http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/02/07/foie_gras_protest_at_lark Comments On: Foie Gras Protest at Lark by Bethany Jean Clement en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Pumpkin Maple]]> Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:43:24 -0700 The Stranger
But this protest makes me really angry. Of all the animal causes to take up, you're picking Lark? A small restaurant with foie gras trumps all the other issues you could take up? What about all the other restaurants that don't even care where they get their meat?

My wife and I will be coming to Lark on a Friday night in the very near future. We normally only go on Sunday, and we always order the foie terrine. This time we're going to skip the babysitter and bring our 16 month old daughter so she can try foie for the first time.

Hopefully people walk away from this realizing that Lark has some of the best foie gras in the city. If you can try the terrine with vanilla kumquat preservers, it is divine.
Posted by Scribo]]> Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:00:27 -0700 The Stranger Posted by mmmm....pussy]]> Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:48:04 -0800 The Stranger http://www.narn.org/foiegras/
Posted by P]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:03:20 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.meetup.com/Seattle-Animal-Rig…
Posted by xxx]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:50:10 -0800 The Stranger
Please take note, I quite clearly said the protesters were NOT strictly blocking the entrance, but that they made entrance awkward. Our experience was exactly as described. Neither my husband nor I would waste our energy or time lying about such a silly thing. What a simplistic and dogmatic perspective you have if your best counter-argument to an anecdotal statement is "you're lying". Do not bother responding to me, P, as I am finished attempting civilized discourse, and will not be reading this blog again.


Posted by politely disagree]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:32:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by AussieFarmBoy]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:33 -0800 The Stranger I eat meat. I LOVE meat. It is part of my cultural heritage, it also part of my natural state. I am a human, and humans are omnivores. This is a scientific fact, we evolved greater brain size and complexity and were able to spread accross the face of the earth because we could eat both vegetable matter and other creatures.
We have a gut that while similar in size and shape to the largely herbivore apes (they do eat bugs incidentally, which is most likely how our own meat eating started), is far more similar in function and content to a lions. It is a omniverous gut. You might want to read this article, by a vegan, and investigate the scientific arguments yourself:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/…
I fully expect that these claims will be denied and insults cast against me, but the science is there, you can choose to accept it or not. Truth will prevail, what?
If you choose to take up the philosophy of Vegenism, all power to you. But the moment you begin to insist that your philosophy is superior to my philosophy, you are becoming effectively a fundamentalist. No different from the religiously intolerant types who insist their religion is the onl true way. I will not tell you what to eat, you do not tell me what to eat. That is how it works.
Plants are alive too, you know? Did you know that wheat lets out a high pitches scream when harvested? It is rally quite chilling when it is recorded and adapted so we can hear it. Is it alright to kill plant life just because it is different? Because it lacks a central nervous system, its fine to kill it? You see we can take this pro-life anti cruelty argument to ridiculous extremes if we want.
Humans are omnivores and will eat meat as long as our species exists.

As to fois gras, some fois gras production is cruel, some are not. Do you know it is possible to get fois gras from naturally fattened livers, from geese and ducks that are not force fed? Additionally, the gavage does not hurt the bird unless excessive force is used. Ducks and geese have hard, cartilegenous throats and routinely swallow stones and whole fish, a smooth, lubricated tube poses little discomfort for them.

Please do not repeat the abused argument that we could produce more food if animal farming ceased, it is based an enormous erroneous assumption. That assumption is that all land on which animals are grazed can be used as farmland. It is not so. I come from a farming family in Australia, and believe me we would LOVE nothing more than to grow wheat. We can not, the soil is not fertile enough. Even in the more fertile areas of my state (when it is not burning, that is) require phosphorous fertiliser to grow vegetables, it simply is not optional. If we cattle farmers in Australia did not produce meat, we would not produce anything. That land which is suitable for growing grain is employed for such. Even with good rainfall sometimes we have to buy in extra feed as what grass there is is not enough to feed the animals.

So please, if you want to argue about this, argue RATIONALLY. This applies to both sides.
Posted by AussieFarmBoy]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:00:44 -0800 The Stranger
You can order them here: http://www.hsus.org/forms/foie_gras_card…

204 and 205, I'm sorry you feel "accosted" by protestors..I think you are extremely exaggerating the situation or again in other words, lying.

Again, I have been at four of the protests in the last month and yes, chanting got louder as the door opened, but I have absolutely not seen anyone block the entrance. In fact the protesters have gone out of their way to keep the sidewalks clear and the entrance clear. The first protest I went to signs were held up in the windows briefly, but since then we've stayed mostly back from the windows. We had used toy horns, but were asked politely to not use them and we complied. I stand by my original statement that you are lying...I have NEVER seen any of the protesters attempting to block anyone from entering or existing Lark in the month's worth of time I've spent there. You are just trying to paint a distorted picture of the protesters and then adding these oh so innocent "polite" follow ups.
Posted by P]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:12:06 -0800 The Stranger
"The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."
- Adolf Hitler. January 12, 1942. Section 105, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

38
"One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."

Adolf Hitler
1941

"At the time when I ate meat, I used to sweat a lot. I used to drink four pots of beer and six bottles of water during a meeting. … When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water was enough."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"When you offer a child the choice of a piece of meat, an apple, or a cake, it's never the meat that he chooses. There's an ancestral instinct there."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"One has only to keep one's eyes open to notice what an extraordinary antipathy young children have to meat."
- Adolf Hitler. April 25, 1942. Section 198, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"When I later gave up eating meat, I immediately began to perspire much less, and within a fortnight to perspire hardly at all. My thirst, too, decreased considerably, and an occasional sip of water was all I required. Vegetarian diet, therefore, has some obvious advantages."
- Adolf Hitler. July 8, 1942. Section 256, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"I am no admirer of the poacher, particularly as I am a vegetarian."
- Adolf Hitler. August 20, 1942. Section 293, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."

Joseph Goebbels
1942
Posted by Hitler was a vegetarian]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:53:51 -0800 The Stranger
Well, of course, he is not lying. The group outside Lark was aggressive and obnoxious as we attempted to have a rare and relished dinner out. They lined the sidewalk in front of the restaurant, and while not strictly blocking the entrance, certainly made is awkward for us to open the door and get around them. They yelled and chanted, screaming extra-loud whenever the door was opened, and holding placards directly up the dining room windows. Again, the definition of "accost" is "to approach and speak to, often in a challenging or aggressive way". So, I must insist that we were, in fact, accosted by members of NARN outside Lark.

I have been to many war protests; I was at the WTO march; I used to work for both GreenPeace and WashPIRG. I'm telling you this in the hopes you will believe me when I say their strategy is not to educate, but to disrupt.

As a side note, both my husband and I were vegetarians for many years. This was in the 80's and early 90's. Then my aunt and uncle who have an organic farm and orchard in Tonasket starting raising pigs and cows for meat. They grew the feed grain, and fed the waste from the orchards. In return, the animals provided fertilizer for the organic fruits, and after several happy years wandering the farm, bacon and steak.

I am fully aware of the atrocities of factory-farmed meat, both in animal suffering and ecological cost, and I NEVER eat it. We are so fortunate that we can easily get organic free-range meat now, that was simply unavailable when I was a vegetarian. I also understand how important livestock is to an ecologically-whole family farm. I love the idea of supporting small, conscientious farmers who are genuine stewards of the land and the animals in their care. Plus, in the end, the meat that is produced by these small farmers tastes AMAZING.

I will continue to patronize Lark as often as possible, because I know they (like several other wonderful restaurants in town) make a special effort to support local, organic food producers. Every dinner I've had has been wonderful, and if it is occasionally spiked with fois gras, well, then, it's even more delicious.
Posted by politely disagree]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:07:01 -0800 The Stranger
The beauty of my post is that it is actually true. 100% honest. I recounted the events exactly how they happened. My wife can collaborate our experience outside and inside the restaurant. As you can no doubt see from John's response, sales of foie gras are up on Fridays. No dishonesty what so ever. As far as hysterical goes... Not at all. I am simply offering my observations. I was attempting to show you that your protest methods are in fact failing. You offer nothing in reply. No alternatives, no reasons as to why you have chosen to protest in the way that you have. By your snide response you immediately discredit yourself and unfortunately the organization you claim to represent. You alienate the people you are trying to get through to. Prior to your response i would have listened to you opinion, I would have offered you the respect you deserve for feeling passionately about animals. Now you strike me as a person who is blind to compromise and unable to acknowledge another persons opinion. It's a shame because I am certain that there are members of NARN that would truly love to affect change. The fact that their desire for change gets muddled up in your immaturity is disgraceful.


Posted by i<3foiegras]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:00:50 -0800 The Stranger
#202 - Don't have a hilarity coronary. Hilarious.
Posted by P]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:04:57 -0800 The Stranger
no! dont appeal to these fuckwads with logic. they need to keep doing exactly what they are doing. that way, their inevitable humiliating failure will be all that more sweet. i can not WAIT to read the pathetic justifications for the "suspension" of the protest, after the lines around the block for fois gras completely envelop the protesters. they are making this joint FAMOUS and making this food very politically exciting and hip to order.

so yes. please, narn ("narn". really? you couldnt think of anything better? you stopped when you got to "N.A.R.N."???) get more indignant. try to shout louder. block peoples ways. at this rate, maybe someone will get hurt! (fingers crossed).

i wish i could fast forward to the end of this hilarity.
Posted by narn. hillarious.]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:33:29 -0800 The Stranger

"@ 188 - I have been to 3 protests at Lark, nobody has "accosted" a customer, unless you consider being offered a pamphlet being accosted..."

ac·cost (-kôst, -kst)
tr.v. ac·cost·ed, ac·cost·ing, ac·costs
1. To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request.
2. To solicit for sex.
[French accoster, from Old French, from Medieval Latin accostre, to adjoin : Latin ad-, ad- + Latin costa, side; see kost- in Indo-European roots.]


"...Nobody has blocked the entrance and protestors have kept the sidewalks clear."

Again you are mistaken. Twice I had to ask protesters to move so that we could enter Lark (this is blocking the entrance). The protesters had arrayed themselves in a semi circle blocking the door (this is blocking the entrance again AND not keeping the sidewalks clear).

The amazing thing to me is that for every convert you create you do just enough to irritate two others. Inside the restaurant you create an atmosphere of solidarity amongst the diners. So much so that on the evening we were “accosted” (please see above definition) the four tables surrounding ours, a total of eight diners, All ordered foie gras! Six of the eight diners had never had foie gras before. Five of those six absolutely loved it. When I asked why they chose that night to order foie gras for the first time they said it was because of you and your fellow protesters! They said that you were so annoying that they became irritated and decided, “Screw them, they can’t tell me what to eat!” At the rate you are going sales of foie gras, not only at Lark but throughout King County, will skyrocket.

It’s time to rethink your approach. It’s not working in Seattle.

Posted by i<3foiegras]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:57:16 -0800 The Stranger
Many of my brain cells are busy with things that I'm not so passionate about. Still, I'm grateful that they are.
Posted by rose]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:19:00 -0800 The Stranger
I didn't say it was the only suffering that matters. I said it was more important than goose or whale suffering.

If I have a dollar to spend on alleviating suffering, I should spend it on alleviating human suffering.
Posted by Dan]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:39:03 -0800 The Stranger Well, we basically agree about the Lark protests.

I don't think that human suffering is the only suffering that matters, or that animal welfare and environmental issues are divorced from issues of human well-being. So I disagree about those causes being misguided uses of time.

The great thing about the foie gras issue is that nobody has to DO anything. It's a matter of not doing something. It's really simple, and doesn't take anything away from anybody. No sign waving required. Just order something else. ;)
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:34:37 -0800 The Stranger
So now you're suggesting we try to maximize utility in our charitable endeavors. I totally, wholeheartedly agree.

I don't think protesting Lark maximizes utility, however. Even if it may be less costly to solve the animal cruelty problem (and I'm not at all convinced that's the case, since at least everyone agrees in principle that human suffering is a problem), the animal cruelty problem is also hugely less significant than the human suffering one, as I think you agree.

As for your comment that "I don't think we need to rank everything and then all turn our attention the top of the list," well, I disagree. We don't need to devote all of our time to charitable endeavors, and selfishness is, within reason, fine, so if protesting Lark is a selfish hobby rather than a purely moral action, then fine--I support that.

But I resent the argument put forth by some here that protesting Lark is some sort of ideal moral activity. Go protest Lark while I'm at the movies. That's fine. But protesting Lark doesn't absolve you of your duty to your fellow man, either, and people who spend their Fridays trying to solve that problem get a lot more respect from me than people who spend them watching TV or trying to save the geese.

In the realm of pure charity, though, remember the concept of opportunity cost. If 99 other charities are working to solve human suffering but haven't succeeded yet--and they sure haven't--spending your charitable time trying to save the geese or the whales is just misguided.
Posted by Dan]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:12:02 -0800 The Stranger
Adult Vegan @148: kiss my ass. There's more than one way to communicate about this issue. I got a degree in philosophy, focused in ethics, inspired substantially by Peter Singer. I've written about a dozen papers about this issue, and had more cool-headed, rational discussions than I can begin to recall. I think I'm a MODEL "adult vegan". I'm still allowed to get pissed off over a video of animals being tortured.
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:52:03 -0800 The Stranger
But if I get to run 1 out of a collection of 100 charities, and 99 of them are already committed to babies, I'm happy to use my 1 to try to do something for the whales.

Another take:

Often, the human problems that we are trying to solve are very, very complicated. Solutions, if they exist, may be incredibly difficult or expensive or politically tricky.
Often, the animal cruelty environmental problems actually AREN'T that complicated. It's just a matter of showing people the consequences of their actions and expecting them to choose different actions (different actions which don't actually ask much more of a person, usually, beyond forcing a change in habit).

So, my question is:

You've got two problems to solve. One will require 100,000,000 resource units, take 1,000,000,000 time units, and provide 1,000,000,000,000 benefit units. The other problem will take 5 resource units, 100 time units, and provide 100,000 benefit units.

Can you see how it might make sense to some of us to go ahead and grab that easy 100,000 benefit units?


(Yeah, I'm not only a vegan, but a hopeless dork. )
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:41:06 -0800 The Stranger
There's a LOT wrong in the world, and I don't think we need to rank everything and then all turn our attention the top of the list. I think it's fine for people to focus on the areas where they feel passionate. And this is why I stopped, personally, waving signs and supporting NARN. I'm not going to go join the protesters at Lark; I do think it's a waste of energy. With almost any issue, there's a question of what makes for effective change or advocacy, and I don't think that's the way to go in this case. Even though I agree that foie gras production is indefensibly cruel.

But see, this isn't an issue where people have to take energy much away from other things. It's just making different shopping choices (or, you know, pointing to something different on the menu). And it doesn't have to be this drama-fest, religious thing. I eat vegan food >98% of the time. The other <2% are times when I'm in an environment where that's particularly problematic, or I want to taste something that somebody else is eating, or I don't want to offend somebody, or whatever. Rather than stress out about it (energy!), I try to keep some perspective. And people can make those percentages be whatever they want -- wherever they are comfortable, wherever they don't feel like it's some huge imposition on their lives -- and not take any time away from protesting the war or ending malaria.

In this case, it's not either/or.
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:33:14 -0800 The Stranger
Nice sense of perspective. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

I was a vegetarian for many years (now I occasionally eat fish--they taste better than my sense of guilt) because, like you, I didn't want to be directly responsible for another animal's suffering. But as strong as I felt about this (OK, not that strong), I didn't ever tell anyone else not to eat meat. I never protested outside of a local restaurant. I don't cast my vote based on which politicians eat meat and which don't, nor do I limit my social relationships to people who eat like I do.

I did protest the war in Iraq (fat lot of good it did), and I did base my voting decisions, in a large part, on that and similar issues. I give a fair chunk of my income to charities which try to alleviate human suffering and provide human justice, though I could give more.

I guess that's the perspective I'd like to see from the NARN types. They say they should be commended for speaking their minds--assuming that those of us who don't protest at Lark don't believe in protesting. But by working for change on this issue--an issue I may agree with them on in conclusion, if not in consequence--rather than for another, NARN is saying that they consider goose lives to be more important than human lives.

They're not holding a combined anti-war/anti-foie-gras protest. They're not raising money to save Iraqi orphans while in front of Lark. They're spending their time--time they could be working towards a different cause--worrying about fucking birds.

If any NARN supporters are reading this, there's one question I've always wanted to ask. If, in some weird, totally hypothetical world, you had a finite amount of resources to improve someone's welfare. Let's say you were in charge of a large charitable foundation, and you could spend the resources of that foundation treating third world malaria or lobbying to save the whales.

Which would you choose? The whales, or the little colored babies?
Posted by Dan]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:09:54 -0800 The Stranger
Nobody can care about every bad thing in the world. Our heads would explode. But over and over I hear veg*ns shit on for caring about animals when there's war and famine and whatnot happening.

You know. . . I get that. But, two things:

- I know the suffering of animals doesn't matter to a lot of people. But I see suffering as suffering. I do consider the life of an aware, conscious human to be more important than the life of a bird, for various reasons. But when it comes down to it, a bird's suffering is not relieved by the fact that humans don't think it matters. As far as the bird's experience of life, the misery is completely real and relevant. Imagine some more advanced alien species testing their household products on you or something. You're like a mouse in its eyes. Do you suffer less in the face of their superiority?

- My contribution to war and famine, while it may be real, is indirect and unintentional. And very hard for me to change (I'd have to leave my country/culture, etc). My contribution to the suffering of animals used for food and such, however, is something that I can control to a much, much larger extent. And I feel morally obligated, as well as emotionally compelled, not to cause that suffering if I don't have to. I accept that other people don't feel emotionally compelled, and don't accept the moral obligation. I wish you did, though. Getting out of Iraq? Hard. Making different food choices? Not so hard.


I guess I'll agree to be "ridiculous" if you'll agree to be "senselessly cruel". Deal?
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:05:51 -0800 The Stranger That said, shall we worry about the slew of more important things than force-fed geese? Why not protest the lack of adequate health care for poor, sick, suffering humans? Try picketing a hospital or two and see if you can get them to give free care to the needy.
It's as much the pettiness of the protest as it's irritation value that rankle; a bunch of over-educated white kids complaining about a choice that few than 1,000 people in Seattle make per week.
Why would anyone want a product based on cruelty? Because China-made goods are affordable to the new poor. Chinese factory conditions are damn near as bad as factory farm conditions-how's about protesting over at Wal-Mart, the largest purchaser of Chinese goods in the world?
Posted by BakerB]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:46:16 -0800 The Stranger