Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
boozin'

How We Learned Henry Louis Gates Jr. Hates Gay People From His Beverage Choice

483600751

Because he chose a Red Stripe beer to drink with President Obama and Police Sgt. James Crowley! And we all know that means he hates gay people! For the record, that Bud Light belongs to Obama (he’ll probably smoke a cigarette with it!), while Crowley is going Blue Moon.

And what would you be drinking at today’s make-nice White House summit?

By:           editor editor
On:           Jul 30, 2009
Tagged: , ,
  • 117 Comments
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      A sombrero, it’s black mixed with white and nod to the latinos!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Luke
      Luke

      Jack and Coke.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny
      Johnny

      I know it’s fun to throw accusations around – but the community as a whole has not embraced the great ‘Jamaican boycott,’ so it’s pretty outrageous (even if being funny) to accuse him of being homophobic because he’s drinking a Red Stripe.

      Personally, I’m not going to Jamaica or buying Jamaican products. But boycotts are funny things – and always have been – yelling at somebody or chiding someone for eating this or drinking that is always tiresome and time consuming, and hardly ever worth it.

      I don’t pretend to have the answers to homophobia in Jamaica or other places in the Caribbean – but accusing someone of ‘hating gays’ for simply drinking a Red Stripe is hardly the answer.

      Someone piling on a whole bunch of accusations on me that because I don’t support the boycott MEANS I don’t care about gay folks in Jamaica or stretching the argument to other extreme matters would be just bullshit.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny
      Johnny

      Oh, I would drink a something local and locally owned. I don’t know the beers in the DC area so can’t say, but I’d look into it before I’d make such a huge decision : )

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Dalmore single malt.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      Scotch on the rocks.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      For the record, he’s not. I took a class with Professor Gates, and one of the topics was homophobia within the African-American community. He was both thoughtful honest about the topic, even going as far as to openly regret laughing at Eddie Murphy’s homophobic humor in the past.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Also, hands down, Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      Even though gays in Jamaica are treated incredibly poorly, Red Stripe actually has a pretty good record with the gay community. That was one of the points that was brought up when the boycott was first suggested. Plus, boycotting a product for the thoughts and actions of a certain percentage of the people of the country that the product is made in seems hopelessly childish.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So what you’re saying, chris, is that boycotting a product is childish.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricardo
      Ricardo

      The cop and Gates should be drinking Guiness because it was reported that they are distant DNA relatives via Gates’ Irish bloodline.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Best-Bi teh IT Guy
      Best-Bi teh IT Guy

      2 shots of Crown Royal for me but I would feel more comfortable at home or in the club than the White House. There are still demon spirits emanating the premises, leftovers from the Dark Ages of the fallen Bush Regime :p

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tricky ricky
      tricky ricky

      COULD HAVE SWORN IT WAS REPORTED GATES DOESN’T DRINK BEER ON THE HUFFINGTON POST. THIS SITE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF ITSELF FOR THE HEADLINE.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Ridiculous dumbass post.

      In the first place the Red Stripe boycott is nonsense, and in the second maybe someone should root through your garbage and see what they find out about your politics and personal beliefs.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny
      Johnny

      Love Dogfish beer – and it’s brewed in Rehoboth, DE – a very cool gay and gay-friendly spot! and I guess it would be considered a local beer, it’s certainly locally owned – and the owners are incredibly supportive of the lgbt community!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Plus posts like this inspire such a high level of discussion.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      No, it’s nonsense. Money talks, and that goes for third world governments who are more responsive to the pressures of corporations than they are to anyone else save the brute force of foreign intervention.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @Jim Crow: TOO FREAKING FUNNY! Anyway, what I find sad is that if any other president would have made such a comment against a peace keeping system like the police department…he would have been burned at the political stake. And if he would have offered a “beer Summit”, he would have been destroyed. Double standard. Barack’s blackness and media bias once again saves him.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      Oh and I am sure the three beer brands are LOVING this free marketing and advertising campaign.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK

      And that bit of rhetoric is supposed to make the “boycott” any less ridiculous?

      The fact is it makes about as effective a tactic as National Lampoon’s old “buy this mag or we’ll shoot this dog” cover.

      Really, it is an excuse for a bunch of people to pretend they are doing something, and for blogs like this to smear and shame people on no grounds whatsoever.

      It’s none of their damn business what he drinks, and if you want to set arbitrary rules like that then you should stop drinking beer made by the people who own them.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      That’s not an argument. You’ve started with the premise that the boycott’s ridiculous, and from that, have concluded that it’s ridiculous. Ass.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      No.

      I simply said that it is ridiculous and ineffective.

      I didn’t repeat my argument because you and I have discussed this numerous times on several threads.

      If you have forgotten then I am sure you can find the links, but please don’t play the fool and expect that we’re going to beat that dead horse over again.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      And you can’t back it up. You haven’t made your case.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      and you didn’t make it back then, either, you cranky old bastard!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Times is now reporting that Gates is drinking Sam Adams (Light). Maybe the White House is taking part in the Red Stripe boycott.

      PBO is drinking Bud Light as reported, and Officer Jim Crow…ley is having a Blue Moon as reported. Joe Biden showed up for some reason, and is apparently drinking a non-alcoholic beer (wtf?) called Bucklers.

      Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/what-a-white-house-beer-says-about-race-and-politics/?hp

      Jul 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Craig
      Craig

      The person that wrote this is a fucking idiot, eben if it was meant to be funny it wasn’t, and if that had the brains of a human instead of a bloo sucking tick they would have known gates had a Sam Adams……btw you dumb ass gate has been a strong supporter of gay equality

      Jul 30, 2009 at 7:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Craig
      Craig

      The person that wrote this is a fucking idiot, even if it was meant to be funny it wasn’t, and if that had the brains of a human instead of a blood sucking tick they would have known Gates had a Sam Adams……btw you dumb ass Gates has been a strong supporter of gay equality

      Jul 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      What did Jamaica do to deserve the wrath of the homosexuals?

      Jul 30, 2009 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coco
      Coco

      @youcanthandlethetruth: Homosexuals hate anything laced with black. Just like blacks hate anything homosexuals. The feeling is mutual among the two groups.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sweetdog
      sweetdog

      @Alex: What the f*#k was Biden doing there? He certainly couldn’t have added anything intelligent to the conversation, unless they wanted him there just to be “stupidly” …

      Jul 30, 2009 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      You know, it could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others…not in you warning them of anything, but in you living.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Coco:

      Yes, your world is that simple. Good guys and bad ones…shootout!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick Mills
      Dick Mills

      Double MacCallan on the rocks! Beer has too many empty calories!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 9:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick Mills
      Dick Mills

      @youcanthandlethetruth: Do you prefer Red Stripe? Or what’s your poison?

      Jul 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coco
      Coco

      @TANK: It’s really not that complicated, Black folk and gays hate each other. It’s not rocket science We all know and accept that.I don’t think there is even room for redemption here.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Coco:

      At the risk of sounding unfunny…nuh ah.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick
      Dick

      Actually Gates wound up drinking Sam Adams light. I would have chosen Anchor Steam

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coco
      Coco

      @TANK: yap yap they do.You know it, I know it Queerty certainly knows it. Most commentators on this blog are racist and you should try visiting popular black blogs which by the way get way more hits than gay blogs, you will be stunned by the rampant homophobia.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Coco:

      Oh, it’s a problem for white gays and black people both. But my black gay friend’s never hit himself.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      OF course, he’s out, so I dunno. Maybe he’s like a generous jew. You feel me? LOL!

      Jul 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coco
      Coco

      @TANK: I’m confused. Your black gay friend? That’s impossible Tank, isn’t it? Even the Boston cop who wrote emails with racial slurs today said “I have black friends”.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 11:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Toro Castano
      Toro Castano

      For those who inquired what has Jamaica done to gays. Here’s a recent story from the AP:

      Gay bashing thrives in Jamaica, homosexuality seen as sin

      http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-cb-jamaica-gay-bashing,0,6360806.story

      Despite the easygoing image propagated by tourist boards, gays and their advocates agree that Jamaica is by far the most hostile island toward homosexuals in the already conservative Caribbean. They say gays, especially those in poor communities, suffer frequent abuse. But they have little recourse because of rampant anti-gay stigma and a sodomy law banning sex between men in Jamaica and 10 other former British colonies in the Caribbean.

      It is impossible to say just how common gay bashing attacks like the one against Sherman are in Jamaica — their tormentors are sometimes the police themselves. But many homosexuals in Jamaica say homophobia is pervasive across the sun-soaked island, from the pulpit to the floor of the Parliament.

      Jul 30, 2009 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wondermann
      wondermann

      grammar, grammar, grammar… WTF?

      And this is a stupid post, tell the babysitter the kids are on the computer again.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Coco:

      That’s impossible! I have many black friends. I have many asian and hispanic friends, too. I hate one of them (black friend), because he not only has phD, but he’s got a teaching position…he’s smarter than me. It’s not possible….it’s just not possible.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 12:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But I know a lot of people who are, credentially (ha ha ha), smarter than me. I edited some of their theses. They remind of what I’m not but could be. It’s not fun to have a big get together with the old gang. Two got married to each other…and fuck them.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      they’re nice vegetarians. And they’re happy with each other…I suppose. So fuck me. Not literally, of course, that’d be a no go.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Dick:

      Yes, I saw that on the news too.

      Never tried Blue Moon, but if it’s an actual witbier and not an industrial knockoff I have to admit the cop has the best taste in brew (and I’m not saying that just because it’s brewed in Toronto).

      Everyone else drank light or non-beer. Wasn’t this supposed to be an end of the day meeting?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Actually I HAVE tried it… it’s called Rickards White here. Not as good as a real wit of course, but it is a decent beer, and much better than any of that light stuff they try to pass off by the same name.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      You like beer? What a surprise…

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Yeah, though given what was there I would have probably picked the Red Stripe.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Because you hate gay people. Let’s be honest, even if there was a fatass brew you’d have preferred (I only like stout because it’s comparatively low cal and tastes like sex), you’d have chosen red stripe just to be contrarian.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Actually no. It would have been my preference (and really, it would only have been a contest between that and the Blue Moon).

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      You have no taste in alcohol. And you desire to be contrarian. SOmething you can afford living in that pseudo country canada.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And you’re probably no fun when you’re inebriated.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Well I don’t generally count on getting drunk in order to have fun. I certainly have never had to excuse myself while posting because I had had too many.

      And taste in most things is entirely subjective. I think stout has all the appeal of wallpaper paste, but I don’t criticize you for lapping up the stuff.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Taste in things is entirely mind dependent? I doubt it. But that’s not what you meant. You meant that taste in things is entirely at the whim of one’s preference. And that there’s no such thing as nonrelative to a percipient good taste and bad taste. Aesthetics and ethics are related, though aesthetics is harder, in my view…it’s harder to distinguish good taste from bad given this idiotic meme that whatever one enjoys is good taste to them, because it’s not necessarily contingent upon suffering and happiness and our preferences (as ethics necessarily is).

      Not if good taste is understood as complexity, or sophistication. There are some truths that can be respected when we discuss taste, just like there are some that exist in ethics, too (unnnecessary suffering, for example is necessarily bad). Complexity conjoined with pleasure is good taste ( a taste for knowledge), and simple pleasures would therefore be adjudicated as bad taste or neutral. You have no taste in alcohol for beer is not really a complex taste. Good taste is about seeing beyond immediate gratification, and developing a habit for enjoying something which has superior and longer lasting reflective gratification, for example. Flavor can be this way. We like sweet things, but things that aren’t immediately sweet, but nonetheless healthy or healthier in terms of good for us physically can be more beneficial and requires more reflection to consume.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      I don’t count on getting drunk to have fun, either. And I’d never get drunk in the presence of my president. It would be repulsive to me.

      But, getting drunk occasionally is a key to happiness.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      LOL

      Well based on that bunch of elitist crap the Red Stripe WOULD have been the best beer on the table. But the fact remains I would have picked it because I find it the tastiest.

      If I want to eat siu mai with hot sauce I’ll eat it, and if I want to eat potatoes with butter and salt I’ll eat that. The notion that one is better because it is is somehow more sophisticated is bullshit.

      Eat a nice ripe mango and give your head a shake.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      So you think good art is merely what pleases us, not what challenges us? I’m afraid not sticking my speciality here…but I think that’s prima facie bullshit.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And elitist? LOL! ha ha ha ha, I crunch numbers usually (tehcnical side of thought), so the characterization is funny.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      You want food that challenges you? I’ve gutted and plucked a few chickens too, but I prefer to leave that to others, and I also prefer to not encounter a stone in my loaf of bread.

      Nah, usually when I sit down to a meal I like to enjoy it.

      And sometimes that means mixing the sacred and the profane:

      http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20248609,00.html

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      One doesn’t need to go up against a boar with a knife to have food that challenges another. Food criticism exists for a reason…

      Simply enjoying something, alone, is not enough to assert that it is genuinely worth enjoying. Food for anything else.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Obama smokes, too, and occasionally, so do I. This is poor taste.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Or better still… go buy yourself a durian and try to plough through that. There’s a culinary challange straight from nature.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Not the fried twinkie? You won’t find that in nature…lol! I don’t care if it’s the best fried twinkie of its kind–does that make it worth enjoying simply because people like it? I don’t think so. If it’s invalid in other areas, it’s invalid there, too.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Food also crosses aesthetics into ethics, and this important, though. It is the responsiblity of every carnivore to understand how what they consume is processed simply because of the capacity for what they eat (sentient beings) to suffer.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Never eaten a twinkie, fried or otherwise.

      But there are plenty of simple foods (and foods straight from the garden or tree) that rank with the highest cuisine.

      And I’m sure any chef worth his or her salt is smart enough to realize that. After all, you don’t make that great food with garbage.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Simple foods can be “complex”–it’s about acquiring a taste for undiluted flavors, though. But this is constrained by what pleases us is not always what’s good for us, and even what’s good for us and pleases us is not always what challenges us in the requisite way to distinguish good from bad taste.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      never eaten a twinkie? WHat kind of gay are you?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      You’re right there. Killing and dressing what you eat does make you realize a thing or two about meat.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Why am I right?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Yeah, I knew I was walking into a joke there.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Because I agree it’s important to understand where your food comes from (and if you’re trying to steer this back to the so-called boycott, don’t bother).

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      because you agree? That’s why I’m right? Goddamnit, you’re hopeless. YOu’ll never think ethically if you think that’s a good standard.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Actually it’s more important to understand where your water comes from, IMO

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And why not bother? YOu agree that you need to know where your foodstuffs come from. So in the case of red stripe, it comes from a homophobic country that impacts its economy.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      LOL! HA HA HA…because of water’s capacity to suffer? No? Well, why then?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Now here I thought we were actually having a civil conversation.

      I believe that it is important to understand where one’s food comes from. For this reason I agree with you.

      There. Do you understand my point now?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Not at all, Because of our capacity to suffer without it, and a lot swifter than if we had no food. Everything – all our food – depends on water.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Right. So “our” capacity to suffer without it? How speciesist. I think a more immediate concern would be what in our diet contains flesh from beings capable of suffering, and the suffering they actually endure to satisfy our hunger.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Look. If eating meat is too much for you then become a vegetarian, or try to eat something that is more acceptable to you. That’s what most people who take an active interest in their food does.

      But deal with it; don’t just whine about it.

      And perhaps you should try going a day without water. It might change your perspective a bit.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      I like to eat meat…

      but seriously, I enjoy a good cut of beef…

      But even more seriously, I enjoy a good filet. I don’t pretend that it’s ethical, though. It’s horrendous, and indefensible given how cows are, in fact, treated to procure it.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But it’s another consideration that your metric is fallacious…lol. What we prefer is not identical to what we should prefer, and what we enjoy does not make it worthy of enjoying. What we view as beautiful and pleasing to the eye doesn’t make it good taste, either. That requires a bit of reflection, and perhaps sacrifice.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      That depends on where you get your meat, eggs and other products from.

      Certainly animals die to give us our food (they also die to give us a lot of other things we enjoy too – like water and other resources), but there are more humane options if you find them acceptable, and are willing to pay to support it.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And yes, for many human beings, the absence of clean drinking water is a very big concern, and it should be. But not for many others–and certainly not for us. I think, instead, we can be concerned about that, but not that it represents a higher concern than the food we eat (where the water we get comes from)–because wherever it comes from, it’s clean and drinkable and doesn’t cause suffering necessarily. Clearly the billions of animals we kill and consume each other outweighs that consideration.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Ah, but even if we are careful that the animals we do consume come from independent farms at a higher price that are killed ethically (with a minimum of pain)–the question still arises whether or not we are legitimately entitled to their lives for our satisfaction when alternatives are available. ANd further, it feeds into an industr that does, on average, treat animals in way that…is simply unacceptable.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      It’s fine that your focus is on animals and their suffering, but without water there is no life at all. There aren’t too many places in the U.S. (or in the world) where water is not a concern.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Yes, but that’s separate consideration (not really more central or immediate). It isn’t more central, because most accessibility attached to human and animal suffering isn’t a product of the supply of clean drinking water, but access to it, and purification processes. Not so with the meat industry.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Then perhaps you should strongly consider becoming a vegetarian.

      But as for not being entitled to their lives, in a global sense that is not a valid question…. look at the world around you. We’d be up to our asses in flies within weeks if animals stopped eating one another.

      Sure humans can choose whether or not to eat animals and how to treat them, but meat-eating is a necessary part of the ecological web. Somebody has to do it.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      That clearly the misses the point entirely. I’m not talking about the entire kingdom ceasing to consume other animals. Most animals don’t have options…we do. We are a unique species capable of higher level ethical reasoning.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And it certainly doesn’t justify factory farming.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      It’s like trying to weigh slavery (still practiced on this planet) with animal cruelty… It’s a separate topic.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      THen stop eating meat.

      I realize humankind has created a problem by eating too much meat, and diverting land and plant resources in order to grow more cows, but that is a different question than the ethics of eating meat or not.

      Some people feel it is unethical, but there are many parts of the world where people could not live without eating animals.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      See, it’s not a separate question. Also, many if not most of the epidemics humans experience is directly related to livestock. Swine flu is just one example. These are all related to whether or not to continue to eat meat.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And to those places in the world where it is necessary to kill and eat meat, that’s justified. it is the experiential ability to suffer that I take central issue with. In places where there are options available, it comes down to whether or not people have the right to take animal lives for their pleasure, not survival.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      It’s a bit more complicated than you think. Even removing or reducing factory farming, animals have still traditionally been an important part of agriculture – certainly better than fertilizing just with chemicals.

      Also, many of those animals compete with us for the food we grow. There are now far more deer in most of north america than there were 100 years ago – because of our agriculture. There are so many that they are regularly culled, and they starve to death when there is a bad year (nature doles out a fair bit of suffering without our help).

      Same thing with beavers, seals, whales, foxes, bears, wolves, rabbits, any number of animals are threatened by us not because we eat them, but because we are in competition with them for space and food.

      So while I agree that our overuse of meat globally is a major problem, the question of whether killing animals is absolutely wrong is impossible to answer. We may be able to think in a way other creatures do not, but it is impossible to remove ourselves from the ecological web.

      The best you can do is work out your own relationship with it, and if you feel strongly try to influence others. But to a greater or lesser degree everything suffers, and everything does eventually die (and that is a good thing).

      One thing is for sure, I’m not about to let ants overrun my house and sparrows eat all my greens and berries just so that I can find my Buddha nature.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KD108
      KD108

      So this post is completely ridiculous in the first place, but my real beef is that it’s inaccurate… Gates had a Sam Adams light, not a Red Stripe. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/beer-summit-twistsam-adams-joins-obama-professor-and-sargeant.html The real thing we should have a problem with is his shitty taste in beer (and LIGHT beer? Really? What’s the point?), Red Stripe or Sam Adams.

      Seriously though, unless Red Stripe issues a statement saying we condone and encourage the treatment of queer people in Jamaica or has evidence of it’s own negative sentiment toward or treatment of gays, who are we to assume that anyone who drinks it is a homo-hating bigot? I didn’t know that we’re supposed to judge anyone who doesn’t do a history on a company and where it’s based before they buy something… feel free to inform him, but don’t say he hates gays (especially when HE DIDN’T DRINK A RED STRIPE). I imagine you all at Queerty don’t have anything that’s made in China due to it’s human rights violations… or do you only care about the mistreatment of one group?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darby
      Darby

      Too many comments on here already, but remember that the cop choose Blue Moon. Which is owned by Coors. Who has a not-so-great relationship with the gay community.

      Both dudes chose poorly.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 9:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      Didn’t read all of the comments, but Gates is gay, which didn’t appear to be mentioned He lives a couple blocks from a friend of mine and it’s well-known amoung the Harvard crowd.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomEM
      TomEM

      @Sam: That fact has not been mentioned in the mainstream media. So Prof. Gates second marriage was to a man then?

      Perhaps this was a case of “sexual orientation ‘profiling'”? Sometimes police officers can be negatively biased toward people they perceive to be not-straight.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 10:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @KD108:

      Yeah, that came up already at #38.

      If you’re squeamish about too much blood in your beer it’s probably best to stick to microbreweries.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Larry
      Larry

      Black Boss Porter, Chimay or Duvel (or all three!)…

      This reminds me of a “Southern Belle” joke I heard once:

      Charlotte, Elizabeth and Annabelle were sitting on Charlotte’s front port in Savannah, GA, when Charlotte offered a challenge:
      “Everybody, let’s each pick the name of a soft drink to use as a nickname for our husbands!”
      “I’ll go first!” Annabelle said. “I’ll call my husband Mountain Dew because he comes from Appalachia, and he loves to do-do-do it all the time! Your turn, Charlotte.”
      “All right,” Charlotte said. “I’ll call mine 7 Up because he’s 7 inches and always up!”
      “I’ll call my husband Jack Daniels,” Elizabeth said.
      “You can’t use Jack Daniels,” Charlotte replied. “Jack Daniels is a hard liquor.”
      “That’s my Jack Daniels,” Elizabeth said.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • osocubano
      osocubano

      Slow news day again, huh?

      Jul 31, 2009 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      It was noted in the news report that Professor Henry “Skip” Gates sipped on Sam Adams Light. This story should be retracted or name of beer strike-through like when Queerty make so many editorial gaffes! Queerty seem to profit from a Gay racial divide.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PJ
      PJ

      @tricky ricky: Actually, The Huffington Post noted that Gates drank Sam Addams.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      He had a Samuel Adams beer and not a Red Stripe. Just to be clear.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Well, I think you’re just wrong here. First of all, regardless of whether or not factory farming is an important part of agriculture, that in itself isn’t an excuse for how animals are treated in factory farms, nor the impact that factory farms have on the environment (they are far more destructive to it than they are beneficial–which they’re not).

      And, it’s really not true that we were or are ever in a serious competition with deer and wolves (an endangered species) for land and food. Sure, wolves could pose a problem to farmers in terms of eating their livestock (and not all of it–or even a significant portion of it), but the farmers hunted them into near extinction as a result. So that’s not really what I’d call competition.

      Once again, it is the experiential factor that is most important in the meat industry. There is no excuse for the amount of suffering animals endure in factory farms when alternatives are available. Even in cases where livestock is necessary to kill and eat, there is no excuse for torturing animals while they’re being slaughtered. None. Second to that, in developed nations where options are available, the question of whether or not one has the right to eat their flesh simply for pleasure, not survival is relevant.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But to a greater or lesser degree everything suffers, and everything does eventually die (and that is a good thing).

      But this has nothing to do with opposition to factory farming and the meat industry.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      I still think the cop was wrong to arrest a man in his own home. That sounds more appropriate for East Germany during the Soviet era.

      No doubt the Prof went over the top with his name-calling but can’t the cop grow up and accept that?

      I would love to have seen a black cop arresting the white Chief of Cambridge Police in his own home!

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Did I not say clearly enough (or enough times) that I oppose factory farming and the excesses of the meat industry? I am not sure who you are arguing with, but it is not with me. I live not too far from some mega pig farms, and am quite aware of the effect they have on the environment.

      I am only saying that it would be difficult, and not too ecologically sound to try to remove animals from agriculture entirely. And it is also a fact that one way or another we wind up killing animals. The only way to avoid doing so is to reduce our own population, stop driving cars, shut down our cities and abandon our houses.

      And wolves are most definitely our competition – for space if not for food. It is that same competition for space that has driven grizzlies back into the high rockies.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      It’s not competition for land with wolves, and really never was. They are endangered species–hunted into near extinction (that’s not a competition–that’s a massacre). And now with modern farming and livestock techniques, it is simply not an issue.

      I think if animals could be removed, they should be. Because there is simply no way to justify taking their lives for pleasure, not survival. They have rights, too. They can be. First, eating meat isn’t very healthy. Secondly, most third world countries consider it a luxury, not a staple. And that’s primarily it and always has been–a luxury. They don’t process and eat nearly the amount we do, and certainly not in factory farms.

      And it’s a fact that we kill animals now–but not one way or another. IT’s not necessary that we kill animals to eat them. And it wouldn’t require us terminating driving, and using electricity or shrinking our population–not at all.

      If you want to talk about pollution not related to the meat industry and the decision to continue eating meat or not, that’s a separate issue. And it’s not a more immediate concern right now considering how my pollution the global meat industry generates.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Look TANK, we’re taking up far too much of this thread on off-topic stuff.

      Sorry to resort to your tactic of shutting down debate, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t know what you are talking about on this one… I assume its because you live in a big city and don’t have too much experience with how animals and humans interact in the real world.

      Plus, you aren’t really listening to me (as usual) and this is getting boring.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      LOL! I think it’s clear that you’re totally ignorant of the fierce competition that wolves and humans undergo for land and resources…when one species is verging on extinction (wolves) as a direct result of that “competition”, it seems that competition for land doesn’t really exist anymore. And given modern farming techniques and technology, competition for land is not an issue.

      The same for any other species. We don’t compete with other species for land–we take it, and we use as we see fit. That’s the track record.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      I mean, the reality is that not only don’t we not compete for land and resources with any other species (we just take what we want), we also use any other species as we see fit, too. The suggestion that we’re locked in some kind of struggle for resources with other species is preposterous. There’s no competition occurring–we take it all, and we leave nothing.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Glad that I don’t drink anymore. My GERD doesn’t allow me to.

      Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RainaWeather
      RainaWeather

      oye como va…

      Jul 31, 2009 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Don
      Don

      Ahh but did anyone actually see what he ended up drinking???? With the Drink America push from Boston’s Sam Adams, if you saw the pictures he was drinking Sam Adams trying to get in good with Bostonians!!

      Aug 1, 2009 at 12:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.