Meat of the Matter

FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)

Meat of the Matter

Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

February 16, 2000

I'm probably the most cynical bastard I know. I want a clean environment, but I'm not a stereotypical tree-hugger, willing to sacrifice all progress for the sake of some foliage.
I have a dog back home, but I'll never be one of those old ladies who keeps 27 cats because she can't bear to see a stray. And if I'm ever starving in the middle of a frozen wilderness, with nothing around but me and a deer, I can say without hesitation that I'll be feasting on venison.

My support for reducing the harms we inflict on animals doesn't stem from a bleeding heart or from the theoretical constructions of the learned from on high. It stems from common sense.
There are two main reasons to respect animal rights: health and ethics.

Health

"The new fitness fad," shouts the magazine headline.

Americans seem to be trying anything and everything to improve their health. Some attend expensive fitness centers, while others scrupulously cut fat and sugar out of their diets. For millions of Americans, however, a simple and effective way to eat healthier is by becoming a vegetarian. The strictest of vegetarians (vegans) do not eat any foods containing animal products. Others make exceptions for eggs and milk.

Medical research clearly shows that eating vegetarian is a good way to improve your health. Johanna Dwyer, a registered dietitian at New England Medical Center Hospital, said, "Vegetarians are at lesser risk for obesity, atonic [reduced muscle tone] constipation, lung cancer and alcoholism. Evidence is good that risks for hypertension, coronary heart disease, type II diabetes, and gallstones are lower" (FDA Consumer, October 1995).

Most of the vegetarians I've met have lost weight and have more energy since they stopped eating meat. Although eating vegetarian won't guarantee a healthy diet, it's certainly a good start. And, of course, you don't have to quit cold turkey (pun intended) like I did. Some people start with one meatless meal per day and then gradually eat two or more a day until they're completely meat-free.

Even in beef-infested Lincoln, with a little work, good vegetarian food can be found. It's certainly worth the effort for the sake of better health.

Ethics

St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant embody the traditional philosophical view of animals. This view is that animals are a mere resource to be exploited for man's use. Therefore, we have no duties towards them whatsoever. Some modern philosophers, such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer, believe animals have an inherent value. They believe using animals in science, agriculture and hunting should be abolished.

The debate is certainly interesting and worth more attention, but I don't have the space to go into it here. Instead, my support for animal rights stems from the simple fact that animals feel pain.

I think it a defensible proposition that the infliction of pain without a purpose is wrong, and animals suffer in many needless ways because of our selfishness. The meat we eat and the leather we wear does not come from an idyllic, farm-like creature from "Charlotte's Web."
James Rachels, in "Elements of Moral Philosophy," describes the living conditions of a veal calf as one example. The calves "spend their lives in pens too small to allow them to turn around or even to lie down comfortably," because exercise toughens the meat and additional space is expensive. The calves cannot perform natural functions like grooming themselves or suckling from their mothers.

They're fed a diet deficient in iron and roughage (which means they cannot form a cud to chew) and they are not given any straw for bedding -they might eat it, again affecting the quality of the meat. "As terrifying as the process of slaughter is, for them it may actually be a merciful release," Rachels says.

The terrible thing is that all of this suffering inflicted on animals is unnecessary. We have alternatives to meat, animal clothing and animal research in cosmetic testing.

Even from a utilitarian perspective, I could not justify the lifelong suffering of a sentient creature for the transitory pleasure some jerk feels downing a Big Mac. The same principals that would evoke outrage in seeing two teenagers stomp a puppy to death on the curb should evoke anger in seeing a pig butchered. Both are unnecessary, even if one animal is cuter than the other.

Respecting animals doesn't mean we're perfect. I support the use of animals in medical research because it provides real benefits to suffering people. I still eat eggs and cheese because I don't have the money or the skill to be vegan in a place like Nebraska. In an imperfect world, all we can do is the best we can with what we have.

But give the animals the benefit of the doubt. It won't hurt you one bit, and it'll help them tremendously.

© 2001 Daily Nebraskan Online (www.dailyneb.com)

Last Issue Special # 15: Captain Atom

SERIES: Captain Atom

DATE: 1991

THOSE REPONSIBLE: John Ostrander (writer), Dennis O'Neil (editor)

CATEGORY: Partial Denial

I feel bad for Captain Atom. After being rescued from Charlton obscurity when DC bought the rights, he became a member of the Justice League, got his own book, and seemed to be establishing a niche for himself as a super-hero with strong ties to the military. Then the big Armageddon: 2001 crossover took place. Captain Atom was slated to be the big surprise villain behind the whole thing, but when word leaked to the fans, DC changed things up at the very last minute and substituted someone else (making the story make even less sense than normal, one assumes). Ever since, Captain Atom has bounced around in a bewildering number of roles, universes, costumes, and powers, with a continuity about as tortured as it gets (read his Wikipedia entry if you don't believe me). It's unfortunately a perfect case study of a potential downside of comics: characters who lack strong direction from a consistent editor can flounder through years of different creative teams, each of whom handles the character for an issue here or a guest appearance there, with no cohesive sense of who the character is or why he exists in the shared universe.

In the last issue of his regular series, which lasted just under five years, Captain Atom gets shafted by both suffering through the end of one company-wide crossover (War of the Gods) and the beginning of another (Armageddon 2001). In other words, in his own book's final issue, Captain Atom has a big brawl with what is apparently an evil version of himself (the most generic villain of them all, "Shadowstorm") but has to give up several pages so we can see what is happening to other, unrelated characters elsewhere.

I'm guessing the book was rushed, because two pages are almost duplicates. Page 6 features one panel featuring Dr. Fate, Geo-Force, Zatanna, and two other magicians casting a spell with the caption: "Elsewhere, creatures of magic and mystery gather together seeking by common action to stabilize a planet made mad by the war of the gods." Then, page 20 features a panel of the exact same characters casting a spell with the caption "Elsewhere, creatures of magic and mystery, seeking by common action to stabilize a planet made mad by the war of the gods, cast their desperate spell." Likewise, page 6 and page 20 each feature duplicate panels of a sorceress (I think its Circe) casting a spell with similar captions.

A brief paragraph on the letters page by Assistant Editor Kelley Puckett is the only mention of the book's cancellation, and it seems ironic given future events:

"There is no next issue! But don't think our story stops here! If you care about the future of Captain Atom (and yes, there is a future for him) you must read Armageddon 2001 # 2! This is the story what will change Captain Atom forever! Don't miss it!"

Bloodstone

Marvel's 2001 limited series Bloodstone introduces Elsa Bloodstone, daughter of the famed (okay, really kinda obscure) 1970's monster hunter character, Ulysses Bloodstone. After Ulysses' apparent death, Elsa and her mother inherit his house, which is full of rare curios and antiques gathered during a lifetime of adventure. Events quickly conspire to lead Elsa to take up her father's mission, leading to globe-travelling fights against vampires, mummies, and other super-natural threats. This is all handled in a very light tone, with lots of banter, over-the-top action, Frankenstein as an ally, and a hefty amount of T&A. Some of it is clearly inspired by Buffy (Elsa even looks a bit like her sometimes), though with far more fluff. As far as I can tell, Elsa hasn't appeared in the Marvel Universe since, but I don't consider that a great loss.

Carnival of Souls

CARNIVAL OF SOULS

By Nancy Holder (2006)

RATING: 3/5 Stakes

SETTING: Season Two

TV CHARACTER APPEARANCES: Buffy, Xander, Willow, Giles, Jenny Calendar, Cordelia, Principal Skinner, Angel, Ethan Rayne, Joyce, Harmony

MAJOR ORIGINAL CHARACTERS: Professor Caligari/Caligarius (sorcerer villain); Stephanie & David Hahn (students); Le Malfaiteur (sorcerer); Claire Nierman (ally of Ethan Rayne); Carl Palmer (student); Vaclav (circus member); Astorrith (demon)

BACK-OF-THE-BOOK SUMMARY “There’s something troubling about Professor Caligari’s Traveling Carnival. Perhaps it’s that no one can recall the arrival of its hard-to-miss caravan of old-style wagons, countless performers, and horse-drawn carts. Maybe it’s the creepy calliope music that tirelessly beckons visitors. Let’s face it, an enigma that chooses Sunnydale nearly guarantees it’s up to more than wholesome family entertainment. After a visit to the carnival’s Hall of Mirrors, a once-shy pair of homely sophomore twins parades the halls of Sunnydale High like diva supermodels on a runway. Intuiting the twins’ abrupt personality change as more than a self-confidence boost, Buffy--joined by Angel, Giles, and the rest of the Scoobies--decides to investigate the suspicious carnival firsthand. But soon it’s apparent that the price of admission is higher than she imagined. Those who enter the carnival’s attractions exit . . . changed. Each of the gang soon shows extreme displays of vice. Willow is wracked with envy. Cordelia’s greed consumers her. Xander unleashes his gluttony. Angel reveals a lusty new persona. And a dark anger rises in Giles. But it’s Buffy’s now-blinding pride that threatens to overpower her, and in the process destroy those she loves. . . .”

REVIEW

To encapsulate my review in the pithiest way possible: "Carnival of Souls is a perfectly average Buffy novel." That is, it's very much a straightforward, been-there, done-that story about an evil carnival coming to town, leading the Scoobies to investigate and eventually devise a way to stop it. Buffy and her friends find themselves acting on strange temptations, but not in especially interesting ways (though Xander does eat some really disgusting foods!). The main villain, Professor Caligari, is rather generic, and the usually interesting Ethan Rayne falls flat.

Carnival of Souls isn't a terrible novel. It is kind of fun to see the Scoobies back in Season Two, complete with Principal Skinner, Angel, Jenny Calendar, mean Cordelia, and even Joyce. On the whole, however, there's nothing to distinguish this Buffy novel from the dozens of other ones out there. The plot, the dialogue, the action . . . are all just average. Unless you've already read the best of them, give this one a pass.

Lucifer's Courage

Lucifer's Courage

A different view of hell's angel

Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

February 07, 2000

Daily Nebraskan

"For who can think Submission? War then, War open or understood, must be Resolved."

--Milton, "Paradise Lost"

I hate it when the good guys always win. Such a thought struck me the other night while watching Kevin Smith's "Dogma," a movie about two fallen angels' attempt to reenter heaven through a loophole in Catholic teachings. Although their success would have caused the end of existence, my companion and I both had the same reaction after the movie ended with God smiting the fallen angels and making everything magically all better.

We both wished the bad guys had won.

In a general sense, I find myself rooting for the bad guys for a variety of reasons. For one thing, good guys are often bland and boring compared to their evil antagonists. Who would Luke Skywalker be without Darth Vader? Who would read Sherlock Holmes if not for Professor Moriarty? I even feel sorry for some of the bad guys. After all, the Penguin can only get pummeled by Batman and Robin so many times before you start feeling sorry for the poor bastard.
Sometimes, if only for the sake of originality, the bad guys should win.

But my desire for the fallen angels to succeed in "Dogma" was based on something else: they deserved to succeed. There's a crucial scene in the movie where the two fallen angels, Loki and Bartleby, are arguing about whether they should even attempt to reenter Heaven if it means facing God's wrath. Loki says "Do you know who you remind me of? The Morning Star. You're following in the footsteps of Lucifer, and you saw what happened to him!"

We've all heard the biblical story of Lucifer. Once the most respected of angels, he craved power for himself and incited a rebellion in heaven before being defeated and banished to hell. The traditional, Judeo-Christian spin on this story is that it's a parable on the dangers of foolish pride, a lesson on what happens to those who disobey God.

But I see it differently.

Imagine coming into existence in a world where you have no choices. Where your every move is decided in advance. Where your destiny is to obey a despotic ruler, and the slightest deviation from his laws results in torture and death. A world where your every move is observed, your every word is monitored and your very thoughts are scrutinized.

Lucifer didn't rebel because of pride, he rebelled because of tyranny.

Although he lived in an eternal paradise and had everything anyone could ever desire, one thing was missing: freedom. And without freedom, all of his supposed joys became a constant, painful reminder of his captivity.

So Lucifer decided to fight back, and one-third of his brethren flocked to his side. One-third! Clearly Lucifer wasn't the only angel to chafe under the chains of God's enslavement.
Of course, Lucifer wasn't insane. He knew his chances of success were slim at best, and that the consequences of failure were the harshest we can imagine. An eternity in hell. It was worth it to him, though, this desperate lunge for freedom.

I wish we all had this trait - Lucifer's courage.

All of heaven were embroiled in this war between the oppressed and their oppressor. Eventually Lucifer lost, and he was banished to hell with all of his rebellious allies. But he didn't stop fighting. Much as Prometheus was chained to a mountainside for daring to introduce fire to man, Lucifer convinced Eve to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Some say he seduced her into sin. I think he showed her that she, too, was free and could rebel against God's tyranny. And according to the "Good Book," because of Eve, we all have this option.

Lucifer never existed, of course, no more than Jesus or Zeus. The story of a demi-god rebelling against his fellows is not original to Christianity. But I know that if he had existed, Lucifer and I would have the same outlook on life. To paraphrase Milton:

"Better a free man in Hell than a slave in Heaven."

Civilization III

After spending pretty much all summer in failure, I finally managed to win a game of Civilization III on the normal difficulty level, and in the process wreaked bloody vengeance on the evil Incans who had stymied me at every turn in the past. Warfare seems more important in III than in its predecessors, but there are still multiple ways to win: diplomacy (being elected Secretary General of the UN), conquest, cultural dominance, being the first to launch a colony ship into outer space, etc. At easier difficulty levels, the player begins with a mechanical advantage over the AI civilizations, while at higher difficulty levels, the AI civs get the advantages. On the normal ("Regent") difficulty level, players and AI are treated equally so I can be proud to say my organic brain outwitted their electronic ones.

I may come back to Civ III someday, but for now I think I'll try my hand at Star Craft, a space war game I've always heard great things about.

Toutes les Lumieres de Hong Kong

My first romance novel, and in French to boot. The title translates as All the Lights of Hong Kong, and I picked it up because Hong Kong seemed like a cool setting for fiction ever since a particular episode of Cracker I really liked. I would show you a picture of the cover, but despite my extensive Googling I haven't been able to come up with one under either the French title or the original English title, Divided Loyalties.

I remember reading somewhere that in the romance novel industry, there are four different categories of explicitness when it comes to sex--this novel was definitely in the most tasteful "fade to black" category. I'm starting to wonder about myself, because along with my newfound appreciation for soap operas, I found this quite readable and interesting.

Twenty-two year old Debra has lived with with her best friend Liz ever since Liz's parents died in a car crash. When Debra gets a job working for a handsome fashion designer named Vane Oliver in Hong Kong, Liz comes along for a ride. Instant love triangle? You bet! Debra is quite jealous of Vane's burgeoning friendship with Liz and is probably the mouthiest employee ever, while Vane is prone to fits of crazy rage making him the world's worst boss. A match made in heaven? Well, I couldn't spoil the ending, now could I?

The only thing I found weird was that Debra and Liz don't really seem like best friends--Liz is five years younger than Debra, and Debra treats her much more like a vulnerable kid sister than a best bud. As for the Hong Kong setting, I feel confident the author (Margaret Mayo) added authentic flavor, but much of it was lost on me because of my rudimentary French--I know there were some kite-flying festivals and scenes along the harbor with junks ("jonques") but that's about it.

Was this post longer than what I managed to write on my dissertation today? Probably.