Letters to the Editor

What You Say

In response to Gloria Feldscher's letter [Feedback, "All Ashlea, All the Time," Jan. 25, 2007] questioning "If you wouldn't eat a Chihuahua, why would you eat an animal arbitrarily condemned as food?" — I choose to eat cows over Chihuahuas for the following reasons:

1. Cows are easier to catch than Chihuahuas.

2. There is not enough meat in a typical Chihuahua to make it worth the effort to cook.

3. Recipes for Chihuahua are severely lacking in cookbooks. Other than Fried Chihuahua and Moo Shoo Chihuahua, I've yet to find anything that is truly earth-shattering.

4. An average adult human would need to eat approximately eight Chihuahuas for a filling meal. Between my wife, daughter and I, we're talking a minimum of 20 Chihuahuas for a decent dinner, which gets expensive and timely, as it is not easy to get the meat off the bones. An average cow could feed many more people, which makes it more humane to kill one cow and feed 50 people than kill a few hundred Chihuahuas to feed the same.

That said, the one nice thing about cooking Chihuahuas is that they can be presented whole on the plate with a grape tomato in the mouth, much like one sees a whole pig at a banquet with an apple clenched in its jaws.

Mike Ginsberg
Queen Village

Reading about Ashlea Halpern's arbitrary decision to eat meat, even though she was clearly repulsed by the thought of eating an animal, was like reading about a cutter who deliberately inflicts pain on herself as a coping mechanism [Food, "Death of a Vegetarian," Jan. 18, 2007]. Although I don't understand what possessed Halpern to force herself to start eating meat again, I do know that there are plenty of people willing to help her stop. I suggest she visit www.GoVeg.com and watch "Chew on This," a thought-provoking video listing 10 of the most compelling reasons to go, and stay, vegetarian. Then she'll see why a vegetarian diet is so much more than a conversation piece; it is a healthy way to stop animal suffering and help save the planet.

Heather Moore

Senior Writer, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

North Philadelphia Station is a paragon of neglect in the region [News, "Train Wreck," Dan Campo, Jan. 25, 2007]. A frequent R7 rider, I have often been tempted by fear to hold my breath while stopping at the station; its ghastly appearance is nothing short of terrifying at night. But these kinds of destruction don't just happen, and it sure as hell ain't Mother Nature's fault. The problem here lies in the state of the community, and our inability to clarify what ought to be done.

Generally, in these situations, we tend to just "relocate" the poor, predominately black and Latino, residents of these neighborhoods to make room for redevelopment so that property values will rise, and the wealthy, predominately white, can claim their spoils. While these high hopes for "revitalization" might mean a more aesthetically pleasing North Philly, I worry how much further down the moral privy this will send us and how harsh our penance will be when we finally are forced to make reparations to the gentrified.

Brian Goodchild
Tacony

It is Elkan Katz [Feedback, "Badges of Dishonor," Jan. 18, 2007] who should be reading the Constitution. He will find that the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."It says nothing about any organization setting its rules for membership.

Never having been interested in joining the Boy Scouts, I have not read its rules for membership. But I think that I am safe in saying that it probably wouldn't admit 75-year-old one-legged black grandmothers, either.In Mr. Katz's book, that would mean that the Boy Scouts are discriminating against the aged, handicapped, blacks and women.

If Mr. Katz doesn't like the rules, he need not apply for membership.Nor should he send in applications on behalf of his sons — or atheist daughters.

Andrew Kevorkian
West Philadelphia