In a recent episode of Sarah Palin‘s reality show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, she hunts and kills a Caribou, which has created a lot of buzz. Now Palin is being both criticized and defended for engaging in hunting.
One of the most vitriolic criticisms has come from Aaron Sorkin‘s Huffington Post article, in which he (among other things) compares Palin’s hunting to Michael Vick‘s dog fighting. Sorkin contends that although he eats meat, wears leather, and uses other animal products, he can still criticize Palin because he feels bad about the death of animals (though not bad enough to stop eating/using them) and she doesn’t. You can read the article here.
Meanwhile, Jezebel.com’s Anna North has written a defense of Palin’s hunt, arguing that eating factory-farmed meat is more problematic than hunting from environmental, health, and animal rights reasons. Since it is clear from the video that she plans to eat the animal she hunted, North argues that the criticisms of Palin’s hunting are unwarranted. You can read the article (which also includes a clip of the hunting scene) here.
So here’s an opportunity for some last extra credit comments. Who’s argument do you find more persuasive and why? What are your opinions on this issue?