AFTER ALL, VEGETARIANISM IS ALL ABOUT EASE

Six of one...

McClatchy Newspapers: VEGGIE THANKSGIVING ISN'T EASY

Half-dozen of the other...

USA Today: "Thanksgiving is kind of like the final exam at Le Cordon Bleu. These [turkeys] are not easy things to cook. It doesn't get any harder."

So it looks like the basic problem here is Thanksgiving, not whether it's veggie, no?

BOGUS BILL EXPOSES PUPPET STRINGS

The ludicrous notion that businesses based on animal exploitation deserve some specific federal protection above and beyond existing laws covering vandalism, theft, racketeering, etc. - special protection not offered to any other type of business - merely shows how powerful the animal-abuse industry is in directing the activities of our elected officials.

UPDATE 11/15: With a completely non-biased headline, U.S. to Crack Down on Animal Terrorists, Science Magazine adds that "The bill is largely a response to the tactics of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Active in both the U.K. and the U.S., SHAC has for years targeted U.K.-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, which uses animals to test drugs, food additives, and pesticides. Last year, SHAC reportedly intimidated the New York Stock Exchange into declining to list Huntingdon's parent company, New Jersey-based Life Sciences Research."

Let me make one thing clear once again: I have denounced SHAC's tactics for years and continue to argue against intimidation - whether it takes the form of phyiscal threats, harassing phone calls, bullhorns outside the house, or incendiary devices under cars - as an appropriate methodology for winning hearts and minds to the vegetarian, or pro-animal, cause. But if SHAC members do anything illegal - anything that would be illegal no matter whom they were targeting - they should be punished accordingly. If not, they should not. Just as I don't give them a free pass because I agree with their aims, so I find it offensive and ominous for the government to single them out and delineate new crimes because it disagrees with their aims.

SHOCKER: RED MEAT RAISES CANCER RISK

Seriously now, how many more of these studies on how many more specific varieties of cancer do we need in order to say Red Meat Causes Cancer? I've lost count of them all, and they tend to focus on one kind of cancer - this one is breast cancer (where more red meat doubled women's cancer risk), but we've seen them for almost every digestive cancer you can think of. What mainstream authority is going to take the plunge and simply tell it like it is?