Michael Pollan offers a compelling essay in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/10ANIMAL.html">New York Times Magazine</a> in which he tries to make sense of the animal rights movement, and more broadly, how humans ought to treat animals. While Pollan doesn't believe humans have a moral duty to become vegetarian, he acknowledges, as I do, that the existence of the industrial hellholes of the factory farms explains the impulse towards vegetarianism. New issue? Nah! Consider the recent Survivor Thailand episode (which I do not watch but was offered a clip of this psychological lesson) which offered a vivid look at the killing of Lucky the Chicken. The interesting part of this pop culture moment was the varied human reactions to the slaughter: some refused to witness it, while others forced themselves to see where their chicken dinner was coming from. And this is precisely where Pollan attempts to resolve the issue: while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating animals, people should be encouraged to look or even participate in the process in which living animals are transformed into meat. While this may seem morbid, it's a powerful way of enabling one to gain respect for these animals' sacrifice for the sake of one's gastronomic pleasure. I don't think I've ever met a person who wasn't disturbed at the sight of the horrible conditions these animals are subject to, and sometimes a person or two is driven to vegetarianism for a few months until the images fade, but most of us see it, go "ewwww, gross," and then head to Outback Steakhouse for dinner. Let me state that I am NOT a vegetarian, but I do get my chicken from free roaming range farms, the same with turkey. I don't eat beef at all unless someone can recommend a more natural, or organic place, even if it's on the net in which I can order from (Omaha Steaks?).