In an article titled Calling All Carnivores, the New York Times Magazine issued a challenge to its readers in early April, asking them to make a case for why it's ethical to eat meat, illustrating yet again the liberal bias of the mainstream media. In true liberal media fashion, the New York Times has succeeded in promoting the farthest, most radical left-wing idea contrived only in the disconnected ivory tower of Academia.
In recent years, vegetarians -- and to an even greater degree vegans, their hard-core inner circle -- have dominated the discussion about the ethics of eating... In response, those who love meat have had surprisingly little to say, the article read.
They act as if this is a shock. This might be a surprise to the Times, but mainstream America feels no need to justify eating meat. Rather, for most people, it doesn't even cross their minds. I, for one, don't think twice about the ethics of what I'm doing when I pick up my Taco Bell Crunch Wrap Supreme.
Instead of acknowledging what is the norm, the Times embraces and promotes the contrived, deceptive, norm; essentially, that the vegan way of life is the right way, and, with their outright hostility to carnivores, suggests that theirs is wrong. The embedded conclusion is: It is unethical to eat meat. The challenge is: Tell us why this conclusion is wrong.
Not only does Times push its ideas on its readers through these embedded conclusions, they make the playing field unfair for anyone wishing to challenge them. All submissions must pass the completely biased panel, including judges like Peter Singer, Michael Pollan, and Jonathan Safran Foer, authors of Animal Liberation, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and Eating Animals respectively.
So, I've decided that if the Times insists on pushing its conclusions on us, I have a few embedded conclusions of my own that I'd like for them to address.
Why is it ethical to strap your children and grandchildren with more than 15 trillion dollars in debt? Why is it moral to kill unborn children who survive a botched abortion, otherwise known as infanticide? How is it fair to force Christians to take down manger scenes and Merry Christmas signs while other faiths are given a free pass to do as they please? What makes it OK to confiscate 30 percent of an individual's hard-earned income (the proposed Buffet Rule) and give it to someone who chooses to sit home and subsist on government benefits?
I challenge the New York Times to ask its readership just one of these questions.
As for the judges? Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.
And the winner's prize? A sound, sober, and logical mind.
Kayleigh McEnany is a writer and political activist who graduated from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and studied at Oxford University. She is the founder of www.RealReaganConservative.com. She writes every Tuesday for the International Business Times.