Submitted by VidSweet
I do not pretend to be the best writer. Whereas Aaron Sorkin can write good fiction (I used to like his TV show), I am much better at learning and writing down facts than he. Sorkin recently condemned Sarah Palin for hunting for food and then tried to convince us that he isn’t a hypocrite for eating meat and using animal by-products. He doth protest too much. Meanwhile, he has no qualms paying blood money, so to speak, for someone else to magically deliver meat entrees ($150) on his table at pricey Los Angeles restaurants (see sample menu prices below) while sneering at those who get their own food. Sorkin is uninformed. For such a haughty, self-righteous liberal who believes the myth of his superiority, Sorkin lacks self-awareness and tolerance.
I am not a hunter. I am a young, Ivy-League- educated, world-traveled, career-oriented, racially-mixed, female New Yorker. The Democrats still think I should support them by default. They lost me and my demographic because of bad policies and because of irritating, foul and nasty liberals like Sorkin.
I don’t know anything about livestock but unlike Sorkin, I don’t judge others and I don’t run my mouth unless I understand the facts. I did a quick research to feed my logical mind while Sorkin relied solely on his (incorrect) assumptions about his limited knowledge of the world. I’ve discovered:
- Sorkin is uninformed about how a living animal ends up dead and butchered at a grocery store or a restaurant. His lack of knowledge is even more laughable given his morally superior, know-it-all attitude. He should read the information below about how slaughterhouses kill animals. He should also read about the Islamic Dhabiha and Jewish Shechita (both require animals to be conscious until the point of death) as I just did with a simple Wikipedia search. Maybe Sorkin was itching for his next coke high to bother with this step.
- Sorkin is out of touch and narrow-minded about how past civilizations, our pioneer settlements, and even current societies get their food. Sorkin hates people who hunt for food and who celebrate success because it brings food to the table. Again, he hates people who hunt—he hates Africans—well, tribes in Africa—indigenous Australians, Asians, Indians, and many other cultures that live off the land. I’m saddened that this white man is so elitist and racist! Sorkin, stand by your supposed moral conviction—we are waiting for you to rail against how the Jews and Muslims, Africans, Australians and Asians kill animals for food. We are also waiting for you to criticize how Obama served expensive ($100-a-pound), killed Wagyu beef at his inauguration party. Go ahead and rail against them, too—unless you are a witless, unprincipled man-boy.
- He doesn’t criticize people who grow and harvest their own vegetables. But he wants to deny people the choice to hunt for organic meat. The two are the same thing, but he applies different logic because his liberal mind is irrational like that.
- Hunters learn the noun “viscera” in a tangible way much earlier than when Sorkin learned the word “visceral” (an outgrowth from the word “viscera”) in high school. He made a condescending assumption that readers (and Palin) do not know “visceral”. First of all, how elitist, since Palin received her Bachelor’s degree from a Tier 1 college, same as Sorkin did. Palin has also out-worded, out-phrased, and outsmarted the entire unfriendly media and the supposedly most eloquent and sophisticated President, Barack Obama. Second, Chuck Heath Sr. (Palin’s dad) was a science teacher. Palin knows the word. Third, his mistake is hilarious. He probably didn’t even know that viscera is an anatomic term and that anyone dressing a deer knows viscera and visceral. Viscera->Inner organs->Guts->Gut reaction->Visceral. By the way, visceral is defined as “Relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect”—well, it’s obvious Sorkin didn’t demonstrate intellect in his article. Sorkin’s an elitist idiot. In fact, in Sarah Palin’s domain, there’s a whole lot of stuff he doesn’t know. I’d like to see him go to Alaska and understand and already know 100% of everything that he hears.
- Does Sorkin even know the definition of ‘deranged’ and ‘torture’? He has no substantiation for using either word. For a man who writes for a living, it’s funny that he doesn’t use words correctly! Is he calling all livestock workers, butchers, cooks, leather makers, and American, European, African, Asian, hunters “deranged”? Sorkin is no expert, but see how this arrogant fool pretends to know all about hunting and what constitutes torture. An experienced hunter reached a different conclusion than what Sorkin pretended to see. The animal was dead and felt no pain as it was handled by Palin. Every blade stroke was necessary and efficient. The act was respectful of life, not malicious. Palin even gave a prayer for the blessing. Sorkin admitted to buying meat and using leather. Those animals originated from animal farms, where animals are fenced in confined spaces, branded, and raised unnaturally. There, the animals’ sole purpose in life was to be fattened and killed. By contrast, the Alaskan caribous live and roam freely. Some do get killed for food by humans or other predators, but they can run away, too. The wild caribous have a better chance of surviving than do the farm animals that are herded into holding pens at slaughterhouses without escape before they are stunned then exsanguinated.
- Fact: Palin hunted and killed an animal for food. Aaron’s entire premise, entire argument is INCORRECT. The hunt was not done with malice and it was not purposeless. It is one way Alaskans have caribou meat to eat. People eat, therefore they hunt. He may be unfamiliar with this because his favorite thing to consume is snorted off some surface.
- Like some human activities, maybe hunting seems ritualistic. I don’t know firsthand, but I’d assume it’s like any tradition. Palin enjoyed her time hunting because it was a tradition she shared with her father. Is Sorkin criticizing everyone who, in a similar manner, went fishing with their dads? Why does Sorkin find it acceptable for others to go fishing and celebrate when someone catches fish? In both cases, the ‘hunter’ ends up killing an animal and celebrating that there is food to be cooked and enjoyed as a meal.
- Sorkin proved Palin correct by being the face of HYPOCRISY. He is indeed a meat-eating, animal-product using hypocrite who feels it is beneath him to do anything but (have his assistant) buy meat at the grocery store or order it from a menu. He mocks the necessary actions and work needed to produce meat but enjoys the benefits. He likes to keep his hands clean, but fully supports others in slaughtering his meat for him. He’s too good for the basics. Ditto for his use of animal by-products like leather, soaps, and candles. Well, his conscience isn’t clear. He is a WILLING participant in the slaughter of animals (and by the slaughterhouse methods, something that would fall under his bad definition of “torture”).
- He’s trying to fool us that the issue is the ‘enjoyment’ of the hunt, not the killing an animal itself. Well, all the times that Sorkin was hungrily waiting for his food to arrive at a restaurant and then rubbed his hands in excitement and salivated when it finally did, he was just like Palin and everyone else. All the times he wanted to cook and became joyous upon finding the right ingredient, he acted just like Palin and everyone else. Sure, he may not have had a direct hand in the killing, but he approves such killings—how else would he have the food? Pretending that it is more honorable to endorse his cowardly, elitist way of having someone else tackle the more unsavory task shows a ‘jaw-dropping’ lack of self-awareness.
- Either one has an issue with killing animals for food in general, or one does not. Cut the fake indignation. If Sorkin actually had a moral standard (instead of a political agenda to attack a strong female), then he would condemn using animals at all. Even vegans took to their blogs to laugh at Sorkin for being inconsistent. They call him out as a hypocrite. It’s just another example of liberals picking and choosing their beliefs when it suits them.
- Sorkin thinks people cannot put on manicure and be outdoorsy. Really? How sexist.
- In the USA, about 9 billion animals are slaughtered yearly. I bet there’s a lot of waste when groceries don’t sell all meat packages and when people throw uncooked food away. Hunters strip all edible portions of the animal and are not wasteful with the food they acquire through harder work than merely moving it from the grocery freezer and into a shopping cart.
I’ve given facts and Sorkin has not. What should people believe more—my research facts or the thoughts of a man who made the wrong choice to use addictive drugs in the first place? I know about Sorkin’s history as I followed his show, and as I read about his continued abuse of cocaine even after his arrest. Sorkin has the rationality and opinion of a hedonistic, debauched man whose top priority is the pleasure of a drug high. He is a helpless, little man enslaved by excess. He is a man trying to be important again, but whose political opinions are pedestrian and are bested by Sarah Palin.
I wrote a rebuttal of Sorkin’s article, but I am not an army and I am not the asshole. Sorkin proved that it is he who is the elitist asshole—and an uninformed one at that. How damning for a liberal man who claims to be tolerant and knowledgeable about everything!
Here’s a challenge to Sorkin: stop being hypocritical and put your money where your mouth is, instead of putting a dead animal in your mouth. Until then, your drivel is irrelevant and worthless.
Details on those pricey Los Angeles restaurants:
Spago: “6 Oz. 100% Japanese Wagyu New York” $150
Prime: “Cote De Boeuf Grilled Over Charcoal (For Two)” $100
Beso: “Tomahawk Chop” $64.00
Patina: “Saddle of Millbrook Farm Venison” $50
Petros Restaurant: “Oregano* Veal Chop grilled veal chop with olive oil, lemon and oregano” $34.00
“Grilled Prime New York Steak served with romano beans and string fries (12oz)” $34.00
“Feta Crusted Colorado Rack of Lamb” $36.00
Cicada: “Pan Seared Bone-in Filet Mignon” $39.00
Details on the slaughterhouse process:
The slaughterhouse process differs by species and region and may be controlled by civil law as well as religious laws such as Kosher and Halal laws. A typical procedure follows:
1. Cattle (mostly steers and heifers, some cows, and even fewer bulls) are received by truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
2. Cattle are herded into holding pens.
3. Cattle are rendered unconscious by applying an electric shock of 300 volts and 2 amps to the back of the head, effectively stunning the animal, or by use of a captive bolt pistol to the front of the cow’s head (a pneumatic or cartridge-fired captive bolt). Swine can be rendered unconscious by CO2/inert gas stunning. (This step is prohibited under strict application of Halal and Kashrut codes.)
4. Animals are hung upside down by both of their hind legs on the processing line.
5. The carotid artery and jugular vein are severed with a knife, blood drains, causing death through exsanguination.
6. The head is removed, as well as front and rear feet. Prior to hide removal, care is taken to cut around the digestive tract to prevent fecal contamination later in the process.
7. The hide/skin is removed by down pullers, side pullers and fisting off the pelt (sheep and goats). Hides can also be removed by laying the carcase on a cradle and skinning with a knife.
8. The internal organs are removed and inspected for internal parasites and signs of disease. The viscera are separated for inspection from the heart and lungs, referred to as the “pluck.” Livers are separated for inspection, tongues are dropped or removed from the head, and the head is sent down the line on the head hooks or head racks for inspection of the lymph nodes for signs of systemic disease.
9. The carcase is inspected by a government inspector for safety. (This inspection is performed by the Food Safety Inspection Service in the U.S., and Canadian Food Inspection Agency in Canada.)
10. Carcases are subjected to intervention to reduce levels of bacteria. Common interventions are steam, hot water, and organic acids.
11. Carcases (typically cattle and sheep only) can be electrically stimulated to improve meat tenderness.
12. Carcases are chilled to prevent the growth of microorganisms and to reduce meat deterioration while the meat awaits distribution.
13. The chilled carcase is broken down into primal cuts and subprimals for boxed meat unless customer specifies for intact sides of meat. Beef and horse carcases are always split in half and then quartered, pork is split into sides only and goat/veal/mutton and lamb is left whole
14. The remaining carcase may be further processed to extract any residual traces of meat, usually termed advanced meat recovery or mechanically recovered meat, which may be used for human or animal consumption.
15. Waste materials such as bone, lard or tallow, are sent to a rendering plant. Also, lard and tallow can be used for the production of biodiesel or heating oil.
16. The waste water, consisting of blood and fecal matter, generated by the slaughtering process is sent to a waste water treatment plant.
17. The meat is transported to distribution centers that then distribute to retail markets.
Send in your submission to: firstname.lastname@example.org