in the character of our "free market" economy in the digital age. (See, for example, this or this.) (Part of my interest stems from a book idea that is rolling around in my brain. Green, new, or otherwise, the nature of 21st century capitalism is much on my mind.)

Last Sunday's New York Times Book Review included  a review of the book. I didn't read it because I plan to read the book and why would I read a review of a book before reading the book?, plus the book's title/content were enough to get me to buy.  (I do so love complex punctuation. One's of life's cheapest, free delights!)

Indeed, I immediately decided to buy it as a way of supporting the author and the idea. (*2) In short: I'm delighted to see this book appear AND from a "mainstream" publisher.

So. Buy this book!

___________________

*1: FULL DISCLOSURE: I smoke pot, which in my case works out to one hit from a joint maybe two, three times a week. I'd probably take a hit every day if I could buy the stuff without the hassle I go through to buy it. But even if I didn't imbibe, I'd still favor legalization, as I have for well over thirty years.

*2: Although as I've noted here MANY times, I support buying books as a way of supporting the world's creators of "content." Of which I am one.

It's My Blog And I'll Write How I Wanna . . .

. . . to be sung to the tune of "It's My Party." A few days ago, I posted a rant in response to the Jonah Lehrer screw-up. As far as rants go, it was par for the course around here, including my use of various, um, various informal words.

One of my Facebook friends told me that her father-in-law read it and questioned my need to use the “vernacular,” as he phrased it. (“Vernacular” being a classy term for words like fuck, hell, and shit.) He said that he didn’t think a “good historian” needed to rely on such language. (*1)

He’s got a point: No one needs to rely on the word “fuck”; or words of more than two syllables when a one-syllable word will do; or on name-calling or on, well, whatever they rely on.

But his comment got me thinking about this blog and my philosophy, such as it is, of blogging. ("Philosophy." Now there's a sophisticated word! Probably too high-blown to be used for such a mundane purpose here.) And it occurred to me that it might be useful, six years into blogging, to explain why this blog takes the form it does.

In my verrrrry first blog post, back in 2006, when (being honest) I was dragged, kicking and screaming into blogging, I explained that I regarded my blog as an “observation post,” from which I planned to comment on the world around me. (*2) (*3)

And for better or for worse, that’s what I’ve done for the past six years. (*4)

So that’s one purpose of this blog: On any given day, I talk about whatever is on my mind, a luxury that writing single-topic books doesn’t otherwise offer. Blogging allows me to flex my brain and my writing muscles and to think out loud, if you will.

But over the past six years, I’ve also arrived, inadvertently and unintentionally, at another conclusion about my blogging philosophy (there's that word again . . .), a conclusion inspired primarily by  comments like the one from my Facebook friend's father-in-law (because he's not the first to question my choice of language):

My blog (and the website in which it’s embedded) are extensions of my “real” home in the 3-D world. When you stop by this website, you’re sitting in my online living room.

Which means: This is MY house and by god, I can do whatever I want here. I can say what I want. Use whatever words I want to use.

Which, sigh, is also against the “rules”: read advice on how-to-blog, and you’ll usually find a whole lot of verbiage about the need to “be professional.”

To which I say: screw that. I’m professional as hell in my professional life: When I’m researching my books and most especially when I’m writing my books, I'm ALL business.

But when I’m here, well . . . this is the other side of my life. Here, I'm more or less off-duty. So what you get is me, at home, unedited.

And if someone doesn’t wanna hang out in my living room because of a) my use of the “vernacular”; b) my political views; or c) because I’ve got my feet up on the coffee table and I’m ranting at the top of my voice --- well, hey! Here’s my advice:

Sit in someone else's living room.

But if you can take me as I am (cue Joni Mitchell!), then please, stick around. Take a seat. I’ll grab you a beer.

Because I’m happy (as hell) that you’re here.

____________

*1: Perhaps this is a good time to explain my admittedly foul mouth: I am a woman of few vices. I don’t cheat on my spouse or my taxes. I don’t drink to excess. I smoke pot in limited quantities. I don’t smoke cigarettes. I’m a good person. Swearing is my one, my only vice. It dates back to when I was fourteen and looking for some way to “rebel” (because I was such a good kid that I couldn’t imagine doing anything TRULY rebellious). So I started to swear. God, it felt great! Then I spent fifteen years waiting tables, and I’m here to tell you that if there is any other profession more likely to  provoke, inspire, and require the use of four-letter words, I want to know what it is. So there you have it: My History Of Swearing.

*2: Even now, six years later, it STILL cracks me up to think of posting that blog entry. In effect, I was sending words out into the cosmos knowing full well that NO. ONE. was reading them. There was something about it that absolutely tickled my sense of absurdity, and still does. Except now I send these words out to five, count ‘em FIVE, people. Progress, people, progress!

*3:  I did NOT want to blog, which, at the time, I regarded as the ultimate in narcissism, but felt pressured to do so as a way to boost my writing career). (Ask any writer: we’re ALL being pressured to use Facebook and Twitter, to blog, etc. Good thing I LIKE that stuff.) Now, alas, I'm addicted to blogging. Which, whoops! means I DO have a vice. (See *1 above.)

*4: Which means, yes, I’m a Truly Stupid Blogger, because the “rules” of blogging are that bloggers should keep their content focused and “relevant” to whatever their specialty happens to be. Eg, economists should write about economics; beer people should write about beer; I should stick to history. What can I say? No one will EVER accuse me of being smart.

The Lehrer Episode: When the Truth Doesn't Matter, We All Pay the Price

I'm a fan of smart people, especially smart writers. I could list boodles of such creatures --- and one of the great joys of a tool like Twitter is that it allows me to "follow" their work and thinking. Among them has been Jonah Lehrer: one of those absurdly young (he's only 31), hard-working, and therefore unnervingly prolific thinker/writers.

I say "has" because --- boy oh boy has he screwed up. I won't go into the details here (there's plenty online, but this is the place to start, followed by this piece about the start of his "downfall" earlier this summer).

Briefly: in the space of a few weeks, he's been caught recycling his own material and now, worse, flat-out lying in print. I'm sorry for him --- and baffled, too.

But that's not what prompts this post. Fury does.

Because I am furious. Here is yet another case of "facts" turning out to be lies. Another case of a writer making stuff up and passing it off as truth. (There have been so many of these in the past few years that if I linked to even half them, this post would be saturated in bright blue.)

Why do I care? Because I write non-fiction. Because I'm a historian and history is based on fact, not fiction. (*1) Let me repeat that: Historians start with FACTS. We don't get the pleasure of making stuff up. Our reputations, and the public's regard for our discipline, rest on our honesty.

So when people like Lehrer fuck with the facts, it makes EVERY non-fiction writer, historians and otherwise, look bad.

God knows the practice of history is already suffering thanks to the fictional history that's become so popular these days. (When a writer is praised for making "history" seem like a novel, chances are it's because that writer is taking liberties with the facts, typically by making up dialogue or ascribing knowledge of inner thoughts and motivation when he/she has no knowledge of them.) (And if no one minds, I won't mention names. I'm not interested in engaging in a public pissing contest.)

The more often Americans hear about fuckups like Lehrer (and what a shame that, in my mind, that's what he's become), the more likely they are to mistrust all writers of non-fiction. And the more likely they are to disregard substantive history in favor of the fictional stuff.

I can't say I blame them. After all, we know that politicians, to name the obvious example, lie on a regular basis as a way of promoting their cause. So why not journalists, public intellectuals, and historians?

It's no wonder that we Americans "enjoy" a reputation as "anti-intellectual." Why  bother with hard thinking and fact when any ol' made up shit will do?

Yes, I am more than a little pissed off.

UPDATE:  Michael Sacasas just remarked, via Twitter, that the Lehrer episode

could be the subject of a Lehrer-style book of neuro-moral psychology.

Indeed. As I said above, there have been SO many of these episodes that I wonder what's really going on. Surely more than a cavalier disregard for fact. Is this nothing more than the ease with which information is transmitted (and verifiable)? Or is there some weird, contemporary neuroses at work (perhaps connected to the ease with which we can communicate)? Who knows?

_____________

*1: Yes, yes, yes. I KNOW that a work of history reflects the historian's personal biases and interests. That no history can ever be objectively "true" because truth, to a certain extent, is in the eyes of the beholder. The facts that I amass and analyze are ones that I've chosen. And the analysis I arrive at is based on the way I choose to interpret those facts. But the operative word here is FACT. Historians start with FACTS.

"Delighted" Barely Describes It: Jack's Beer Rides Again

As I've mentioned here on many occasions, of the many pleasures that writing the beer book has provided, perhaps none as meant more to me than knowing that I helped Jack McAuliffe get the attention and credit he deserves. (For those just tuning in, Jack founded what is rightfully regarded as the first American micro-brewery.) (For more information, see this piece by my pal John Holl; it's the most substantive bio available online.)

Jack's an intensely private person and so, no surprise, also a bit of a recluse (one of many reasons he's a man after my own heart). (*1) When the beer book first came out, and people "discovered" him, he was uncomfortable with the attention. I'm happy to report that he's managed to overcome that discomfort (proving, apparently, that old dogs CAN learn new tricks) and that's a good thing because in the past couple of years, he's gotten plenty of love and respect from the "good beer" community.

And now a new, and truly exciting, honor: The folks at Sam Adams (aka Boston Beer Company and Jim Koch) invited Jack to brew up a new batch of his old (and long gone) New Albion Ale. The beer will be introduced at the Great American Beer Festival in October, and released to the public in January 2013.

For details of this happening, see this terrific piece of reporting from my pal John Holl.

I could not be happier.

Oh: And by the way, Jack and I will be signing copies of my book at the GABF in October. Hope to see you there. (Tickets go one sale to the general public on Thursday, August 2. They sell out VERY quickly, so if you're thinking of going, don't think too long.)

_____________

*1: Other reasons I'm so fond of him: He's smart, talented, creative, crazy as a loon, and eccentric as hell. What's not to like?

Food Politics In Action, Indeed!

As I've mentioned before, a large part of my (current) work is keeping up with the many (and messy) facets of "food politics" --- the ongoing debate over what kind of food system the US (and world) should have, what we should eat and why, etc. (Oooh boy, is that a GROSS simplification of the "food debate.") Doing so means I follow the writing/politicking/activities of lots of activists and organizations, many of which (whom?) drive me batty, if only because they seem not to see the irony of their form of crusading.

Case in point:

Yesterday, someone at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the department supported a Meatless Monday initiative. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association promptly objected with this statement, describing the Meatless Monday campaign as:

an animal rights extremist campaign to ultimately end meat consumption.

(As near as I can tell, the MM initiative is sponsored by an outfit that calls itself the Monday Campaigns and is associated with various schools of public health. The MM initiative is specifically affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I don't see any mention of animal rights groups.) (Animal rights groups, I should add, drive livestock producers and meat manufacturers crazy.)

Almost immediately after the cattlemen complained, the USDA retracted its statement (via Twitter, no less) with an apology, explaining that what appeared to be an endorsement was actually part of an internal newsletter and that, really, the USDA didn't support Meatless Monday.

And the NCBA responded with its own statement, saying among other things:

“We appreciate USDA’s swift action in pulling this disparaging statement off its website.

(You can see why the "food debate" can be a thing of joy...)

Okay. Fine. So NATURALLY that brought this retort from perhaps my least favorite of the food politickers (I'm not intentionally picking on her; it's just that she soooo often sets herself up for it. I cannot help myself!):

If USDA is really supporting Meatless Monday, that’s big news. Historically, the USDA has worked hand in glove with the meat industry and has firmly resisted suggestions that it would be healthier for people and the planet to eat less meat.

Uh. Hmmm. What else is the USDA SUPPOSED to do?

Good question. Historically, the department's role is to support and promote American agriculture, from production to consumption. That means that, yes, on one day, the department urges people to eat meat, and on the next day encourages them to chow down on broccoli on the other .

Contradictory? Not really. Meat and broccoli are both agricultural products.

But according to My Favorite Food Activist, oozing snark, this is simply

Food politics in action!

Translation: the USDA doesn't support HER view of how the food system should work, and the department does not adhere to what she believes the USDA should do (i.e., abandon support for a significant chunk of the American agricultural economy). And therefore once again the USDA has fucked up and caved to the meat interests. Had the Department stood behind the newsletter, of course, that would have been a "win" for HER side, and a loss for a major chunk of the ag economy.

Yeah, baby. Food politics in action! (Can you see why I enjoy my work??)