New Haven Independent

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 17, 2008 9:05 AM

So!

We do have crippled cows being introduced in the food supply, (yeah, the one that feed the millions of schoolchildren and adult in these USA), Chickens that never see the light of day from hatch to slaughter, etc... etc ...

We do not see these activists picketing at the local deli or supermarket. We do not see them at the gourmet counter where, "moi", I get my "foie grass" from!

Yet, Voila! Sacrebleu, they appear in from of a trendy French Restaurant on trendy Chapel Street. These are people who wake up in the morning pondering: "... what will be the "cause célèbre du jour?" And guess what? They think they've got it!

For every pound of delicious "foie grass" imported in these USA there is a ton of meat going into the food supply from sick or abused and very likely cruelly slaughtered bovine and poultry!

Get a life people!

Otherwise, go picket every outfit that sells any type of meat that got slaughtered. Our food supply is based on the principle WE DO NOT WAIT FOR ANIMALS TO DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES!

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 17, 2008 9:11 AM

I meant "foie gras" not "foie grass".

I better cut back on my consumption of foie gras for a month or so, and invest the cash in a spellchecker en Français.

I will!

Posted by: on whalley | March 17, 2008 9:32 AM

This is the way so many want it. As cities grow larger and the population becomes more centralized and as the Ted Turner's and the Monsanto's of the world jack up property values and in turn the taxes of small farms this will become more and more the norm. Less people farming the big farms have to up production. It becomes cold and detached like an assembly line. Hunting is barely an option anymore thanks to another sect of these simple minded and short sighted protesters.

Soon there won't be anything to protest as the bulk of our "meat" will be "farmed" in glass containers in skyscrapers downtown. Just google "growing meat in test tubes" if you think I'm crazy.

We either slap Ted Turner in the face and kill off the notion of property tax so people can get back out into America and make their own way rather than live ever dependent on new-god state or we wholly embrace the new genetically modified meat-like substance that will be crammed down our throats in the coming age of super cities. Don't think you'll live in a super city? Follow universal healthcare or national security paranoia to their end and this is the conclusion every time. One way or another we'll all get herded into concrete towers. We'll be taxed and legislated until we're all pushed in and they can shut the gate behind us.

Either way standing outside with a picture of a goose chanting slogans is pointless.

Posted by: Joseph | March 17, 2008 9:37 AM

Sarah28's argument may not be entirely coherent, but she raises a good point along with the owner: these restaurants are easy targets not because they sell a foodstuff derived from a particularly bizarre and repulsive method, but because this method serves a very small coterie of bourgeois foodies deluded to think that just because their sterile carton of meat is labeled "foie gras", or "grain-fed" and "organic", that it's special (like them), and that it isn't infused with all the feces and loathing as the rotten meat we tricked those clueless school children into eating.

The owner admits to selling all these meats which we (and apparently he) recognize as disease-inducing, ethically reprehensible, and disaster for the earth. Why not "go picket every outfit that sells any type of meat that got slaughtered"? As a vegan, in many ways I do this every day. What are you doing this evening, Sarah? Make some signs and let's go!

Posted by: anthony | March 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Great job. It's wonderful to see Connecticut activists uniting against such a vain and unnecsarry form of animal abuse. I look forward to see where this campaign will go.

Best of luck to everyone involved in putting an end to Foie Gras!

Go Vegan-
For the animals, and the earth.

Best regards,
Anthony

Posted by: Joe | March 17, 2008 10:11 AM

The Unabomber - I mean, On Whalley - is right. Let's all lay down and die!

Posted by: charlie | March 17, 2008 10:16 AM

Aren't there better things to protest, such as the fact that 90% of the kids living in Greater New Haven can't safely get to East Rock Park or to the waterfront without getting into a motor vehicle?

Talk about things that cause obesity and heart disease, not to mention cruelty to humans.

Posted by: Reuben | March 17, 2008 10:33 AM

The fact that there are other animals abused to make food (and for many other reasons, mostly to do with our entertainment) does not mean that THIS abuse is diminished in any way. Does the fact that one child is being beaten today make the next child's beating any better? Do you say to those children: "sorry, but someone else is being harmed so I don't care about you"? Of course not: yes, it's an easy target. Yes, countless other animals are horrifically abused for our "pleasure". And...no, that does not mean that we continue to eat foie gras because it's just one horrific abuse among many. We will continue to advocate veganism - but you don't get to complain about a "cause du jour" and then tell me where you buy your foie gras. And just because no one has shown up to picket that particular deli counter doesn't make it humane or decent to buy meat of any kind there.

Posted by: robn | March 17, 2008 10:44 AM

You guys want "bizzare and repulsive"... try reading "Fast Food Nation" by Erc Slosscher. I guarantee that it will dramatically reduce your consumption of beef. (and maybe even give you a different view of the immigration debate.)

Posted by: Bruce | March 17, 2008 10:53 AM

Yuck!

Posted by: JZ | March 17, 2008 11:48 AM

I'll never eat the stuff again after reading this. My consumption was about nil, anyway, but reading this did have an impact.

I'd never put down anyone making an effort to stop cruel practices, even if it is just a fraction of the meat eaten. Everyone chooses their causes for personal reasons. Nothing wrong with this one- run with it!

Posted by: CTKnows | March 17, 2008 12:53 PM

Wonder where these people stand on abortion?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 17, 2008 1:20 PM

I am with Bruce YUCK!!

Posted by: Anthony | March 17, 2008 1:55 PM

Why is it when people take a stance on one issue, the immediate opposition is always to complain that said people aren't taking a stance on EVERY issue? This is a short fall in logic misses the point, tragically so.

Anyone who takes to the streets in protest obviously has a political opinion on a particular issue. To assume they have no opinion on any other issue, or that they are inactive in voicing their opinion on other issues is just ignorant.

Bringing up outside political issues to discredit a non-related issue just exposes one lack of understanding on the topic at hand.

And, questioning the relevance of protest in first place? Well, its sparked discussion, and thats the first step to progress. The fact that anyone would question why you are protesting, shows that your protest has been effective on at least some level.

Anthony

Posted by: nfjanette | March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

Sarah28's argument may not be entirely coherent, but she raises a good point along with the owner: these restaurants are easy targets not because they sell a foodstuff derived from a particularly bizarre and repulsive method, but because this method serves a very small coterie of bourgeois foodies deluded to think that just because their sterile carton of meat is labeled "foie gras", or "grain-fed" and "organic", that it's special (like them), and that it isn't infused with all the feces and loathing as the rotten meat we tricked those clueless school children into eating.

If I understand correctly this position, it is mistaken: there most assuredly are many differences between the practices involved in raising animals for foie gras (forced feeding), white veal (raised in a tiny pen to prevent most movement) , most poultry and/or eggs (tiny cages, overcrowding) when compared to alternatives such as "free range" beef/bison/chicken fed vegetarian diets and free range / free roaming egg-laying poultry. While I respect those who choose a vegan diet, it seems that when some of the more vocal members of that gang are stating their choices, they often fail to note the existence of ethical animal based products that, while often costing more, often address many of the concerns (properly) raised by vegans. Consumers can choose cage-free eggs, organic local milk, non-factory farmed meat, and other products and avoid supporting the horror of more mass-produced products.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

More government interference in our private lives!

Governement demands large sums of our money and curtail activities that should be the choice of the individual -- and not some political "overlords."

Soon they will be banning whatever they please:

-- consumption of lollipops and frosted flakes because they contribute to youth hyperactivity

-- contact sports because of the risk of personal injury

-- the sale of toasted cheese sandwiches with a plate full of fries (cholesterol worries, don't you know)

-- smoking in one's own house (I am not a smoker) when accompanied by a non-smoker

They demand money and more money and give us

HANDCUFFS!

Posted by: JZ | March 17, 2008 6:42 PM

Oh yes, the joys of deregulation have brought us so many gifts. Lead in our children's toys, food that may contain all kinds of poisons, and drinking water contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Let's bring on full scale deregulation and let the corporations rule the roost! What a wonderful world that will be.

Posted by: Joseph | March 17, 2008 8:27 PM

NFJANETTE: I disagree that "there most assuredly are many differences between the practices" in mass-produced animal products, as regulations on foodstuffs provide little or no guidelines to what may be labeled "free-range", "cage-free", "vegetarian-fed", etc. The conditions for these are more or less arbitrarily decided in policy by politicians in former or future employ of the meat & dairy industry, and more importantly, are not enforced in practice whatsoever. There is no regulatory oversight. It takes whistle-blowers and activist intervention to draw attention to these violations, and even then there is negligible or no penalty for the violators, save an outraged public which will hopefully rouse its sleepy head long enough to take meaningful action in its own interest.

While there are certainly farms which willingly comply to these weak standards we've set forth, these are few and far between, and as long as so-called "ethical alternatives" draw a premium from consumers, these aberrations will become increasingly difficult to discern ("certified organic", perhaps the only term ever defined by law, is increasingly weakened by lobbyists as it becomes a trendy selling-point.) As long as animals are devalued and disrespected solely as machines for industrial production, with lobbyists corraling 73% of the subsidies for less than 20% of the food pyramid, to place so much faith in labels is naive and of no assurance at all.

Dig it: http://http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/diet-nutrition/organic-products/organic-products-206/food-labels-can-be-misleading/

Posted by: Barbara I. Biel | March 17, 2008 9:09 PM

For all those who complained that we don't protest against other types of meat, email me and I will send you news articles of other protests we have done over the years. Also, anyone interested in promoting veganism by leafleting, email me. bibiel @yahoo.com Barbara

Posted by: Barbara I. Biel | March 17, 2008 9:12 PM

Gammariello said, "why are these people (protesters) not going after the chicken, the cow, and the lamb? Especially the chicken. They have their beak cut off. They cannot move in their chicken house. Foie gras is an easy target."

I don't know where Gammariello has been living all his life. Has he never heard of the vegetarian movement, the animal rights movement? Foie gras is not being singled out, but it is the worst form of factory farming and the most cruel. One does not have to be a vegetarian or an animal rights advocate to be horrified by the practice of force feeding ducks and geese until they are so sick they can no longer walk. As for foie gras being an easy target, why is that? Does Gammariello admit that is it horribly cruel? We will see how easy of a target it is. We will see how long it will take for Gammariello to take it off his menu.

Gammariello said, "But the issue really is freedom. That is basic, freedom."

What basic freedom? Where does it say in the Bill of Rights that eating and producing foie gras is a right? It has been banned in 15 countries as well as in California and Chicago. Torturing animals is not a right!

Gammariello said, "French people think this is natural."

French people then are morally backwards. Fortunately, France is part of the European Union, and when the EU bans foie gras, France will have to give it up.

Gammariello said, "It goes back to Egyptians, to Romans,"

We have had some moral progress since the Egyptians and the Romans. We don't have slavery and we don't feed Christians to the lions.

Gammariello wrote, "and the birds themselves, when they migrate, they stuff themselves for the long trip. Very natural."

It is not natural for them to eat until their liver swells to six to ten times the normal size and they can no longer walk and often die. Gammariello needs to go to the web site StopForceFeeding.com and cure his ignorance.

I urge everyone to boycott Union League Café until it takes foie gras off its menu. Establishments like the Union League Café are an insult to civilized people's sense of moral decency.

Barbara I. Biel

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 17, 2008 10:51 PM

Nfjanette,
Thank you for responding to Joseph on my behalf, in fact pointing out that my point was not so "... incoherent" after all; alas, we all miss something occasionally.

Joseph, Reuben,
I did not intend to suggest that this is not an atrocious practice, on its own or compared to those that take place here in America soil. My point - made analogically - was to point out bigger fish, (oops! I think we're talking birds, bovine and poultry here), to our friends for their frying pleasure! Since they "... have formed a still nameless but ardent local animal rights group ..." The quote premise clearly shows that they are still shopping for .... A "cause célèbre" yet could not wait to hit the picket line!

Now that we have cohered that, let me state that my intent was to suggest a few alternative "causes célèbre" that actually could make an impact in our community and from a masses standpoint.

Let me try this point one more time!

= = = = = =

Dear Mesdames Horowitz, Fisher and company,

This is to bring to your well-intentioned attention a grave animal cruelty that is happening right here in American soil and the by-product of which is a delicacy in the mass consumption, (not by an elitist few), right here in New Haven. It is happening to an extent far greater than the indulgence of "foie gras".

This by-product is generously carried by Ferraro's Foods located at 664 Grand Ave right here in New Haven.

The delicacy in question, Mesdames is "Blood Sausage".

As you know, the very cruel first step in making "blood sausage" is to stick a live breathing and healthy pig, being careful to cut only the jugular, not the esophagus. Then catch the blood in a stainless steel or plastic (not galvanized) bucket and stir it constantly to prevent clotting. (Using your hand rather than a spoon.) Mix in three to four teaspoons of salt to half a pail of blood and immediately adding the following: cooked rice and/or barley sufficient to absorb the liquid adequately, chopped fatty pork, pepper, marjoram and additional salt to taste. Depending upon your preferences and the nationality you're imitating, you might try other spices, chopped onions, garlic powder, etc.
In the diversified greater New Haven area alone, hundreds servings of "blood sausage" for each foie grass served in the entire state of Connecticut.

Yes Mesdames, It is all made here in the USA, (continental USA that is, I can safely leave the US possessions and PR out of it).

I will be looking out for you on the picket line, the next time I am getting my blood sausage fix from Ferraro Foods.

Thank you and best of luck

Sarah.

P.S.: Should you opt for less visible, yet more constructive cause célèbre, I suggest you follow that child, (second from the right on the picket line - first picture on the article here above), to his school and volunteer tutoring, ... maybe French culture and gastronomy. It is less glamorous, almost anonymous and serves a real local and immediate purpose. I did; I brought Belgian Chocolate to Wexler School off Dixwell avenue,‎ (a few blocks from The Union League), and talked to the kids about Europe while we indulged in Belgian chocolate, (wish I could afford foie gras). I will carry the memory of those little smiles for the rest of my life.

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 17, 2008 11:18 PM

Charlie,
Your point ...

"Aren't there better things to protest, such as the fact that 90% of the kids living in Greater New Haven can't safely get to East Rock Park or to the waterfront without getting into a motor vehicle? ... Talk about things that cause obesity and heart disease, not to mention cruelty to humans."

... is right on!

The school district cannot get enough volunteer to mentor kids in the public school system, including mentoring them in eating, (no - no foie gras), a good balanced diet, less junk and overall good eating habits; an incentive that many do not get from the home environment.

Yet, my friends ... we do have people concerned about ... French geese being overstuffed!

Posted by: Eric | March 17, 2008 11:28 PM

Once again the animal rights activists show their ignorance. According to recent investigations by the FDA, foie gras is NOT made by force feeding geese. The geese are fed a higher calorie diet, but not by force. There are no tubes shoved down their throats, and the geese are treated as well as other farm animals.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | March 18, 2008 6:23 AM

Don't you wish for the good ole days when we had nothing but the red menace to worry about!

Posted by: Joseph | March 18, 2008 9:55 AM

Eric: forgive our ignorance, but would you please share the source of this information? While I have heard of farming practices where the geese are merely fed an unhealthy diet before processing for people-chow, I understand these to be the exception and not the rule.

Posted by: Justin | March 18, 2008 11:10 AM

Whether or not opposition to foie gras is a current "cause celebre" is irrelevant to whether its production is ethical, causes animals great suffering or whether it is a worthy cause to support. Reuben's comment above says it all, very concisely and elegantly.

It seems that the issue for critics of this protest is not whether foie gras is a cause celebre, but that people are protesting against the exploitation of nonhumans and not focusing their efforts on causes that are human-centric (I doubt that anyone on here would stand up and admonish those who support the "Save Darfur" campaign, which is the ultimate cause celebre).

The animals who are exploited (confined, physically and psychologically abused, mutilated, crippled and killed) for the production of "food" possess all of the characteristics necessary for inclusion within our moral sphere. Most importantly, they are sentient. They can experience pleasure and pain and have an awareness of the world around them. Just as, based on the moral principle of equal consideration, we extend basic moral rights (i.e. the right to bodily integrity and respectful treatment) and protections to human infants or adults with severe developmental disabilities based on their sentience, not based on their intelligence or self-awareness, we have a moral imperative to extend the same considerations and protections to sentient nonhumans as well, since species, like age or intelligence, does not impact our ability to suffer. Just as you and I do, these individuals have interests and desires, however different from ours as they may be, and, as a result, they have right to pursue these interests and desires freely. Just because a duck's life is different from ours does not give us the right to exploit him for our personal gain.

So, the question is not how the ducks are being fattened up on the farm, but whether it is ethically defensible to keep them there in the first place.

As long as one animal, human or non-, is being exploited and suffering for someone else's benefit, we have a moral imperative to protect that individual.

Sarah28- Industrialized foie gras production is alive and well on American soil. In fact, Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the largest foie gras production facility in the United States, in located in nearby Ferndale, NY. Much of the feed that is shoved down these animals' throats comes from right here in Connecticut. So, this issue is a very local one.

Eric- I can not find any evidence that the FDA conducted an investigation into foie gras at any point. Do you have a reference for this?

Posted by: Fonseca | March 18, 2008 1:16 PM

Dust of Sinclair's "The Jungle" and read it while you enjoy a glass of red vine and a bloody steak.
Buen Provecho

Posted by: Anthony | March 18, 2008 1:39 PM

27 comments! This protest was INCREDIBLY effective. Keep discussing.

Best regards,
Anthony

Posted by: AT | March 18, 2008 2:27 PM

28 comments! These protesters look more and more like people who do not have anything better to do. By the way, None of them is contributing anything at all!
on whalley is probably right again (outch!!!)

Keep discussing.

Best regards,
A Taylor

Posted by: charlie | March 18, 2008 4:05 PM

Please don't talk about ethics until 400,000 people per year worldwide (about 130 per day just in this country alone) stop dying in motor vehicle accidents, or until children can get to the local park or beach without relying on a trip in a car. Oil companies and automobiles do infinitely more damage to animals, and cause much more obesity and environmental damage, than foie gras production.

I have a question. Did these foie gras activists drive to the Union League that evening?

If so, they seriously need to reconsider their MO.

Posted by: Kavorka | March 18, 2008 5:40 PM

If you believe that the practice is wrong, by all means try to get laws passed. Protest at the capitol. But until there is a law, it is legal for the restaurant to serve it, so stop interfering with a small locally owned business. They employ chefs, servers, dishwashers... all of these people depend on the restaurant to make a living.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 18, 2008 5:41 PM

As long as we are not eating 'other humans', people should be allowed indulge in the diet of their choice.

(I'll make an exception in extreme survival situations, where 'already dead humans' are the only possible repast.)

Posted by: robn | March 18, 2008 6:09 PM

Following Bill's cannibalism comment may be anti-climatic, but I'll try anyway.

I think that a great way to educate the public about the ethics of foi gras production would be to offer an all-you-can-eat-buffet of foi gras with the caveat that you must receive the scrumptous bounty through a beer bong shoved down your throat and at a rate and quantity which is decided by the chef. MMMMM. Tasty.

Posted by: Justin | March 18, 2008 7:22 PM

Charlie- Humans dying in automobile accidents and the oil industry's plundering of our environment have nothing to do with the ethics of fois gras production (which is the focus of the discussion here). However, since you're interested in the environment I will mention that a 2006 report issued by the United Nations ("Livestock's Long Shadow") noted that factory animal farming is the earth's largest single contributor of global greenhouse emissions (18%0, more than all forms of transport combined. It is also the world's leading cause of deforestation and one of the main causes of soil and water pollution. A 2005 article in Physics World also noted that "Adopting a vegetarian diet would do more for the environment than burning less oil and gas."

Kavorka- As long as places like the Union League Cafe are peddling foie gras and profiting of off it, they are morally culpable. If they are concerned with the livelihood of the chefs, servers and dishwashers in their employ, they should take that into consideration when they make the decision to keep foie gras on their menu. Given your logic, since human slavery wasn't illegal in the antebellum South, it would be unjustified to interfere with the local farmer who confined slaves and profited off of their exploitation.

Bill- People should not be "allowed" to do anything that requires that entails the violent exploitation of other feeling, thinking individuals.

The selfishness, ignorance and anthropocentrism on this board is very surprising given the generally progressive slant of this newspaper.

Posted by: charlie | March 18, 2008 8:17 PM

I second Kavorka's important comment.

Posted by: david | March 18, 2008 9:19 PM

I don't want to comment on the protest etc. (I'm not interested in discussing it: but I agreed largely with Sarah) I mostly just wanted to let you know, Sarah28, you made me laugh! I really enjoyed your comments. Thank you.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 18, 2008 11:28 PM

Oh, moralism, me thinks we won't see the last of you!!!!

Posted by: kavorka | March 19, 2008 10:37 AM

Justin, your comparison of the enslavement of an entire race of human beings to duck farming methods is inexcusable, insensitive, and ignorant.

My point is that targeting a local small scale distributor of a legal product, is ineffective and disproportionately punishes people who can hardly be seen as the root cause of a problem. You don't fight big tobacco by disrupting the corner convenience store. You don't protest oil companies at Jerry's Shell station on willow st.

I never said that I thought that force feeding animals was a good thing, as I said I encourage you to try and get the laws changed.

I challenge you to go sit down in the home of one of the Union Leagues dishwashers, with the family they are working hard to support looking on, look them in the eyes, and tell them that a duck is more important to you than them.

anthropocentrism? you bet. but maybe i'll make an exception in justin's case.

Posted by: Deuce | March 19, 2008 12:24 PM

Animal rights, they got none
I like 'em better on a bun
I'm not trying to be crude
I just like 'em better as food
It's my four legged friends' fate
To wind up steamin' on my plate

Posted by: Been Called Worse | March 19, 2008 1:08 PM

I have never tasted foie gras before. Infact, I read about it in a cookbook when I was 12 and have been repulsed by the thought of it ever since.

Until now.

On my next trip home to New Haven, I will be certain to stop in to Union League for some velvety foie gras. Previously, I would have never given duck liver a second (or even first) thought. But I'll be damned if I allow a protester to dictate my consumption based on their mixed up, self-richeous moral vegan agenda. Certain priviledges come with being top of the food chain, and I exercise these rights liberally.

As an aside, from this point forward I plan on protesting the protesters - for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Posted by: on whalley | March 19, 2008 3:42 PM

As an aside, from this point forward I plan on protesting the protesters - for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

That's the spirit!!

My whole life I thought fur was pretty ugly but I'm going nuts with fur now. I'm going to put a whole damn wolf on my head like some backwoods hermit in a shack and I'm going to track down those fur swimsuits and underpants I've heard about.

We should cover ourselves in fur and eat swollen duck livers till we puke then cleanse the pallet with a glass of juicy veal meatballs and do donuts in American sports cars from the 60's while firing guns into the air after the meal.

Is there anything more satisfying than spite I ask? Anything at all. I'm just so happy thinking about it. I'm glowing like a fat pregnant woman eating ice cream and pickles.

Posted by: Joseph | March 19, 2008 4:35 PM

Been Called Worse: You may want to rethink that, as you're colon will soon be protesting you with some velvety cancer!

Charlie, Kavorka, Sarah: I think we're generally on the same page about a vision for a "greener" society which may also act in the best interests of our peeps (say clean, effective, and safe public transportation, greenways for cyclists, renewal energy). Further, I think (and hope) this agreement indicates a larger cultural shift which entails compassion for the earth and animals - in such a way that analogies like Justin's become implicit, not inflammatory - as much as an interest in keeping human animals alive, happy, and healthy (animal rights are, after all, human rights). While no one denies we have a long way to go in caring for each other as people, I don't think we should be condemning those working for an even higher standard.

Posted by: charlie | March 19, 2008 6:10 PM

Joseph - nobody answered my question, above, about whether ExxonMobil, General Motors and Firestone got their healthy cut of this particular foie gras protest.

Government lobbyists demand to know!

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 19, 2008 6:19 PM

Animal Rights Cause "Triage"
The protesters still will not tell or promise to tell my favorite local Bodegas owners that the "Blood Sausage" they carry is made by bleeding live pigs, (as graphically depicted above by "moi" above). No cruel enough.

These days, one get into less trouble, while making more bang for the buck, protesting the only institution in town, which ever made the Michelin Guide, (in previous life, when it still was the "Robert Henry's"). In fact Chapel Street if more visible, than the Foie Gras distributor's warehouse or offices. On Chapel Street with a little luck the press, your peers, teachers and mentors can see you. Which is what you badly need if you're working hard on your ...

Curriculum Vitae by Design; That's right!
That's simply "Resume pimping", (in the Geese feeder's language), y'all. That is when they pick at (literally) less widely spread injustices (against the Geese at the very end of the alleged injustice chain: a trendy French Restaurant), and conveniently look away from any of the more widely spread and greatly impacting injustices indigenously and vastly more common right here in every Bodega and Shaw's (yeah, yeah, the one a few blocks up on Whaley Avenue), and Ferraro's Food, etc.

Intellectually ... Suspect ... and ... Bizarre ...
The overwhelming comments here clearly suggest that the protest's premise is suspect... and bizarre. It is great to see that so many of us are speaking against those who practice "triage" when picking their "Cause Célèbre du Jour" in order to complete their "Curriculum Vitae by Design".

Cause Célèbre du Jour
"Foie Gras" in the house that Jo Mackenzie built is a templar experience! One of the very few in the 'hood! Y'all gotta try it sometimes, especially you protesters who "... have formed a still nameless but ardent local animal rights group in New Haven" [sic] I know y'all still shopping, thus I hope you find yourself a nice little "cause célèbre du jour".

Posted by: Joseph | March 20, 2008 12:54 PM

Charlie: I don't suspect you sincerely care what the answer is to that question, and as I did not attend the protest, I cannot answer it definitely. I did hear that the majority or attendees were local New Haveners, and considering the parking situation in that area, would imagine they walked , biked, or shuttled to the site. I can also say that at least three of the protestors are not locals, came from nearby towns, and very likely drove to the site. If that constitutes a "healthy cut" of the protest then, congratulations, you win the blog.

Sarah: You're very scary.

Posted by: the understander | March 20, 2008 4:43 PM

A few years back, many members of the animal rights and animal welfare communities realized that "random" protests did not work. They came to the understanding that by picking one topic (which could cross the meat/no-meat divide) and "beating it to death", there would be success.
--I'm sure, blood sausage is on the agenda, dear Sarah, albeit further down the road.

This tactic has worked in the past, including the SHAC campaign which got Huntingdon Life Sciences dropped from the New York Stock Exchange and subsequently the OTCBB.
Interestingly, precedent set by the convictions of the "SHAC 7", mean that if Union League can prove they lost business dollars on the day of the protest, the activists can be charged with TERRORISM.
Of course, the Union League activists are a far cry from SHAC, but laws have been enacted to protect businesses who are the target of the animal rights movement.

It's an interesting society we live in, where people can voice their displeasure over the maltreatment of animals and be sent to Gitmo, but abortion clinic bombers are charged with breach of peace.

Posted by: Stephen H | March 21, 2008 1:15 PM

Bad granola strikes again!!

I am so glad I am no longer in New Haven.

Why can't this paper focus on real issues like rising crime, rising taxes, and the shrinking middle class.

Posted by: Anthony | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM

I can't think of a more simple way to word this. Just because person X protests cause X, doesn't mean person X doesn't ALSO protest and care about causes Y, and Z.

Stop assuming animal rights activist don't care about gas, war, shrinking middle classes, parks, other forms of meat, etc etc etc.