Doc
Well-known member
Only in America can we mess up two days of the week and claim that it’s somehow making us better people. The five school board members of the San Diego Unified School District,the second-largest school district in California, voted 4-1 this week to eliminate meat from school lunch menus on Mondays. Many in the protein industry may have thought this furor had died down, but the proponents just keep coming back.
Ironically, the Meatless Monday concept originally was promoted as a way to reduce childhood obesity. Of course, not even proponents believe it will do that, but the argument sold well. The real motive is the message that protein (meat) is somehow bad for you, and the furtherance of the idea that a non-vegetarian lifestyle is fundamentally wrong.
Listen to the proponents and it’s instantly obvious that good science has nothing to do with this cause; it’s just a moral imperative in their mind. Well, I certainly don’t believe that. I love my cows, but I fully believe their purpose is to ultimately feed God’s children.
Yet, we often see in our society today how it’s possible for a minority to claim moral superiority long enough that the majority grows hesitant to resist. I think it is due in part to social causes of the past that actually were moral and justified – discrimination by race and gender are prime examples. Thus, we’ve been conditioned to accept that almost anyone who claims to be doing something for a greater good is justified in doing so.
Experts tell us how closely linked the animal welfare and environmental groups have become. The reality is that they are using the same playbook. Climate change is the rationale for eliminating carbon-based fuels. Animal welfare is the basis for vegetarianism, etc.
If it is cloaked in a morality that doesn’t recognize a higher power, then nobody has the compunction or desire to address the factual fallacies of the argument. The governor of Colorado, for instance, just signed SB 252, which doubles the amount of energy that energy cooperatives must obtain from renewable fuels. The reality is that, by everyone’s estimate, it will dramatically raise the cost of energy for the Colorado consumer. And rural Colorado is expected to be especially hit hard with estimates of increased electricity costs as high as 25%. So, overnight, agriculture will become less competitive with its neighboring states, and the rural economy will continue to decline.
The great irony is that Colorado voters have turned down nearly every tax increase they’ve been allowed to vote on in recent years. Yet, this measure amounts to a huge tax increase, with no tangible benefits, and it has been accepted largely because they believe the green energy cause is just and most people don’t think they’ll feel the direct costs. So they feel good about it, even if accomplishes nothing positive and actually creates more harm in the long run.
I suspect that the consumption of junk food in the San Diego school district is poised to make a dramatic jump on Mondays following implementation of its MeatlessMonday program. Child obesity won’t be addressed in any significant way, but we’ve been conditioned to believe that the sacrifice is somehow noble.
Enjoy what you are reading? You might also like BEEF Daily. Subscribe now!
You have to give the supporters of Meatless Monday credit – they know that the total elimination of meat or SUVs would never be tolerated, at least not initially. Thus, they’re willing to chip away one day and one step at a time. So, one vote of five people, operating without good science, eliminated 20% of the meat consumption by more than 130,000 school children in San Diego.
Decisions are no longer based on a cost vs. benefit type of analysis. Today, it’s simply whether or not it makes one feel good.
Ironically, the Meatless Monday concept originally was promoted as a way to reduce childhood obesity. Of course, not even proponents believe it will do that, but the argument sold well. The real motive is the message that protein (meat) is somehow bad for you, and the furtherance of the idea that a non-vegetarian lifestyle is fundamentally wrong.
Listen to the proponents and it’s instantly obvious that good science has nothing to do with this cause; it’s just a moral imperative in their mind. Well, I certainly don’t believe that. I love my cows, but I fully believe their purpose is to ultimately feed God’s children.
Yet, we often see in our society today how it’s possible for a minority to claim moral superiority long enough that the majority grows hesitant to resist. I think it is due in part to social causes of the past that actually were moral and justified – discrimination by race and gender are prime examples. Thus, we’ve been conditioned to accept that almost anyone who claims to be doing something for a greater good is justified in doing so.
Experts tell us how closely linked the animal welfare and environmental groups have become. The reality is that they are using the same playbook. Climate change is the rationale for eliminating carbon-based fuels. Animal welfare is the basis for vegetarianism, etc.
If it is cloaked in a morality that doesn’t recognize a higher power, then nobody has the compunction or desire to address the factual fallacies of the argument. The governor of Colorado, for instance, just signed SB 252, which doubles the amount of energy that energy cooperatives must obtain from renewable fuels. The reality is that, by everyone’s estimate, it will dramatically raise the cost of energy for the Colorado consumer. And rural Colorado is expected to be especially hit hard with estimates of increased electricity costs as high as 25%. So, overnight, agriculture will become less competitive with its neighboring states, and the rural economy will continue to decline.
The great irony is that Colorado voters have turned down nearly every tax increase they’ve been allowed to vote on in recent years. Yet, this measure amounts to a huge tax increase, with no tangible benefits, and it has been accepted largely because they believe the green energy cause is just and most people don’t think they’ll feel the direct costs. So they feel good about it, even if accomplishes nothing positive and actually creates more harm in the long run.
I suspect that the consumption of junk food in the San Diego school district is poised to make a dramatic jump on Mondays following implementation of its MeatlessMonday program. Child obesity won’t be addressed in any significant way, but we’ve been conditioned to believe that the sacrifice is somehow noble.
Enjoy what you are reading? You might also like BEEF Daily. Subscribe now!
You have to give the supporters of Meatless Monday credit – they know that the total elimination of meat or SUVs would never be tolerated, at least not initially. Thus, they’re willing to chip away one day and one step at a time. So, one vote of five people, operating without good science, eliminated 20% of the meat consumption by more than 130,000 school children in San Diego.
Decisions are no longer based on a cost vs. benefit type of analysis. Today, it’s simply whether or not it makes one feel good.
