Remember what happens when plants have rights?
There’s lots of predictable buzz in the blogosphere this morning. Oprah left Trinity United because of Wright (wouldn’t anyone?), the same Wright who, according to the New York Post, “stole a wife.” And–surprise, surprise–the Clintons are ruthless. But more than a few bloggers also picked up on Wesley J. Smith’s article in this week’s issue of the STANDARD, The Silent Scream of the Asparagus. Smith writes,
Most bloggers found the concept of “plant rights” laughable. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey explains why “plant rights” is a contradiction: “Doesn’t this also negate the animal-rights movement? After all, if humans do not occupy a privileged position in nature, then we have every right to exploit animal and plant life as, say, foxes, hawks, chickens, cows, and fish.” And at Michelle Malkin, see-dubya notes another contradiction: “Sure, you vegans thought yourselves so morally pure. But according to the Swiss government, your hands are stained with the chlorophyll of innocent beings.” (And see-dubya also notes that this shouldn’t surprise us, coming from Europe.) What do these people think we should eat? At the Moderate Voice, Jazz Shaw says, “It seems foolish to the point of dangerous folly to extend our sympathies so far that we cut ourselves off from the ability to feed ourselves. What will be left for us after this… a diet of air, water and… what? Some sort of rocks?” And blogger Bird Dog at Maggie’s Farm has another suggestion: “One is forced to wonder whether the only dining acceptable to Greenie Gaia-worshippers would now involve cannibalism, since they want us to worry about the souls of asparagus and lobsters, and view human life as an obnoxious intrusion on an otherwise beautiful Eden.” But like most of us, Jules Crittenden’s diet won’t change. As the Evangelical Ecologist says, “So much for veggie burgers and ethanol.” I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a salad for lunch.
