Obnoxious Foodies and Rabbit

The other day at the Common Crow to Go I picked up
the current issue of Edible Boston while waiting for my lunch to be
prepared.
Inside the issue there was an article about
some joint that sells rabbits….for food….to eat. The
accompanying photo was of these two slaughtered bunnies resting on
a tray and photographed quite eloquently.
Now
understand that I don’t give a fuck about what anyone else eats. I
want that to be clear. I just find these obnoxious foodies who
pontificate on what kind of fish you eat is right or wrong or
eating veal is right or wrong or whatever else they tell us because
they believe it to be so, they can all kiss my ass.
When they start placing bunny rabbits on the morally acceptable
locavore list and tell you not to eat codfish they’ve lost all
credibility in my book.

Click the link below to check out the cute dead bunny pictures in Edible Boston Magazine

http://www.ediblecommunities.com/boston/winter-2011/rabbit-redux.htm

13 thoughts on “Obnoxious Foodies and Rabbit

    1. Edible Boston isn’t obnoxious, it’s the foodies that take some holier than thou gospel from someone that doesn’t even realize that our fishermen can’t even set their nets for any amount of time because the codfish stocks have been so built up they will split their nets but they will still say it’s not sustainable.

      When you know better but speak to these people with their preaching to you about the industry you are a part of as if they know what is going on because some locavore regurgitated something they overheard at starbucks after yoga fucking class it tends to get old. Especially when they don’t know what they are talking about.

      Believe me, I ate slept and shit fish all my life.

      Like

  1. Edible Communities, the publisher who puts out Edible Boston, is primarily interested in promoting locally- and sustainably-produced foods. Beyond the mantra that food should nourish the producers, eaters, and community it comes from, they don’t really tend to be focused on moral judgments.

    When people are morally opposed to eating veal, it’s because veal calves are traditionally raised in total confinement and isolation for virtually their entire lives. It’s not a stretch to label this as inhumane, and while it’s probably hypocritical to draw a line in the sand and say that one factory-farming method is cruel and another isn’t, this is not a reason to deride the notion that people can judge food production methods as inhumane or immoral.

    The much more important point to make, though, is that for the most part, when people tell you that you shouldn’t eat cod, it’s not because they disagree with the way that cod is raised, because cod isn’t raised, it’s caught wild. People tell you not to eat cod because it is essentially an endangered species. There’s a very real chance that it will disappear within your lifetime. This is entirely because of people catching it in order to eat it. The possibility that we are fishing critical species of fish to extinction drives the majority of this “pontificating” over what kinds of fish you should eat, if any kinds at all. Hey, some people have a problem with the hunting of endangered species. This isn’t that crazy of an idea. Holding it does not make one “obnoxious.”

    It’s important to make a distinction between farming animals for food (i.e. veal, and the rabbits which you’re referring to) and catching wild animals for food. The two industries are generally separate from one another, and concerns over the sustainability of the two tend not to cross paths. I think you’re correct in noting that virtually all movements tend to contain hypocritical elements, but the worlds of overfishing and animal cruelty are, in practice, quite different, and you’re really only harming the debate in confusing the two.

    Hope this helps.

    Like

    1. OMG! COD Stocks are stronger than they’ve been in over twenty years. Ugh! This is exactly what I’m talking about. You ought to go out on a Gloucester fishing boat and see how quickly they catch their limits because codfish have been rebuilt through the days at sea program.

      Like

  2. I lived in the North End of Boston for 7 years and the butchers always had rabbits hanging in the windows. Of course the North End has changed a lot since I lived there 30 years ago.

    Like

  3. I think it’s wonderful that cod stocks appear to be recovering. Don’t you? If you enact a program, and it appears to be working, why would you abort that program? That line of reasoning doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

    Look, I feel for the fishermen, I really do. But the fact that a person can throw a net off Gloucester and be inundated with cod really says absolutely nothing about the state of the species other than that there are at least enough cod left to fill up one net. Nor does the 20 year figure hold some special value.

    I would love to be able to support the local fishing industry. It’s not their fault that the world is being overfished, and I understand that they know more than most about the subject. But I don’t assume that just because a man can catch a fish — even many fish — that he isn’t seriously harming someone else by doing so.

    The scientists who devote their lives to studying these fisheries “eat, sleep, and shit” fish for their entire lives as well.

    Like

  4. Classic: “because some locavore regurgitated something they overheard at starbucks after yoga fucking class”. Poignant and made me laugh out loud! Nice editorial Joey!! Keep up the good work.

    Like

  5. Thank god. When I started reading I thought you were going to say it was okay. It’s not. If hillbillies want to eat Bambi and Thumper – or Snoopy for that matter – they can. But spare me and accompanying children the illustration.

    Like

Leaving a comment rewards the author of this post- add to the discussion here-