I've been a vegetarian (Lacto-Ovo: I eat dairy products and eggs) half my life and this Michael Vick thing has just served to underscore why I made this choice.
I've never been strident or dogmatic about it, never tried to convert anyone, though countless crabs-in-the-omnivorous-barrel have tried to pull me back into the meat-eating fold. For me it's a personal choice, not for my health but for the animal's.
I just came to realize that for me to eat meat when I have so many healthy alternatives to choose from would be recreational consumption, eating meat because it tastes good (and it can, if memory serves).
This is not by way of indicting anyone who eats meat. Everyone has their reasons, makes their choices. Arctic peoples have no choice and neither do people who live in other places that do not support sustainable agriculture. We in this country have alternatives, though admittedly, vegetarianism is a life style that to some extent is a luxury available only for those of us who can afford to choose it. Or who are knowledgeable enough to find and prepare healthy alternatives to meat consumption.
I guess my point is: I don't see much of a difference between Michael Vick having animals fight to the death for his amusement, or the millions who enjoy the spectacle of bull-fighting the way I enjoy football, and raising animals to die for our pleasure at the dinner table.
This is not a drill
1 day ago