Pro-AR blog wants ordinance to require a "vegan option" at every restaurant. No, I'm not kidding.

This gem may very well qualify as the "animal rights idiocy of the year". Here is a post on the pro-AR AnimalBlawg that must be read to be believed. This blogger has come up with a daft idea that could only come out of the bowels of animal rights idiocy: an ordinance that would require restaurants to have at least one vegan option on their menu. Yep, that's right. This blogger wants to use the power of big government to tell restaurants what food options that they have to offer on their menus. I guess it isn't enough for these control freaks to have regulations that tell restaurants what they CAN'T serve, such as the Chicago foie gras ban, but now, in her mind, we must also have regulations that tell restaurants what they MUST serve. I can't help but wonder if such an ordinance would also apply to restaurants that really specialize in serving primarily meat, such as steak houses or barbecue joints, for example. What is the likelihood that vegans would patronize such establishments anyway? I have long made the claim that animal rights isn't about animals so much as it is about control, coercion, and social engineering. This is yet further evidence. I have a better idea. How about we let the power of good, old-fashioned free markets decide what restaurants serve? If vegan food becomes popular in a certain locale, then wouldn't restaurants that serve such fare begin to appear just because market forces would dictate it? Seems so to me, and no big government is required! This is just another example of how some ARAs seek to use the power of the state to control, dictate, and regulate. Why is it that some people think the solution to every "problem" ( in this case a "problem" that is only a product of her own mind! ) is more government, more laws, and more regulations? Sad. Very sad.

Vegan evangelist teacher leaves rambling diatribe on PeTA blog

I posted the other day about the story of art teacher Dave Warwak who has been suspended by his school for continually proselytizing veganism to his students. Well, Mr. Warwak has left a bizarre, rambling diatribe on the comments section of the PeTA blog post regarding his suspension ( scroll down and read the comments by Warwak ) . Notice that Mr. Warwak doesn't answer ANY of the arguments directed against him. Not a single one. Instead, he offers up all kinds of strawmen and red herrings that range from references to humane education to school shootings. It all amounts to nothing more than hyper-zealous, self-serving grandstanding. It's so all over the place and off the real issues that it barely seems coherent! I left comments in response to Mr. Warwak's rant on the PeTA blog, that, as of this time, have yet to be published ( If it turns out that PeTA doesn't have the courage to post my response to Mr. Warwak, I will post it here. ). I think that most reasonable people that read Mr. Warwak's comments can see them for what they are: an intellectually bankrupt, rambling screed of a zealous lunatic, that is barely even rational. Hopefully, Mr. Warwak isn't typical of the quality of teachers in today's public schools. If he is, the next generation and this nation, are in deep, deep trouble.

Teacher removed from classroom for proselytizing veganism

A Chicago-area art teacher has been removed from the classroom for proselytizing veganism to his students according to this report. The teacher, Dave Warwak, who has been a vegan since January ( ever notice how the most recent converts, be it to veganism or religion, are always the most obnoxious ? ) , gave talks about veganism to his 8th grade students and distributed a pro-vegan book to them.
Not surprisingly, PeTA has gotten their collective panties all in a bundle over this. One of their talking heads posted about it on their blog, and this post and its subsequent comments seem to be centered around the idea that this is somehow a free speech issue. That however, doesn't wash. It is a well known fact that free speech does in fact have its limits, often dependent on the situation. If someone was to proselytize like this to their co-workers, and it was reported, in most workplaces, it would be considered a form of harassment and creating a hostile work environment. It could be mean discipline anywhere from a warning to suspension to termination. Why should this situation be any different? If it is "creating a hostile work environment" to push one's own personal views on to fellow adults in the workplace, why is not equally, or perhaps even more so, a form of "creating a hostile learning environment" to push one's own personal views onto children in the school? Additionally, there is the issue of parental consent. Children cannot give informed consent to be proselytized in this manner, so their parents must give consent for them. I wonder how many even knew about Mr. Warwak's pontificating, let alone approved of it. By not informing the parents and seeking their permission, Mr. Warwak violated those parents' right to decide what values, ideologies and philosophies are appropriate to be taught to their children. I don't have children, but if I did, I know that I wouldn't want them being proselytized to about veganism anymore than I would want them to be proselytized to about creationism, Islam, environmentalism, or any other ideology or religion, especially in a public school, that I, a taxpayer, pay for. School should be about education, not indoctrination or social engineering. Mr. Warwak is paid by the taxpayers to teach students art, not to abuse his position as teacher and use it as a bully pulpit to evangelize his students into his ideology. Every time he chooses to pontificate about veganism to these kids instead of teaching them the curriculum he is charged with teaching, he fails them. He is wasting students' time and taxpayers' money. Shame on him. And shame on the AR/vegan ideologues who support him and disingenuously claim that this issue is about something that it's not.

"Death By Veganism"

The New York Times recently ran this op-ed piece concerning the recent conviction of two vegan "parents" ( term used loosely! ) for starving their baby to death. I thought the writer here does a pretty good job of spelling out what should be common sense, which seems to be less and less common these days. As I hinted at before in comments about this tragedy, adults have the right to make whatever dietary choices for themselves they see fit, but they do NOT have the right to recklessly and irresponsibly endanger the lives and health of their children in the name of a diet that is based upon "moral foundations" that are dubious at best. I'm normally not too fond of the New York Times, but I've got to give them credit here for having the balls to run a piece that is so blunt and tells it like it is on this issue.

ABC story about "Holier Than Thou" vegans

ABC news has posted on there website this story about how some vegetarians feel they are treated by what they perceive to be preachy, sanctimonious, condescending vegans. As one who has perused pro-AR and vegan blogs and web sites for some time, it certainly isn't news to me that some ideology-driven vegans are some of the most self-righteous people one will ever encounter, so there isn't really that much here that is new and revealing. What is interesting, and refreshing, to me, however, is that ABC would even have the backbone to run this. It seems that most of the time, the mainstream media shies away from being critical of far-left, politically correct causes, of which ideology-driven veganism is generally one. Here are some interesting quotes from the article:

"Vegan people have a religious verve, always encouraging people to go further with their faith."

I've always thought militant veganism is very much like fundamentalist religion, as they have many characteristics in common. All kinds of possibilities for later blog posts here!


"People have to eat to live, and some argue virtually everything consumed by humans, including nonmeat eaters, can be tracked back to a dead animal. Vegetables, for example, must be farmed, according to the argument. Farms need land, and countless animals perish when that land is tilled and occupied. So is it really even possible to survive without causing harm to another living creature in some way?"


Bravo ABC for mentioning this! The answer is a resounding NO! It is not possible to survive without causing harm to some other creature, which is why AR-driven veganism is not only hypocritical, but also intellectually bankrupt.


There are also some interesting comments on the story left by people in the discussion, some are good and some border on the idiotic:


As a dairy-eating vegetarion (sic), I'd have to say that speaking to vegans on the subject is like discussing religion with a born-again Pentacostal(sic) (read the posts on this board for proof). They are the most sanctimonious, judgmental people I've ever met outside a church. They should understand that their attitude does not attract others to the lifestyle. Who would want to give up animal products if it turns you into a world-class jerk?"

Yes indeed.


"If you think morality is just a matter of taste or opinion, then you may as well say that putting thieves and murderers in jail or ostracizing liars from your circle of friends is acting self-righteous. Of course this is nonsense. Morality is not left "to each his own"."


This is a fine example of the kind of immature, black-and-white reasoning seen among many in the AR community. Yes, there are some moral issues, such as murder, that are pretty clear cut. There are also issues where the morality is not so clear cut, such as abortion and homosexuality. I would count dietary choices in this category. To not see that all issues do not have clear cut morality perplexes me, and to choose black-and-white, absolutist reasoning over rational situational ethics strikes me as immature and irrational.


"If she is lucky to be on a large dairy with open fields, then she will have grass to stand in all day. If not, she will find herself confined to a feed lot with as many as 60,000 other cows per acre."

60,000 cows per acre? 60,000? LOL! It's not physically possible to cram 60,00 cows on one acre without literally physically stacking them one on top of another. How utterly daft.


"Despite the first paragraph to this article, Vegetarianism is for everyone."

This person ignores the personal experiences of many who have actually tried vegetarianism and found that their health suffered because of it. Since people are different, it is rational to conclude that not all diets work equally well for all people. Yet more juvenile, absolutist reasoning.


It's baffling to me that some, not all, but some AR-driven vegans feel the need to use their dietary choices as some kind of a moral bludgeon against other people. Perhaps there is some kind of insecurity at work there. "The psychology of militant veganism" would make an interesting thesis subject for a graduate psychology student.

Yet more vegans convicted of starving a child

Coming on the heels a few weeks ago of an Arizona vegan woman being convicted of nearly starving her three year old daughter to death, two more vegan parents have been convicted of starving a child in Atlanta. This time however, the result was much more tragic as the 6 week old baby, who weighed only 3 and a half pounds, did not survive. The couple was convicted of murdering the child and will receive mandatory life sentences. If anyone has an explanation as to why lunatics such as these become so obsessed with their own dietary dogma that they are willing to endanger the lives of their own children, I'm all ears. That one could engage in behavior this reckless and irresponsible, though those terms don't really do it justice, against one's own child is quite mind boggling to me. Here's to hoping these two sit and rot for a long, long time.

Vegan convicted of child abuse for starving children into malnourishment

According to this article, a vegan woman in Scottsdale, Arizona has been convicted of child abuse for starving her children into malnourishment. Her husband is also awaiting trial on abuse charges. Notice that the one girl, who was three at the time, weighed only 12 pounds! How sick and perverse must one be to jeopardize the health of their children in order to follow some kind of dietary ideology? Words like "irresponsible" or "reckless" do not do justice to this kind of warped thinking. Adults are free to make whatever dietary choices for themselves they feel fit, but to risk the health of developing, vulnerable children in the name of ideology and dietary dogma is unfathomable to me. I hope that this scumbag child abuser receives the maximum of 51 years in the joint for her insidious crimes against her own children, and she should also not be allowed anywhere near children again.