Really an interesting point. The famously cynical Billy Wilder directed his first movie about an idea kind of along those lines. (It was called "Ace in the Hole."). A cynical reporter from back east is stuck in a small Western town. When he hears about a miner trapped underground, he sets out to get back to the bigtime by inflating the story, only to have it turn out turn on him. Time for a present-day version?  

Thinking about Kristof's piece reminded me of a quote about how people respond to this sor to thing that I've seen attributed to Stalin:

"A single death is a tragedy, 10,000 deaths is a statistic."

Sounds like the screenwriter who put together "Ace in the Hole" understood it too.

"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."

Nicholas Kristof's work as a journalist and activist, starting with his coverage of the Tien An Men massacre nearly 20 years ago, and now including visits to Darfur and Pakistan (where he is interested in the rights of women in Muslim countries), has been remarkably heroic and prophetic.

But I regret the tone of the column from which JMG quotes.

And in general I regret the morally superior attitude of activists who feel that the value of their activism depends on their assembling an army at their backs, and then feel bitter resentment when people fail to fall into ranks.

These activists -- including many in the Gristmill community, needless to say -- are very sophisticated, thoughtful, admirable people.  So, surely they are wise enough to see beyond the evil, depressing trap, that the only way to evaluate their activism is by measuring the strength of the movement that they have fomented?

In the case of Darfur, I think Kristof has in fact already inspired a very powerful, generous and focused movement.  It is mightily unfair of him to revert, as it were, to that unfortunate 60s sentiment, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem," when in fact it is the Bush administration that has bollixed up our ability to work freely and effectively beyond our borders.

And meanwhile, affection for animals and concern for their welfare ought always to be encouraged.  I think highly of Kristof, but I have lost a good deal of respect for him, now that he has mocked the friends of Knut and Pale Male.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Very well put, Karen.

Being a remarkably uncharismatic member of the North American megafauna, with, I suspect, some promise as a source of sausages and a pastrami loaf, even a holiday haunch, I follow you, that we should do our best to look beyond charisma, when we pay attention to the suffering of animals.

My present concern is fishes, both bony (e.g. sardines) and cartilaginous (e.g. sharks) (who are quite distinct taxa, actually, at least as distinct as mammals and birds).  In the current animal-loving fashion, "charisma" seems to extend as far as turtles: sea turtles, and Galapagos tortoises.  Maybe occasionally a bit further, to include treefrogs, who are indeed very cute.

Unclear if other reptiles and amphibians get any love, by association.

Unclear also, why "fish" and "seafood" are considered no more ethically significant than grass on a lawn needing mowing.

Nay indeed: We have recently read here that the poor of the world need protein and omega-3 oils!, n'est-ce pas?, so let us slaughter all the fish and feed them to them.  : (

Really, we can do better than that.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!