No, I haven’t gone carnivore (although animal foods dominate my diet). It just so happens that most of the interesting items to land in my inbox recently are related to meat – or the people who want us to stop eating it. So here we go with the first all-meat edition of From The News …
Why Eskimos had good teeth.
This is no surprise. A 1929 article reprinted by The Harvard Crimson says Eskimos (we’d call them the Inuit now) had good teeth because of their all-meat diet:
By means of some 90 models of Eskimo teeth, Dr. Adelbert Fernald, Curator of the Harvard Dental School Museum, has proved that eating a strictly meat diet is the ideal way in which to keep the human mouth in a healthy condition, and that it is due to the fact that civilized people do not eat enough meat that they as a rule have decayed teeth.
Commander Donald B. MacMillan, the noted Arctic explorer, obtained about 90 impressions of the teeth of the Eskimos of Smith Sound, “the meat eaters,” who live the farthest north of any human beings. From the impressions, models have been constructed. Commander MacMillan said that “the Smith Sound Eskimos average about four ounces of vegetable matter each year per capita.”
What, no whole grains? How did those people live past puberty?!
Only one tooth of the 616 contained in the models is deformed. All the models represent mouths and teeth wonderfully developed.
Many of the models of the Eskimo teeth are perfect in every way, not having the slightest defect either of form or condition. Dr. Fernald states that is the 32 years of his dental practice he has seen only one set of teeth which were perfect in every respect.
It has been the experience of most dentists that those people who have the healthiest teeth are those who eat the most meat, which points to the same conclusion as Dr. Fernald’s researches.
Ahh, the good old days of 1929, when Harvard was more interested in facts than in pushing an anti-meat agenda. Nowadays, of course, we have Dr. Willett of Harvard telling us eating meat will kill us. More on that later.
How not to convince people eat meat.
Folks, I’m all for prompting the benefits of eating meat. But let’s not be as pushy as this guy:
A door-to-door meat salesman who refused to take “no” for an answer has led the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office to launch an investigation into the sales tactics of a Pinellas Park frozen meat business.
The investigation by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office began May 11 when an 85-year-old Largo woman reported that she’d been harassed by a frozen meat salesman. The victim said she was retrieving mail from the mailbox of her home in the 9900 block of Ulmerton Road when Ronald Vanwie Jr., 44, approached her.
Note to people selling meat or any other product: approaching an elderly woman retrieving her mail is not a good way to start a sales pitch. Ever.
She told the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office that Vanwie began trying to sell her frozen meat through the company he represented, Gourmet Grocery LLC of Pinellas Park. The woman wasn’t interested in purchasing meat and walked back to her front door. But she said Vanwie followed her, continuing to pitch the meat he was selling.
The victim entered her home and tried to close the front door but she said Vanwie forced his way inside her home, pressing her to purchase meat. The victim said she asked him to leave several times but he refused.
Note to people selling meat or any other product: forcing your way into a home is not a good way to continue a sales pitch. Ever.
“Vanwie insisted she was going to purchase meat from him and became increasingly more aggressive each time she declined to purchase the meat,” said the sheriff’s office.
I wonder if Vanwie tried selling her on the idea that meat is good for her teeth.
“(The victim) told detectives she was frightened of Vanwie who insisted she pay $500 for the package of meat,” according to the sheriff. The victim told him she didn’t have $500 but wrote him a check for $200. Vanwie then placed a package of meat in her freezer and left.
Okay, this guy’s a loon. On the other hand, maybe he learned his sales techniques by spending too much time online. You’ve probably had this experience: an ad pops up in your browser. You click to close it … which causes another ad to pop up. Close that one, and another ad pops up. Apparently someone teaching classes at InterWebz Sales School believes we say to ourselves, Well, now that you’ve annoyed the @#$% out of me by refusing to go away, OF COURSE I’ll buy from you!
I have two Rottweilers who eat raw meat and have excellent teeth as a result, so I assume no salesman will ever try pushing his way into our house.
Why people hate vegans, part 100.
Actually, I lost count of how many “why people hate vegans” items I’ve posted over the years, and I don’t want to search the blog to find out. So I’m being lazy and resetting the NextVal on the primary key to 100. (That’s a reference for you fellow programmers out there.)
Anyway, if you’re familiar with actor Chris Pratt, you know he’s a super guy who donates a ton of his time and money to charity. So why would a TV Guide reporter write a hit piece on Pratt? I bet you can guess:
“Guardians of the Galaxy” star Chris Pratt was characterized as “problematic” by an entertainment magazine because he hunts in what many are calling a “hit piece.”
TV Guide published an article titled “How to love Chris Pratt without hating yourself” by senior editor Kaitlin Thomas as part of a series that ranked different actors named Chris.
“It’s impossible to ignore some problematic aspects of his life offscreen,” she wrote, noting that Pratt once attempted to give away a cat via Twitter before the author went on to attack his hunting hobby.
“Adding fuel to this particular fire is the fact that Pratt, an avid hunter who has often spoken about his love of hunting, currently raises lambs on his farm,” Thomas wrote.
“The enthusiastic tone he took when speaking about ‘eating fresh farm-to-table lamb’ in an Instagram video earlier this year — ‘They are the happiest lambs on the planet, they are so sweet and then one day they wake up dead and they’re in my freezer’ — sparked backlash from a number of fans, and not just those who are vegetarians or vegans,” Thomas added.
A backlash from fans who aren’t vegetarians or vegans? Suuuuuure, that happened.
Thomas listed other reasons why Pratt is problematic, such as apologizing in advance for anything he would accidentally say during the “Jurassic World” press tour and saying he considers himself an average, blue-collar American.
He hunts, he farms, and he considers himself an average, blue-collar American. Yeah, we’d better beware of this guy. Heaven forbid he becomes a role model for the nation’s young.
Why people hate vegans, part 101.
The good news is that people who go see Pratt’s movies at theaters in Los Angeles may finally be able to order vegan snacks:
If one Los Angeles City Councilman has his way, major entertainment venues in the city, including movie theaters, will be required to provide at least one vegan option at their concession stands.
Standing at the podium alongside representatives from animal welfare organizations and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, councilman Paul Koretz outlined the legislation he has proposed that would require the city’s movie theaters, concert halls, zoo and airport to provide plant-based options for their patrons.
That’s got to be a huge relief for the vegan movie patrons who are outraged at only being offered meat-based popcorn.
LA is routinely near the top of the list of top vegan cities in the United States and has one of the largest concentrations of vegan and vegetarian restaurants in the world.
One of the largest concentrations of vegan and vegetarian restaurants in the world? Well then, obviously the city council needs to jump in and make sure vegans who prefer buying their meals in movie theaters have more options.
If this legislation passes it will mean that movie theaters located within the city of Los Angeles will need to start providing at least one vegan option at their stands.
Or the vegans could just let the free market work and announce they won’t patronize movie theaters that only serve meat-based popcorn.
Major theater chains that do business in the city include AMC, Regal/Cineworld, Cinemark, Landmark, iPic, Laemmle, and Arclight/Pacific. Being a vegan I can confirm that a circuit like AMC does provide vegan options in the form of bagged nuts and dried fruit. How heartily those vegan options are advertised is another matter.
I see. So theaters do offer vegan options, but don’t advertise them heartily. Yes, this is definitely the kind of life-or-death issue the city government needs to jump in and solve with the use of force. Without hearty advertising, vegans attending movies may not know they can order nuts, or dried fruit, or popcorn and die of starvation during a three-hour film.
Is it any wonder I left California?
Why people hate vegans, part 102.
I sometimes refer to vegan zealots as disciples of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet. That’s because their beliefs strike me as yet another religion. The vegan zealots deny this … which makes this news article from the BBC interesting:
A tribunal is being asked to decide whether veganism is a “philosophical belief” akin to a religion, in a landmark legal action.
Jordi Casamitjana says he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sport after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involving animal testing. He claims he was discriminated against, and the tribunal will now decide if veganism should be protected in law.
Mr Casamitjana says he is an “ethical” vegan.
“Some people only eat a vegan diet but they don’t care about the environment or the animals, they only care about their health,” he told the BBC.
“I care about the animals and the environment and my health and everything. That’s why I use this term ‘ethical veganism’ because for me veganism is a belief and affects every single aspect of my life.”
Sounds like a religion to me.
Mr Casamitjana worked for the animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports and claims that, to his surprise, he discovered it was investing its pension funds in companies that carried out animal testing.
He says he drew this to the attention of his managers. When nothing changed, he informed other employees and was sacked as a result. He is now bringing a legal case, claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of his vegan belief.
Well, here’s the relevant question, Mr. Casamitjana: would the charity have fired a meat-eating Catholic for the same behavior? A meat-eating Protestant? An atheist who only eats fish now and then? Yes, they all would have been fired. So your oh-so-very-special status as a vegan had nothing to do with it. You’re just another weenie demanding special treatment.
But thanks for admitting “ethical veganism” is a religion.
Why people hate vegans, part 103 … and how to respond to them.
Vegan zealots (as opposed to those who choose veganism and then mind their own business) are fond of invading steak houses and yelling at the diners. Well, the diners at this restaurant responded exactly how I’d respond:
Stag do revellers have told how they drowned out vegan activists who tormented diners with the sound of cows being slaughtered by mooing at them and chanting ‘stand up if you love meat’.
I had to look it up to be sure. A stag do is apparently what the Brits call a bachelor party.
The group responded after demonstrators from Direct Action Everywhere entered Touro Steakhouse in Brighton and waved around signs and placards, with a £250 Oompa Loompa ‘impersonator’ chained to groom David Elvin leading the fight-back.
One of the revellers, Dan Holmes, said: “We felt they had said what they wanted to say and now it was time for them to go away and let people eat. We came up with some fun chants and the whole restaurant stood up when we sang ‘Stand up if you love meat.’”
“A protest is fine, but they overstayed their welcome and were becoming annoying. If they had just had signs then that’s one thing, but playing sounds of animals being killed was going over the top.”
Actually, no, invading a business to protest isn’t fine. It’s trespassing. Protesting on the sidewalk outside the restaurant is fine.
A person filming one of the activists’ video – who is a vegan – can be heard saying: “This smells horrible, look at all the flesh.”
Well, here’s an idea: if animal flesh smells horrible to you, stay out of steak houses.
Behind the camera, a voice said: ‘They’re letting us protest but they’re eating the flesh of animals in front of us.”
You mean people who chose to go to a steak house didn’t immediately stop eating steaks just because you marched inside and started screaming at them and trying to ruin their dinners? Well, I am shocked at how insensitive people can be.
Mr Holmes added the manager of the restaurant even gave them free shots after the protesters left.
Free shots? Hell, I would have picked up their dinner check as well.
Why people hate vegans, part 104.
I know, I know … I should stop picking on vegans. I’m beating a dead horse. And by using phrases like I’m beating a dead horse, I’m apparently annoying the heck out of some vegans:
“Bringing home the bacon” may soon be banned in order to stop offending vegans, an academic has claimed.
Other expressions including “killing two birds with one stone” and “flog a dead horse” could also apparently go out of fashion. This is to avoid offending animal lovers, according to Shareena Hamzah of Swansea University.
Animal rights charity PETA is also on board and wants people to replace sayings such as “take the bull by the horns” with “take the flower by the thorns”.
Way to take the flower by the thorns and latch onto an issue the public can really get behind, PETA.
Dr Hamzah believes that the influence of veganism will bring awareness of animal cruelty and encourage people towards using less meat-themed phrases. “The increased awareness of vegan issues will filter through our consciousness to produce new modes of expression.”
What would be a PETA-approved substitute for crazy as a loon?
PETA has suggested the following can be used instead of meat themed phrases:
Out: Bring home the bacon
In: Bring home the bagels
Out: Let the cat out of the bag
In: Spill the beans
Out: All your eggs in one basket
In: All your berries in one bowl
Out: Open a can of worms
In: Open Pandora’s box
I can see these less cruel phrases catching on any day now. Then once our consciousness has been raised as a result, we’ll stop eating meat. But if that doesn’t work, maybe the folks at PETA should try claiming meat causes global warm—er, climate change. After all, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Why people hate vegans, part 105.
Okay, these people might not be vegans in the strict sense of the word, but they’re certainly disciples of The Church of The Holy Plant-Based Diet:
The world must drastically reduce its meat consumption in order to avoid devastating climate change, scientists said Wednesday in the most thorough study so far on how what we eat affects the environment.
Thorough, and no doubt very objective.
Without a huge drawdown in the amount of meat consumed, its authors said, the food industry’s already vast impact on the environment could increase by as much as 90 percent by mid-century.
And these doom-and-gloom predictions always turn out to be true.
The stark message comes just days after the publication of a landmark UN report in which some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists warned that governments must fundamentally change course in order to keep global warming under 1.5C by the end of the century.
Ah, well, if it’s a U.N. report, it simply has to be true. It’s not as if these people ever fudge the data to promote an agenda.
U.N. report on meat and climate change is flawed – surprise!
Boy, we didn’t see this coming, eh?
The UN has admitted a report linking livestock to global warming exaggerated the impact of eating meat on climate change.
Hey, dummies, the term is “climate change” now. Saves a bit of embarrassment when the darned globe refuses to warm up on schedule.
A 2006 study, Livestock’s Long Shadow, claimed meat production was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions – more than transport. Its conclusions were heralded by campaigners urging consumers to eat less meat to save the planet.
None of those campaigners are simply against eating meat, of course. This is purely about the science, ya know.
However, one of the authors of the report has admitted an American scientist has identified a flaw in its comparison with the impact of transport emissions.
Dr Frank Mitloehner, from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim and that the emissions figures were calculated differently to the transport figures, resulting in an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue”.
The meat figure had been reached by adding all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions and vehicle use on farms, whereas the transport figure had only included the burning of fossil fuels.
Had to be an honest mistake. U.N. scientists would never exaggerate a problem just to promote a particular agenda.
Earlier this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologised after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years.
Remember how The Anointed work: they come up with a Grand Plan to fix a supposed problem (and the plan usually requires spending more of other people’s money, or restricting more of other people’s freedoms, or both), and then claim WE MUST ACT NOW or it will be too late.
That’s the advantage of being 60. You’ve lived long enough to see numerous predictions of If we don’t act now, in 10 years [insert disaster here] will happen! come and go.
Why people hate vegans, part 106.
If telling people the production of meat will ruin the planet doesn’t convince them to eat less of the stuff, there’s always this:
Hundreds of billions of dollars could be put toward health-care costs every year if a tax was applied to red and processed meat, Oxford University researchers said Wednesday.
A new study from the U.K. university said introducing a health tax on such products would offset health-care costs and prevent more than 220,000 deaths a year globally.
Riiiight. Because if we make meat too expensive and people eat more grains instead, that will really improve our health. Just like when consumption of red meat plummeted and consumption of grains skyrocketed in the U.S. after the Food Pyramid came out . You remember how much healthier we all became, don’t you?
According to the World Health Organization, beef, lamb and pork are carcinogenic when eaten in processed forms, and possibly still carcinogenic when consumed unprocessed. The organization also links them to coronary heart disease, strokes and type 2 diabetes.
If you’d like to see just how full of beans the World Health Organization’s report on meat and cancer is, watch this excellent speech on the (ahem) “evidence” by Dr. Georgia Ede.
Back to the article:
Researchers estimated that in 2020, 2.4 million global deaths will be attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat — as well as a $285 billion health-care bill.
And as we’ve already established, if the U.N. says it’s true, it has to be true.
Marco Springmann, who led the study, said an overconsumption of red and processed meat had a negative economic impact on many countries.
“I hope that governments will consider introducing a health levy on red and processed meat as part of a range of measures to make healthy and sustainable decision-making easier for consumers,” he said in a press release Wednesday.
Well, that’s what The Anointed do best: find ways to make decision-making easier for the rest of us — for our own good, of course.
“Nobody wants governments to tell people what they can and can’t eat. However, our findings make it clear that the consumption of red and processed meat has a cost, not just to people’s health and to the planet, but also to the health care systems and the economy.”
Ummm, did he just say Nobody wants governments to tell people what they can and can’t eat … ? Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off for a few minutes …
… Okay, I’m back.
To those of you who cheer when governments impose high taxes on sugar to encourage people to eat less of it, sorry, but you’re part of the problem. Once you grant governments the power to decide what people should and shouldn’t eat and apply coercion accordingly, you can’t complain when they target a food you believe is healthy. If you’re okay with minding other people’s business, don’t be surprised when other people decide it’s okay to mind yours.
This is only going to get worse, by the way. On January 17th, the Eat-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health will be launching the first of a series of “global events.” That’s the group of social-justice warriors which now includes Walter Willett as co-chair, as I described in this post.
Willett has become such a shill for The Church of The Holy Plant-Based Diet, he’s now willing to claim that if we all went vegetarian, we’d prevent one-third of all premature deaths – an astronomical (and impossible) figure not backed up by any reliable evidence whatsoever. To the contrary, a recent study concluded that vegans take more sick days than meat-eaters:
Vegans take the most days off work due to cold, flu and minor ailments, a study claims.
People on a meat-free diet take almost five days off work a year – twice the annual sick day total of the average Briton, the research shows.
The study by the vegan-friendly Fisherman’s Friend brand claims vegans are more likely to succumb to our wintery weather, taking almost double the average time off work due to cold-related sickness than their non-vegan colleagues.
So how would Willett explain that one away? Tell us that, sure, vegans succumb to more colds and flu infections, but live longer? And if giving up meat would prevent one-third of all premature deaths, how would he explain away large observational studies like this one and this one showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians?
Given the data, a real scientist would be ashamed to make such an outlandish claim. And yet he’s making it. Science be damned, we must pursue social justice and save the planet, even if we have to lie through our teeth to do it!
So prepare yourself for a steady stream of media articles claiming that meat causes cancer, meat drives up health-care costs, meat causes global warm—er, climate change, etc.
And then hang onto your steak. Because if you think The Anointed won’t try to take it away from you someday, you haven’t been paying attention.