A Vegan Radical Cookbook Project
May 12, 2002 8:18 AM Subscribe
A Vegan Radical Cookbook Project - Share your favorite recipes here! Eat well, and enjoy this spring's nighttime gardening.
Say, can we keep the overt requests for property destruction off the front page?
posted by darukaru at 8:55 AM on May 12, 2002
posted by darukaru at 8:55 AM on May 12, 2002
Wouldn't a Vegan radical cookbook include a recipe calling for, say, porkchops?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 AM on May 12, 2002
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 AM on May 12, 2002
"What the hell does a vegan eat anyway?"
- a vegan blog of daily menus.
(Just remembered this one.)
posted by sheauga at 9:32 AM on May 12, 2002
- a vegan blog of daily menus.
(Just remembered this one.)
posted by sheauga at 9:32 AM on May 12, 2002
that man drinks a lot of club soda. also, i'd love to be vegan if i had a chef, that crap is way too time-consuming for food. i say >10 minutes for food is pushing it.
posted by rhyax at 9:48 AM on May 12, 2002
posted by rhyax at 9:48 AM on May 12, 2002
Veganism is certainly a compelling argument regardless of the ethics of food. The safety issue of factory farms and soylent cattle feed as well as the increasing risk of BSE make it worth a look as to how one curb meat intake.
posted by shagoth at 10:12 AM on May 12, 2002
posted by shagoth at 10:12 AM on May 12, 2002
shagoth: this is why a lot of people I know are switching to organic meats instead of factory-raised. I suppose the greater cost does a bit to 'curb intake', but you can still have your steak and eat it too. (Unless you believe that organic ranching is a DAMNED LIE, like I saw someone argue once...)
n.b. nine out of every ten meals I eat are vegetarian anyway, so don't think of me as some kind of bonecracking orc.
By the way, to anyone actually considering going out and doing a little midnight gardening, a hypothetical:
Say you're a gardener. You have a huge garden and raise prize-winning tulips.
I and a bunch of my friends plow your garden under one night in protest. We plant a bunch of Oregon irises and leave a copy of our political manifesto, which says that since tulips aren't native American flowers, they have no right to grow here; they're polluting the ecosystem. Our organization's goal is to eradicate all plant and animal life not native to the American continents, and your garden just happened to be 'unclean'.
Or, say, we believe that private property is a dangerous and harmful concept. We want to play some soccer, and the nearest area of land big enough is your organic garden. So...
In short, because somebody's actions have a political or ideological motivation, are they always justifiable?
posted by darukaru at 11:06 AM on May 12, 2002
n.b. nine out of every ten meals I eat are vegetarian anyway, so don't think of me as some kind of bonecracking orc.
By the way, to anyone actually considering going out and doing a little midnight gardening, a hypothetical:
Say you're a gardener. You have a huge garden and raise prize-winning tulips.
I and a bunch of my friends plow your garden under one night in protest. We plant a bunch of Oregon irises and leave a copy of our political manifesto, which says that since tulips aren't native American flowers, they have no right to grow here; they're polluting the ecosystem. Our organization's goal is to eradicate all plant and animal life not native to the American continents, and your garden just happened to be 'unclean'.
Or, say, we believe that private property is a dangerous and harmful concept. We want to play some soccer, and the nearest area of land big enough is your organic garden. So...
In short, because somebody's actions have a political or ideological motivation, are they always justifiable?
posted by darukaru at 11:06 AM on May 12, 2002
In short, because somebody's actions have a political or ideological motivation, are they always justifiable?
no. but similarly they are not always non-justifiable either. the whole concept of "justification" basically presumes that you are appealing to an authority or peer that shares more or less the same set of baseline values and opinions that you yourself hold.
So, for instance when you requested, somewhat sarcastically "can we keep the overt requests for property destruction off the front page?" I take a peek and see lawsuits, more P/I reportage, how to make a false crime report, PETA, etc. many of which cross my personal line of "how not to be a good citizen." Night gardening may not be everyone's cup of tea, but then again many people consider it a reasonable response to the compelling arguments against genetically modified food and the bizarre paradigm shifts they place on the traditional agricultural food model we presently have. Thanks for the link, sheagua.
posted by jessamyn at 11:34 AM on May 12, 2002
no. but similarly they are not always non-justifiable either. the whole concept of "justification" basically presumes that you are appealing to an authority or peer that shares more or less the same set of baseline values and opinions that you yourself hold.
So, for instance when you requested, somewhat sarcastically "can we keep the overt requests for property destruction off the front page?" I take a peek and see lawsuits, more P/I reportage, how to make a false crime report, PETA, etc. many of which cross my personal line of "how not to be a good citizen." Night gardening may not be everyone's cup of tea, but then again many people consider it a reasonable response to the compelling arguments against genetically modified food and the bizarre paradigm shifts they place on the traditional agricultural food model we presently have. Thanks for the link, sheagua.
posted by jessamyn at 11:34 AM on May 12, 2002
Well, old-fashioned weeding by hand certainly beats annihilating plants with noxious pesticides. Here in Cleveland, there have been some spring get-together events to weed a noxious non-native species from the Metro Parks.
As for a general philosophical position on what's justifiable, why not let your conscience be your guide. Pulling up other people's plants is never well-received, and gardeners need to remember that what goes around, comes around. On the other hand, it's not particularly polite to go "sowing your wild oats" and creating super-weeds either. There's also considerable controversy over the coca eradication spraying in Plan Colombia (p. 16) that's wiping out food crops. Say you developed some Roundup Ready Corn, complete with a Terminator gene, that you could sell the peasants every single year once you were finished spraying Roundup all over their lands. If something is done for the cause of money rather than for political or ideological grounds, does that make it automatically justifiable?
Perhaps someone with time on their hands might consider modifying this set of existing guidelines:
Rules of Engagement for Successful and Ethical SUV Tagging.
posted by sheauga at 11:44 AM on May 12, 2002
As for a general philosophical position on what's justifiable, why not let your conscience be your guide. Pulling up other people's plants is never well-received, and gardeners need to remember that what goes around, comes around. On the other hand, it's not particularly polite to go "sowing your wild oats" and creating super-weeds either. There's also considerable controversy over the coca eradication spraying in Plan Colombia (p. 16) that's wiping out food crops. Say you developed some Roundup Ready Corn, complete with a Terminator gene, that you could sell the peasants every single year once you were finished spraying Roundup all over their lands. If something is done for the cause of money rather than for political or ideological grounds, does that make it automatically justifiable?
Perhaps someone with time on their hands might consider modifying this set of existing guidelines:
Rules of Engagement for Successful and Ethical SUV Tagging.
posted by sheauga at 11:44 AM on May 12, 2002
I didn't see any "compelling arguments" on the 'Nightime Gardening' page. What I did see was "genetic
engineering and biotechnology suck".
Um, yeah, lets go smash some stuff! Hur, hur, hur.
posted by Catch at 1:13 PM on May 12, 2002
engineering and biotechnology suck".
Um, yeah, lets go smash some stuff! Hur, hur, hur.
posted by Catch at 1:13 PM on May 12, 2002
Vandalism (we can usually spot left over pieces from the original tagging) is not ethical. And aside from being vandalism, in my home state this is the crime of vehicular tampering.
Unethical and illegal. But oh so self-righteous.
posted by NortonDC at 1:21 PM on May 12, 2002
Unethical and illegal. But oh so self-righteous.
posted by NortonDC at 1:21 PM on May 12, 2002
Pim Fortuyn-stew?
Sorry, that was in bad taste, but so was the original link.
posted by dagny at 1:55 PM on May 12, 2002
Sorry, that was in bad taste, but so was the original link.
posted by dagny at 1:55 PM on May 12, 2002
Unethical and illegal. But oh so self-righteous.
Yeah, this is what gets me. Sometimes I wonder if people remember that a corporation isn't some giant faceless institution staffed by robots; that a company is made up of actual people who do actual labor. When a McDonald's is bombed, what does that say about the value of the labor of the men who built it? What does it say about the value of the mental labor of a biotechnologist when their brainchildren are uprooted and destroyed? Oh, right, they should just work on something else, grow irises instead of tulips.
There's a strong element of 'I know better than you' in this kind of activism. Farmers don't have to buy their corn from Monsanto; there's no law that shoves it down their throats. But what if they want to? What if the American public isn't scared of GM food products? Is it up to you to deny them choices? Educate the farmers about Monsanto's business practices, sure. Present your side of the case on GM food, sure. Organize boycotts, sure. But it's not for you to wreck Monsanto's gardens or steal GM food from stores.
The buying public isn't stupid. If it can be conclusively proven to the satisfaction of the public that the current breeds of GM food have negative health effects, then consumers will shun them as quickly as they did Olestra and New Coke. They'll vote with their feet, just as you probably do. Which is how the system works.
Which is not to say I worship at the altar of the Great God Profit--I believe that there should be limits on mega-merged corporations, we need to toughen up the antitrust laws to prevent situations where one hand washes the other, and there needs to be a whole lot more accountability by the CEOs and presidents and board members for any illegal actions a company might engage in. Among other things.
(sheauga: I see absolutely nothing in your link which connects the coca spraying to forcing Monsanto corn on the South American 'peasants'--and what a loaded word that is--the only instance of 'roundup ready corn' is on page 27.)
posted by darukaru at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2002
Yeah, this is what gets me. Sometimes I wonder if people remember that a corporation isn't some giant faceless institution staffed by robots; that a company is made up of actual people who do actual labor. When a McDonald's is bombed, what does that say about the value of the labor of the men who built it? What does it say about the value of the mental labor of a biotechnologist when their brainchildren are uprooted and destroyed? Oh, right, they should just work on something else, grow irises instead of tulips.
There's a strong element of 'I know better than you' in this kind of activism. Farmers don't have to buy their corn from Monsanto; there's no law that shoves it down their throats. But what if they want to? What if the American public isn't scared of GM food products? Is it up to you to deny them choices? Educate the farmers about Monsanto's business practices, sure. Present your side of the case on GM food, sure. Organize boycotts, sure. But it's not for you to wreck Monsanto's gardens or steal GM food from stores.
The buying public isn't stupid. If it can be conclusively proven to the satisfaction of the public that the current breeds of GM food have negative health effects, then consumers will shun them as quickly as they did Olestra and New Coke. They'll vote with their feet, just as you probably do. Which is how the system works.
Which is not to say I worship at the altar of the Great God Profit--I believe that there should be limits on mega-merged corporations, we need to toughen up the antitrust laws to prevent situations where one hand washes the other, and there needs to be a whole lot more accountability by the CEOs and presidents and board members for any illegal actions a company might engage in. Among other things.
(sheauga: I see absolutely nothing in your link which connects the coca spraying to forcing Monsanto corn on the South American 'peasants'--and what a loaded word that is--the only instance of 'roundup ready corn' is on page 27.)
posted by darukaru at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2002
I wonder if people remember that a corporation isn't some giant faceless institution staffed by robots
I agree that people who are just trying to do their job, put food on the table, etc should not be held accountable for the decisions made by their companies. However, you can get the weird reverse problem where, when bad things happen, like really really bad things, to individual people as the result of bad corporate decisonmaking, [Enron, Bhopal, CA energy crisis, S&L disaster, E coli, Aswan Dam, etc] the companies suddenly do not have individuals responsible and they hide behind the nameless faceless corporation thing.
I'm just not as confident as you are that it will be easy enough for the buying public to get at the truth of negative health effects caused by GM food because of media consolidation [which we seem to agree on] and general public apathy. I don't think I know better, personally, if people want GM food because it's fresher and cheaper, that's basically okay. However, the GM food won't stay put [cross fertilizes with other local and not so local agriculture, creating more GM food than just what's in Monsanto's fields], so choices to use GM food do not just affect the people who choose to purchase and/or grow it. If human beings are real enough that they should have dignity in their jobs, their corporations -- just like people -- should also be accountable and responsible to the communities that they live and work in, not just the shareholders or the "buying public".
posted by jessamyn at 4:38 PM on May 12, 2002
I agree that people who are just trying to do their job, put food on the table, etc should not be held accountable for the decisions made by their companies. However, you can get the weird reverse problem where, when bad things happen, like really really bad things, to individual people as the result of bad corporate decisonmaking, [Enron, Bhopal, CA energy crisis, S&L disaster, E coli, Aswan Dam, etc] the companies suddenly do not have individuals responsible and they hide behind the nameless faceless corporation thing.
I'm just not as confident as you are that it will be easy enough for the buying public to get at the truth of negative health effects caused by GM food because of media consolidation [which we seem to agree on] and general public apathy. I don't think I know better, personally, if people want GM food because it's fresher and cheaper, that's basically okay. However, the GM food won't stay put [cross fertilizes with other local and not so local agriculture, creating more GM food than just what's in Monsanto's fields], so choices to use GM food do not just affect the people who choose to purchase and/or grow it. If human beings are real enough that they should have dignity in their jobs, their corporations -- just like people -- should also be accountable and responsible to the communities that they live and work in, not just the shareholders or the "buying public".
posted by jessamyn at 4:38 PM on May 12, 2002
He eats quesadillas and Veggie Subs. I think he may be disappointed to learn that there is milk in cheese, and also in most bread.
posted by bingo at 5:25 PM on May 12, 2002
posted by bingo at 5:25 PM on May 12, 2002
Veganism is certainly a compelling argument regardless of the ethics of food.
No it's not.
posted by rodii at 5:58 PM on May 12, 2002
No it's not.
posted by rodii at 5:58 PM on May 12, 2002
a) The buying public isn't stupid.
b) general public apathy
I'd say b) is more accurate.
posted by kv at 6:09 PM on May 12, 2002
b) general public apathy
I'd say b) is more accurate.
posted by kv at 6:09 PM on May 12, 2002
Won't anyone =please= think of the the vegetables? I've heard the screams of the vegetables...
I'm just thinking of all those innocent plants being cut down before their prime .... just because someone has a philosophy! Damn those people for pushing their ideology on these blameless beings!
posted by meep at 7:39 PM on May 12, 2002
I'm just thinking of all those innocent plants being cut down before their prime .... just because someone has a philosophy! Damn those people for pushing their ideology on these blameless beings!
posted by meep at 7:39 PM on May 12, 2002
Bingo: you can eat veggie subs without cheese (Horrors! What a thought!) and you can use vegan cheese on homemade quesadillas. The thing with picking a good alternative cheese (those made with rice, soy, hemp, etc.) is to make sure the label doesn't include casein, a processed dairy protein added to some vegetarian cheeses to aid thickening.
I'm attempting to be informative, not trying to be a smart-arse :-)
posted by sammy at 8:29 PM on May 12, 2002
I'm attempting to be informative, not trying to be a smart-arse :-)
posted by sammy at 8:29 PM on May 12, 2002
sammy: I think it's strange that a hardcore vegan wouldn't specify soy cheese when mentioning quesadillas as part of his daily vegan menu. And I'm pretty sure that the bread subway uses contains milk products, cheese or no cheese.
posted by bingo at 10:26 PM on May 12, 2002
posted by bingo at 10:26 PM on May 12, 2002
Bingo: I'll have to check the labels on the bread packaging (hi. I'm a Sandwich Artist(tm)!). I'm not actually sure what's in it.
Maybe he just assumes people will figure out that he means an alternative cheese?
Alright, I'm done with my petty defending ;-)
posted by sammy at 11:19 PM on May 12, 2002
Maybe he just assumes people will figure out that he means an alternative cheese?
Alright, I'm done with my petty defending ;-)
posted by sammy at 11:19 PM on May 12, 2002
It's not a big deal, sammy. I'm only picking on him in this respect because I used to be a vegan, and I, as well as other vegans I knew, was pretty hardcore about that kind of stuff. Vegans are almost by definition obsessed with knowing and revealing the ingredients of everything they consume and/or create.
posted by bingo at 2:55 AM on May 13, 2002
posted by bingo at 2:55 AM on May 13, 2002
> a corporation isn't some giant faceless institution staffed
> by robots; that a company is made up of actual people
> who do actual labor.
Who proudly smile from the cover of Business Week and Forbes when they make lots of money but who hide behind the corporation when things go wrong.
When the guys making decisions at, for example, Monsanto are willing to make themselves legally responsible for the damage caused by Monsanto's products -- to pay costs and do real prison time if the damage warrants it -- people will start thinking of Monsanto as something other than a faceless machine for making stockholders money regardless of the cost to the world. There's much talk of risk-taking in corporate conference rooms, but there's little real risk taken when they can always say "Oops, sorry about the dead people," and then continue working as usual. Let them introduce risk-sharing to accompany their profit-sharing plans.
posted by pracowity at 3:29 AM on May 13, 2002
> by robots; that a company is made up of actual people
> who do actual labor.
Who proudly smile from the cover of Business Week and Forbes when they make lots of money but who hide behind the corporation when things go wrong.
When the guys making decisions at, for example, Monsanto are willing to make themselves legally responsible for the damage caused by Monsanto's products -- to pay costs and do real prison time if the damage warrants it -- people will start thinking of Monsanto as something other than a faceless machine for making stockholders money regardless of the cost to the world. There's much talk of risk-taking in corporate conference rooms, but there's little real risk taken when they can always say "Oops, sorry about the dead people," and then continue working as usual. Let them introduce risk-sharing to accompany their profit-sharing plans.
posted by pracowity at 3:29 AM on May 13, 2002
Geez, another smearjob link from the Metafilter crowd.
I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!
posted by mark13 at 5:41 PM on May 13, 2002
I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!
posted by mark13 at 5:41 PM on May 13, 2002
When the guys making decisions at, for example, Monsanto are willing to make themselves legally responsible for the damage caused by Monsanto's products -- to pay costs and do real prison time if the damage warrants it
Did you read beyond my first paragraph? I'm in favor of that.
posted by darukaru at 6:11 PM on May 13, 2002
Did you read beyond my first paragraph? I'm in favor of that.
posted by darukaru at 6:11 PM on May 13, 2002
« Older NASA scavenges on eBay for old parts for Space... | Test the Nation Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
What hippies? Looks like times have changed. Crop saboteurs in tuxedos and little black dresses! And warnings about how easy it is to lose jewelry when you're digging up the rapeseed. I like it!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:53 AM on May 12, 2002