Case in point: back in September, Stephen brought in some “pretty beer girls” to serve the troops during a special, week-long military appreciation edition of The Colbert Report, culminating in a guest appearance by Vice President Joe Biden as a hot dog vendor:

This was followed the next day by a sexy dude dressed in a hot dog suit, “for the lady troops”:

Naturally, PETA was not pleased:

[Neither was I - that is, when I watched the show many a month later (it aired when I was on vacation in NY) - but I didn't see fit to write a press release about it. It doesn't take a marketing genius to know that the general public will view this as so much opportunistic bandwagon-jumping and/or an "attack" on the troops. YOU MUST SUPPORT THE TROOPS AT ALL COSTS! BY WHICH I MEAN NEVER EVER NEVER QUESTION A MOVE MADE BY THE U.S. MILITARY! Like duh.]

Anyhow, I promise to be better in keeping up with this stuff in the New Year. In this vein, I come bearing two more recent clips:

On Monday’s show, Stephen did an “exposé” of Caboodle Ranch, “The Enemy Within.” Located in Lee, Florida, the 30-acre feline rescue group provides sanctuary to 650 cats – and counting. Founder Craig Grant hopes to expand the rescue to over 1,000 cats before the end of 2011; as Stephen points out, “that’s three cats for every throat in the town of Lee.”

SCARY!

Also on Monday, The Daily Show featured a piece on San Francisco’s Happy Meal “ban” (scare quotes because it’s not a ban per se; toys in kid’s meals are still allowed, just as long as the meal in question meets certain nutritional requirements). Libertarians especially will enjoy Aasif Mandvi’s interview with San Francisco Councilman Eric Mar, which includes a rather sizable nailing (starting at 3:02).

Regardless of your opinion on this specific piece of legislation, it’s largely symbolic; a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed. While advertising targeted at children is problematic, the so-called “Happy Meal Ban” still fails to tackle much larger issues, many of which are structural in nature: artificially cheap meat, dairy and egg products due to taxpayer-funded subsidies, both overt (farm aid) and hidden (lax environmental regulations and enforcement); the concentration of cheap, fast food joints in low-income urban areas, coupled with the dearth of grocers in the same; inadequate school funding – again, particularly in low-income areas, which lack the tax bases of wealthier districts – that in turn negatively impacts the school lunch menu; cultural attitudes which hold that children inherently dislike healthy foods, particularly fruits and vegetables, thus acting as self-fulfilling prophecies; etc., etc., etc.

That said, this nerd would love a Crappy Meal, preferably with a Hillary Clinton action figure. The recording should play nothing but her shrill, castrating, cackle of a laugh, which in its bitchy abandon is music to this man-hating feminist’s ears. It can even double as a rape defense device, seeing as how the mere sound of Hill’s voice has the power to make a man’s junk shrivel up and fall off. Better than a rape whistle, yo.

That’s my take, anyhow. What say you?

—————–

Videos in this post:

The Colbert Report, Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Been There, Won That – Joe Biden & Yogi Berra
Joe Biden serves hot dogs to the returning troops, Stephen introduces the greatest toilet on Earth, and Yogi Berra determines when the Iraq war will be over. (09:07)

The Colbert Report, Thursday, September 9, 2010
Been There, Won That – Jim Webb
Stephen thanks the veterans with a sexy hot dog man and tries to get them jobs, with Jim Webb’s help. (07:16)

The Colbert Report, Tuesday, September 14, 2010
PETA Criticizes Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden handed out hot dogs to America’s returning troops, not meat. (02:34)

The Colbert Report, Monday, January 3, 2011
The Enemy Within – Caboodle Ranch
In Lee, Florida, Craig Grant trains his 650 cats to take over America’s government, law enforcement and failing schools. (05:32)

The Daily Show, Monday January 3, 2011
Daily Show: Mandvi – San Francisco’s Happy Meal Ban
After San Francisco bans toys from Happy Meals, Aasif Mandvi introduces kids to the brand new Crappy Meal.

George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead (2007) is your standard, post-apocalyptic zombie fare. As the dead begin to reanimate, a group of film students and their professor flees down the East Coast in a rickety RV. The story is told from the vantage point of the students, in particular Jason, the aspiring documentarian of the group.

Nonhuman animals don’t make an appearance in Diary of the Dead – really, there’s not one guard dog or zombie cat to be found – and yet, the movie’s ending speaks to what I’ve been feeling with increasing urgency as of late. (Cue images of the “oil” spill in the Gulf Coast, complete with hand-wringing about oil-soaked pelicans, torched turtles belonging to endangered species – and the “livelihoods” of the “fishermen” who themselves eke out a living by slaughtering nonhuman animals by the millions. “RIP Gumbo,” indeed.)

The final scene, narrated by Jason’s girlfriend, Debra (who took up his cause after he was mauled to death by a zombie; no spoiler alert needed, as she refers to him in the past tense throughout the film’s voiceover), turns the camera’s lens inward, into the heart of humanity.

Click here to watch the movie’s ending (skip ahead to 6:50; sorry, embedding disabled!), or keep reading for a transcript.

Jason once said he thought he could help. Maybe even save some lives.

This is the last thing he downloaded before he died.

[Cue: homemade video footage, downloaded from the internet.]

A couple of hometown Joes who were now shooting targets.

[Two white, middle-aged men, dressed in flannel and hunting jackets, swigging on beers while brandishing handguns...]

That day they used people.

Dead people.

You know, just for fun.

[...laughingly shoot at reanimated humans, i.e., zombies.]

There was one target that different from the rest.

A woman, tied by her hair to the branch of a tree.

The boys had this one set up just for kicks.

They got out their favorite 12 gauge and…

[BOOM! A shotgun blast rips through the zombie woman's mouth, splitting her face in two. Her torso falls to the ground as her partially decapitated head continues to swing from the tree. Eyes, staring - accusatory in their blankness.]

Are we worth saving?

You tell me.

In a world in which it’s “Us” versus “Them” – “Us” and “The Other” – all manner of cruelties can be justified: Pigeon shoots. Canned hunts. Leghold traps. Farmed animals. Forced pregnancy and birth. Stolen milk, anemic babies, grieving mothers. Enslavement. Torture. An early and merciless death.

And that’s before the shit hits the fan.

Tell me: who will you become after the death of death?

In honor of Earth Day, Biz Markie and the Climate Protection Action Fund want you to rap (or lip sync) along to a “clean energy” version of his ’80s classic “Just a Friend.” Repower America will provide the lyrics and instructions; you just need a web cam and an internet connection. Here are the details:

What do Earth Day, YouTube’s home page and a rap classic have in common?

You.

On April 22, we’ll be releasing a remix of the top-ten-hit song “Just a Friend” performed by Biz Markie and Repower America supporters from across the country. It’s going to be featured all day on YouTube’s home page — and you can be part of the fun!

You don’t need a perfect singing voice to get involved — and for that matter, you don’t even need to know the song. In fact, the chorus to Biz Markie’s song is famous for being beautifully off-key. If you’re still not convinced that you’re ready to bust out rapping on tape, just lip-sync or dance in your video. (Or get your kids to.) The only thing that matters is that you participate — in whatever way works for you.

We’ve got everything else you need to sing along — lyrics, music and a video showing you how to record your own version.

Check it out and add your voice to the Biz Markie Earth Day remix right now: cpaf.RepowerAmerica.org/Remix

Naturally, the “eco-friendly” lyrics ignore the role of meat, egg and dairy production in climate change – which is well in keeping with environmental organizations’ unwillingness to address human privilege and its many attendant ills. That said, perhaps some of you more creative types can work a reference or two to veganism into your own video? If you’re interested, you have to move fast – the deadline for submissions is midnight tomorrow night, April 18th. Eastern time, I presume?

Though it’s taken me far too long, here’s the promised writeup of Claire Danes’s February 10th appearance on The Colbert Report.

Seeing as Danes was making the rounds in support of her new biopic, Temple Grandin, I expected to come away from this interview with a knot of frustration and anger in my stomach. In fact, I actually put off watching it for this very reason. (Which is no small feat for a fangirl of my caliber, I tell you what!) Happily, as with the Foer interview, I was pleasantly surprised by Stephen’s treatment of the subject matter.

As you can see in the video (and partial transcript) below, Stephen plays the devil’s (animals’, really) advocate, maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism in the face of claims about Grandin’s “affinity” for and “love” of nonhuman animals. He equates killing and eating cows with killing and eating dogs, to horrifically comical effect. And, best of all, the phrase “animal rights” is not uttered once, in contrast to reports of previous appearances in which Danes praised Grandin as an “animal rights advocate” – and, likewise, described herself as a supporter of animal rights (their right not to be killed and eaten seemingly aside).

[On a side note - Dear fluffyfun "green" and/or vegetarian celebrity gossip sites: can y'all please stop referring to Grandin as an "animal rights activist"? She is no such thing, and to refer to her brand of "advocacy" as rights-based is to shift the entire debate towards the exploitative. And your thoughts on welfare reform? Totally irrelevant. This is a factual dispute, not a matter of opinion. Thanks much!]

While I hadn’t intended to write such a lengthy transcript, once I started typing, I couldn’t stop. Stephen’s quips – and Danes’s reactions – are just that good. If you can, you really need to watch the video to fully appreciate Danes’s flailing responses to Stephen’s gentle-yet-snarky nudging.

It’s all after the jump, yo.

Danes: “[S]he’s also really interested in animals and animal science and designed a system in which cows would walk calmly to their deaths – so they wouldn’t be mistreated and prodded and it was also really economically efficient for the cattle industry.” [...]

Colbert: “So I have her to thank for my constant intake of beef.”

“Yes, you do! You do!”

“So it’s really kind of a pro-business story, isn’t it?”

“Exactly, yeah. It is, is it.”

“Does she – does she – does she…empathize with the cow?”

“Yeah, I think to a certain extent…[in response to audience laughter]…well, yes, she wants very much for them to have a good experience while they’re alive. She doesn’t want them to suffer.”

“Yes, ‘a good experience’ until it becomes ‘the worst possible experience.’” [Here, Danes laughs along with the audience, seemingly at the absurdity of her own - and/or Grandin's - logic.] “Because I empathize with my dog, and I’m not sure whether my idea of expressing my affection would be to open a puppy slaughter house.”

“Yeah, I know. I mean, I know it seems kind of paradoxical, but, but, yeah, she believes that while they’re here, we have a responsibility to make sure that they have…a good time.”

Videos in this post

The Colbert Report – Wednesday, February 10, 2010 – Claire Danes
Claire Danes describes her role as an autistic woman who designed a system where cows can walk easily to their death. (05:51)
 

Even before the flakes settled, right-wing pundits were pointing to the snowstorms that have slammed the East Coast this year as evidence that “global warming”

[CLIMATE CHANGE! Temperatures may or may not rise depending on one's geographic location, air and ocean currents, etc. In fact, some scientists worry that melting polar ice caps might actually plunge the northeastern U.S. and northwestern European coasts into a mini-ice age. Global warming does not mean that every location on earth will resemble a sauna! End: rant.]

is a hoax and/or has been definitely discredited. Naturally, these gleeful squeals of triumph are usually accompanied by multiple smug, self-serving jabs at Al Gore. (Because the man IS global warming itself, dontchaknow! And I say this as a vegan with her own complex, ambivalent feelings towards the meat-guzzling Gore.)

Anyhow, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a little fun at the expense of these climate change deniers – and in back-to-back shows, at that. While I don’t have time to type up transcripts, I have embedded the videos below, after the jump. (Too many videos on the main page makes Firefox crash. I blame Comedy Central and its clunky video formats. IBCC!)

In an upset, I think The Daily Show staff did a better job lampooning this story than did The Colbert Report. Although, they were short one Snoopy sketch….

 
Videos in this post

The Daily Show – Wednesday February 10, 2010 – Unusually Large Snowstorm
Aasif Mandvi freezes in New York, Sam Bee feels the heat in Australia, and Jason Jones reports on the darkness everywhere.

The Colbert Report – Wednesday, February 10, 2010 – We’re Off to See the Blizzard
Based on the latest data from the Dopplest 9000 radar, Stephen can only assume that the sun has been destroyed. (04:09)

Admittedly, this is rather old news, but Jonathan Safran Foer appeared on The Colbert Report last Monday in order to discuss – what else? – Eating Animals.

[Initially, I was going to group Foer's interview with those of Claire Danes and John Durant in one big "(happy) meat peddlers" video roundup, but the Foer and Danes interviews proved a pleasant surprise - and not because of the guests! - so a dedicated post for everyone! Except for you, Durant. You're kind of a douche, and you make this galactosemic lady feel a bit like one, too. (It's not the same as lactose intolerance, but it's close enough.) But anyway, that's the backstory behind my procrastination. End: digression.]

The interview was about as frustrating as I expected on Foer’s end, e.g.,

* “I wouldn’t necessarily say you should become a vegetarian [...] I would say you should eat less meat.”

* [When asked if he would eat a hot dog] “Maybe the hot dogs they made 50 years ago.” (as opposed to those produced today)

To his credit, Foer does manage to stay on message and squeeze in a number of pertinent facts re: animal agriculture, however, in downplaying the need for vegetarianism, he negates whatever points he may have scored with the audience. (i.e., if animal cruelty is wrong, and even “happy meat” products are cruel…go vegetarian on Mondays after 6 PM? Say what now?)

And veganism? Fuhgeddaboudit! The word “vegan” was not uttered once during the entire 5+ minute interview.

Luckily, in his quest to be the most ridiculous caricature of a self-delusional meat-eater he could be, Colbert provided some of the more trenchant quips in the exchange. To wit:

* “I pay the top dollar for my free-range chicken and my cage-free veal and my non-hormone beef and my un-clubbed seal meat. What more do you want?!”

* [When told by Foer that free-range and similar labeling is "BS"] “No, free-range means that the chickens get up in the morning and they run over fields. Fields of flowers! And then at the end of the day they make love, and from this lovemaking one single egg emerges. And then – shhhhh! – when they’re asleep, cuddling with each other, a little pillow talk, the farmer comes in and takes the one egg – making sure that it’s not fertilized! – and puts it under a lamp. And then he coddles it, and he puts it, and he…air, through a jet, and it comes…to the supermarket.”

Genius! And to think, Jon Stewart gets the lion’s share of liberal media love. Sniff.

Anyhow, I was unable to find a full transcript online, but I have embedded the video below. Enjoy, but be forewarned: Colbert ends the interview with a plate of bacon. Probably he’s mocking the many recent bacon trends, but it’s a gross display nonetheless. (I can tolerate your Catholicism, Stephen, but if we’re ever to be married, you’ve got to give up the sentient stuff.)

Videos in this post

The Colbert Report – Monday, February 8, 2010 – Jonathan Safran Foer
Jonathan Safran Foer says the U.S. farm system is perfectly antithetical to American values. (05:22)

“For my next bit, I shall kick a puppy. Bolstered by your applause, I may urinate on it as well.”
——————————

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) appeared on The Daily Show last night, ostensibly to discuss health care reform. At one point, the conversation turned towards politics, with Stewart referencing Weiner’s failed 2005 mayoral race against Bloomberg, as well as his decision not to run in 2009, after Bloomberg successfully petitioned the NY City Council to extend existing term limits. The conversation quickly devolved, with two generally progressive men comparing Bloomberg to an enslaved animal, and snickering over animal abuse culminating in murder:

Stewart: Are you – uh – running for mayor? My feeling was you could have defeated Bloomberg in this cycle – uh, but, you did not run. Are you gonna run the next time

Weiner: I could have – I would’ve beaten Bloomberg like a rented mule, [cue raucous audience laughter] but I decided, I uh…[pause for audience cheering; Weiner laughs, Stewart nods head in agreement]

Stewart: Okay, how much does it cost to rent that mule? Because…

Weiner: It’s an expensive mule.

There’s so much speciesism packed into these four (three, really) short sentences; where to begin?

- Mocking abused and enslaved animals? Check.

- Making light of animal abuse? Check.

- Intimating that you yourself would like to beat an animal to death? Check.

- Objectifying a sentient being by referring to him/her as an “it”? Check.

- Unquestioningly referring to an animal as rentable property? Check.

As much as I dislike similar expressions (e.g., “I don’t have a dog in this fight.”; “Let’s kill two birds with one stone.”), comically joking about “beating a rented mule” has got to be one of the worst of the bunch. The image conjured up by this phrase – that of an exhausted, elderly “pack” animal, already worked to the brink of death, being bought, paid for, and used like a punching bag on which to take out one’s frustrations – is pitiful and sickening. To laugh at such misery and suffering is…well, it’s fucked up. Serial killer fucked up.

To be fair, I doubt that Weiner, Stewart and others who callously employ these phrases spend much time deconstructing the comparisons they’re making. But ignorance isn’t an excuse. And words matter.

Video after the jump (fast forward to 4:30 for the fauxgressive bravado):

Alas, Jon Stewart/Comedy Central/the Daily Show interns found this “punch line” so hi-larious that they actually featured it on the video blurb and description.

After watching this interview, I find myself wanting to hit someone, but it sure as hell isn’t an innocent mule, rented or otherwise.

—————–
Videos in this post

The Daily Show – February 4, 2010
Anthony Weiner: If Anthony Weiner had run for mayor of New York City, he would have beaten Mike Bloomberg like a rented mule. (6.52)

For once, I’m actually happy that I don’t get HBO – otherwise, I’d feel obligated to watch and report on Temple Grandin, a new biopic starring Claire Danes that’s premiering on the cable channel this weekend. (Spared by own cheapness!) As if the title alone isn’t enough to turn all the vegans and vegetarians in the audience off (what’s that? you’ve never heard of Temple Grandin, you say?), behold American Humane’s gag-worthy marketing materials:

Movie Tells Inspirational Life Story of American Humane Advisor
‘Temple Grandin’ Airs Feb. 6 on HBO

HBO will premiere an original film based on the inspirational, true story of Temple Grandin, starring Claire Danes, on Feb. 6, 2010. (Check your local listing for the broadcast time in your area.)

Temple Grandin paints a picture of a young woman’s perseverance and determination while struggling with the isolating challenges of autism. Grandin became a successful doctor in animal science through her unique connection to animals and is now a world-renowned consultant in the field. She is widely recognized within the animal welfare and livestock-handling industries as a pioneer in the ethical treatment of animals.

If by “ethical” you mean “killing more efficiently.” Similarly, Grandin’s “unique connection” to “food” animals is akin to that of a serial killer to her victims. Tomato, tomahto.

Grandin is also a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the American Humane® Certified farm animal program. American Humane Certified, originated by the American Humane Association, is the nation’s pre-eminent and fastest-growing monitoring, auditing and labeling program that attests to the humane care and handling of animals raised for food. Find out more about the American Humane Certified program at www.thehumanetouch.org.

Or just bypass the “happy meat” propaganda and go straight to humanemyth.org.

Grandin is also the best-selling author of Thinking in Pictures, Animals in Translation and Humane Livestock Handling. She recently authored an article titled “The Importance of Farm Animal Welfare” for The National Humane Review.

Vegans the internets over remain unimpressed.

In producing the film, HBO also engaged the services of American Humane’s Film & Television Unit, which is the exclusive monitoring and granting agency to award the coveted “No Animals Were Harmed”® end-credit disclaimer. The production followed American Humane’s strict Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media, had an American Humane Certified Animal Safety Representative™ on set to ensure animal safety and welfare, and earned the famous assurance to viewers that “no animals were harmed” in the making of the movie. Learn more about American Humane’s Film & Television Unit.

Wherein “accidental” deaths don’t qualify as “harmful,” and the AHA has about as much authority (or will) to enforce its guidelines on film sets as the USDA does to uphold its own animal “welfare” and worker safety regulations in slaughterhouses.

Clearly, the American Humane Association and its Film and Television Unit merit a whole series of posts, well beyond the group’s dubious support of a woman who’s dedicated her life to slaughtering sentient beings in the name of “welfare.” But let’s save that for another day.

Returning to Temple Grandin, here’s a trailer for the film:

My initial thoughts:

- My ‘tween girl crush on Claire Danes (hello, My So-Called Life! Romeo + Juliet, holla!) notwithstanding, I hate, hate, hate her in this movie. Marble mouth, anyone? And what’s with the forced quirkiness? She’s autistic, ferchrissakes, not British. Or a CAPS TALKER!

- Worse still, I hate Danes for making this movie – for thinking that Grandin is a worthy/inspiring/interesting enough individual to dedicate several months of one’s life to telling and even celebrating her life story. The woman facilitates murder for a living. Get a clue, feminists and dis/ability advocates!

- The association of disability (specifically, autism) with deep spirituality and an innate connection to nature is patronizing and insulting. Seriously, people, stereotypes are stereotypes, whether superficially positive or not. Knock it the fuck off already.

- [Updated to add:] Casting an actor without a disability to portray an individual with a disability is arguably similar to casting a white actor to play a person of color, blackface and all. Differently abled actors are ready, willing and able to appear on screen – and need the work more than their non-disabled counterparts, y’all. If autistic people are so magical, hire one.

- Are those cows actual “livestock” or “acting” animals? Perhaps they were slaughtered, dismembered and processed into meatstuffs on-site, so that Danes could better understand her subject’s career accomplishments? In all seriousness, I wonder if she visited a slaughterhouse as part of her “research”? (Asks the blogger who’s too lazy to research her own question.) Because, if so, her willingness to go through with the film after witnessing Grandin’s “good deeds” up close and personal would make her all the more whacked.

- If being processed into hamburgers is so awesome and noble and meaningful, why isn’t Grandin lining up?

- Methinks we need to hire Echo (RIP, Dollhouse) to liberate those cows before Grandin leads them all to their “happy,” “humane” deaths. That, I’d watch.

* Feeling stabby yet?

Caution: Spoilers through Season 5 below.

Last year, I wrote a (relatively) brief summary of the few animal-friendly plot lines found in seasons one through four of Lost. Animal advocacy issues are rarely addressed in the show, but look closely, and you’re bound to discover occasional gem: lovable Kate is a vegetarian, while show villain Anthony Cooper enjoys blood sports such as hunting. The Losties (understandably) took to hunting wild boar for sustenance early on, but the slaughter quickly ceased when they discovered the Dharma food drops. And who could forget Sayid’s memories of Amira?

While nonhuman animals didn’t much figure into the season five story arc, one episode in particular stuck with me. In fact, I meant to write about “He’s Our You” (Season 5, Episode 11) months ago, but somehow it kept getting placed on the back burner. With the final season of Lost set to begin tonight, what better time to revisit an old episode?

As I noted previously, Sayid’s story lines oftentimes revolve around the themes of forgiveness and vengeance, with Sayid struggling to come to grips with his strikingly violent past. As a soldier in the Iraq Republican Guard, he was captured, co-opted, and trained as an “interrogator” (read: torturer) by American forces during Operation Desert Storm. At the close of the war, his “skills” were put to use and turned against his fellow Iraqi citizens in the Republican Guard, where he was promoted to the Intelligence division and tasked with torturing dissidents and political prisoners – including his long lost childhood love, Nadia (as well as the aforementioned Amira). Torn between his allegiance to his country and his moral qualms, he helped Nadia to escape, but could not bring himself to go with her.

Once on the island, Sayid (somewhat reluctantly) put his interrogation skills to use several times (as if fate would not allow him a break from his past – even when stranded on a lost island!), first torturing an innocent but obstinate Sawyer, and later, a guilty but cunning Ben Linus. During the “A-list missions” and battles with the Others, Sayid proved to be a valuable military asset. After escaping from the island, Sayid reunited with Nadia, only to see her murdered not a year after their wedding. The rest of Sayid’s time off the island is devoted to hunting her killers down, one by one, and exacting revenge. This came with an uneasy alliance with Ben, on the premise that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” However, it’s still unclear whether the men Ben directed Sayid to kill had anything to do with Nadia’s murder – or if Sayid was being conned.

Flash forward to Sayid’s return to the island – circa 1977. Here, a lost and confused Sayid struggles with the reason why he’s been brought back to the island; what is his purpose here? After meeting 12-year-old Ben Linus, Sayid has an epiphany: if he was to kill Ben, then the young, innocent Ben would not live to grow into the evil, adult Ben that the Losties know and hate – and thus most of the (present-day) events in Lost would never occur. But can Sayid really murder a child in cold blood?

“He’s Our You” deals with Sayid’s inner struggle over this complex moral dilemma. As with earlier episodes, Sayid wonders whether he’ll ever be able to escape his past as a torturer and killer; are these merely things that he has done – bad things, of course, but things that can be left in the past – or are they what he is? To what extent do Sayid’s sins define him as a person? And, given the American occupying forces’ role in shaping his destiny, is Sayid a natural born or man-made killer?

In this episode, the audience learns that Sayid worked for Ben as a sort of “assassin” after Nadia’s death. We’re also (finally!) treated to flashbacks of Sayid’s childhood (whereas we saw many of the Losties as children in earlier seasons), including this particularly disturbing memory:

[Chickens clucking]

Title card: Tikrit, Iraq

MAN: [Pulling a boy alongside him.] [Subtitle: Come on! You are not a child anymore. Act like a man. You must kill one.] [Gestures toward a chicken coop.]

BOY: [Glances sadly at the chickens. Hesitantly:] [Subtitle: I...I don't want to.]

MAN: [Sternly] [Subtitle: You will do as your father asks.]

BOY: [Subtitle: No!]

MAN: [Subtitle: Listen to what I’m telling you! Come on, kill one of them! You will stay outside until you do!]

[The man leaves the boy standing in front of the chicken coop with knife in hand.]

[Smaller boy approaches from behind, lays a hand on the larger boy's shoulder. They look at each other. The smaller boy opens his hand to reveal a handful of chicken feed. The smaller boy enters the coop and lays the feed on the ground in front of him. A bird approaches, which the boy lifts into his arms. The boy snaps the bird’s neck while the other boy looks wincingly on. The smaller boy brings the bird out of the coop and offers it to the larger boy, who takes it. The MAN reapproaches the pair.]

MAN: [To the larger boy] [Subtitle: Good for you. You did it.]

BOY: [Subtitle: It wasn't me.]

MAN: [Subtitle: Well, at least one of you will be a man. [Approaches and bends down to look the smaller boy in the eyes.] Well done, Sayid.]

Transcript via Lostpedia; unfortunately, I couldn’t find a video of this individual flashback, but it is shown briefly in the recap video below:
 

Perhaps more commonly, pop culture depictions of animal abuse involve “pet” animals, such as dogs and cats (see, for example, The Butterfly Effect, in which a dog’s torture and murder is one of many pivotal/potentially life-altering moments in the narrative). And for obvious reasons: dogs and cats are familiar to us, such that we are able to see the animal on the screen (or in the latest undercover investigation) as an individual being, complete with a family, emotions and a personality, as opposed to an abstract, depersonalized object. So good on Lost for considering a “lesser” animal as one worthy of compassion and sympathy. (Even if it was incidental or accidental!)

Of course, this flashback doesn’t really “solve” Sayid’s moral dilemma, as it is open to multiple interpretations. While Sayid was, in fact, able to strangle the chicken with little display of emotion, this doesn’t necessarily brand him a born killer. His father is portrayed as “a hard man” who obviously valued an unemotional, detached, even brutal version of masculinity – and, consequently, tried to instill these values in his sons. Raised in another environment, Sayid might have become an entirely different man. Additionally, it’s not clear that he took any pleasure in ending the chicken’s life; and as an adult, Sayid struggles with his roles as a soldier, interrogator, killer and assassin. He rarely kills because he wants to (the obvious exception being his stint as Linus’s hit man), but rather because he feels as though he has to in order to achieve a loftier goal.

Likewise, is one the sum total of one’s past (mis)deeds, or is there always a chance for redemption and evolution? Sayid’s flashback shows that his history of violence is lengthy, but does not indicate whether it’s a fate he’s destined to continue in perpetuity.

Perhaps we’ll find out more in the final season of Lost (!squeal!). No spoilers, please, I probably won’t be able to watch it until Friday night!

Anyhow, on a lighter note: