Qualifications and recommendations
link

I've gotten some really nice feedback on the Political Vegetarianism piece. I appreciate the comments. After re-reading it, I want to make one qualification. I always fight with myself when I'm writing about how many qualifications and explanations and background bits to put into any piece. I try to balance the blunt statements with a desire to not offend needlessly or be obnoxious for the sheer sport of it. Anyway, I just want to make it clear that I know that there are a number of people out there who are vegetarians for religious or ethical reasons who are serious, sober, thinking individuals, but the thing that differentiates them from the "ethical" vegetarians I was referring to is that they generally don't come off as martyrs and they don't wear their vegetarianism like a hair shirt.

With that out of the way, I found an absolutely fascinating web site last night, called Iraq the Model. It is a blog apparently run by 3 brothers in Baghdad. Their pieces on the current political activities in Iraq are, I think, unique. A note of caution, however: if you are looking for Bush-bashing, save yourself some time. These guys are supportive of Coalition efforts on behalf of the Iraqi people and spend quite a bit of time explaining why. And it isn't all grand rhetoric and ideology. Some of it is just the little things in life that are different, like this entry about a trip to a restaurant late one evening:

One of things I noticed was that most of the visitors there were apparently middle class families and this is different from what it used to be years ago as only rich families could afford to have dinner in restaurants like this one...

...You sit in a restaurant like this one and see families relaxing with their children playing and having fun late at night and you feel that there’s ‘something’ wrong in the way MSM is dealing with the Iraqi issue. I watch TV and I see hell breaking around me then I go outside and see enough normalcy AND progress to make me believe that the people in the media are not here to report how’s life going but rather they are here reporting pre-prepared stories and to be faced with something that contradicts the picture they have in their minds would be really annoying and will mean more hard work to try to find the truth or something close to it.

Like I said, fascinating. (By the way, check out the pictures of the appetizers and the maskoof being cooked.)

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, September 01 2004 08:02:05 PM

In their own words
link

I wasn't really happy with my post on Political Vegetarianism. Oh, its not the worst thing I've written, and I stand by the ideas, but I thought the support for the idea that Radical Islamists don't and won't play by our rules because their world view is antithetical to ours was a bit weak. But, as I mentioned previously, I've recently lost all my bookmarks and it was really late and I didn't have time to dig up anything more.

Tonight I've had a chance to do a bit more digging and (re)found a number of things. I also found the following piece. It is part of an essay published in a book by Majallat al-Ansar to commemorate the first anniversary of the 9/11 'raid' on New York and Washington. (This can be found, along with a number of other public statements by al-Qaida at Cryptome in a downloadable 2 mb PDF file.) I've highlighted a number of bits that I think are important.

2. The Raid and the Concept of World Peace

After Europe endured the crushing miseries of war between its mosaic of peoples, certain Western thinkers arrived at the idea of world peace. This suggests that this is a Western idea that resulted naturally from European life. Certain Arab intellectuals who are capable only of copying and following imported this idea and popularized it in Arab and Islamic intellectual circles. It has not yet gained a foothold in the real world, however. Instead, it has remained a theoretical construct that has not prevented war or established peace.

All of the institutions that have been founded to advance this goal were merely an obedient tool in the hands of powerful countries, which use them as another means of imposing their political agenda. The League of Nations failed to achieve any of the goals it was founded to achieve. The United Nations is nothing but a tool to domesticate Muslims and train them to submit gradually to the goals of the Zionist and crusader project. "The modern age we live in confirms this truth to us. Suffice it to say that imperialism grew strong only through the treachery of international institutions." This means that world peace as it is conceived of in the West is an "idealistic" idea that political leaders exploit to lull their people into a stupor. Strong countries repeat the idea to rob others of their will to fight jihad.

Most of the governments oppressing the Islamic community have participated in this deception. They popularized this myth through their official media with made-to-order intellectual products until "peace" became the only strategic option. They abolished all alternatives so that they are no longer taken into consideration. They told people that any option other than peace is a form of recklessness, or even barbarism unworthy of civilized men. This well-planned brainwashing operation aims to undo the idea of the enemy and make the Islamic community easy prey.

But the blessed raid and its aftermath was the event that pulled back the curtain to reveal to everyone that the West has its own vision of peace. It fits in only with its ideology and serves only its interests. More precisely, Western countries mean by "peace" capitulation to the Zionist will and prostration before the power of the crusaders so that the oppressed countries continue down the road of humiliating subjugation.

Naturally, Islam does not reject the idea of world peace or go in the opposite direction. It is a faith that wants to spread peace and strengthen security for all people. But Islam is a religion of content, not mendacious slogans, a faith of realistic truths, not fleeting wishes. This is why it calls for a true and realistic peace. It does not turn talk of peace into a drug that saps the rage of the oppressed. Instead, it takes a comprehensive view of peace. It grants individuals who do not fight against it, and groups that do not stand in the way of its message, their right to freedom of conviction. It guarantees them the principle of justice in rights and obligations.

Most importantly, Islam calls for a peace that does not forget that some will reject and obstruct the peace. It is a basic condition of life that people retain their differences. This is why Islam calls for peace without taming people or overturning the truths in their minds. It does not present the enemy as a friend and ally. In short, it calls for peace but does not rule out the option of war when war is justified by the Sharia.

The raid on New York and Washington is part of the war that Islam approves and considers natural. It does not contradict the principle of its call for world peace because it is not a war for war's sake with no purpose beyond a lust for killing. It is not a war waged for economic reasons or the exploitation of natural wealth, as is the case with the Zionists and crusaders. It is, instead, a military operation in the context of a declared war with open fronts between the world jihad movement (al-Qa'ida--"the base") and the United States.

I thought about commenting in detail, but I'm going to satisfy myself with the following:

This writer is correct in his assertion that World Peace (as the leftists preach it) is a Western idea. The writer is also correct in his assertion that there has been an attempt to define World Peace as the only acceptable norm. In short, the Radical Islamists don't buy into and have no vested interest in the idea of World Peace as espoused by the West. They want world peace, but only their version, in which anyone who does not believe and practice their religion as they believe and practice it is either converted, subjugated or killed.

In another part of this same essay, the author goes into great detail explaining why it was morally justified and necessary to kill the "innocents" in the World Trade Center according to Islamic Law. They encourage Muslims not to be deluded by the media hype into feeling uncomfortable about the deaths of the infidels there, but rather to celebrate.

But hey, they don't really mean it do they? I mean, if we all just visualize world peace and condemn violence they will come around, won't they?

Face it. These wolves aren't even pretending to be vegetarian.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, August 31 2004 09:44:51 PM

Political Vegetarianism
link

"Vegetarianism is harmless enough, though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness"

Robert Hutchinson

"The whole of nature, as has been said, is a conjugation of the verb to eat, in the active and passive"

W. R. Inge

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion"

W. R. Inge

So you are saying to yourself, "Alright, already. Enough with the vegetarian quotes." And, I quite agree, so I'm not likely to go looking for any more. But when I stumbled onto these the other day, they suggested a line of thought to me that I haven't been able to shake.

First, let me say that I have nothing against vegetarianism. Although I am not now, I have been a vegetarian. I was a vegetarian for about 2 years. Lest you think I am a fallen fanatic, I should tell you that I did not become a vegetarian for ethical reasons. It just seemed like it was easier to maintain the type of diet my cardiologist recommended without meat. Not that it can't be done, but I grew up eating good old, down-home mid-western comfort food (lots of grease and gravy and if you can't fry it, I don't want it) so it was easier to learn a different way of cooking than to be continually disappointed with stuff fixed "correctly" that didn't taste right.

As a side note, my first meat meal when I quit being a vegetarian wasn't a big juicy steak or something like that. I had been craving a hot dog from this little mom and pop place in town. You see, they put their dogs on a rotating cooker and if you wait til the middle of the afternoon when the last of the dogs they started cooking for the lunch rush are still on the cooker, you get a dog that has almost a crust on the outside, with really concentrated flavors, but is still juicy on the inside and they put it on a bun that looks like Texas Toast, with mustard and relish... (OK, I've made myself hungry, so, enough of that.)

The first quote above reminds me of most of the "ethical vegetarians" I've ever met. With a few notable exceptions (like my boss, for instance) they all have an evangelical zeal about them that is, for lack of better terms, both windy and self-righteous. They will spend hours explaining why it is ethically wrong to eat "something with a face" and how if we were all vegetarians we would save the planet and how "meat is murder" and although most of them are quite earnest and sincere, most can't hide that little note of condescension they have when dealing with the "un-enlightened." Of course, some of them don't try to hide their condescension and it is for them I keep a bumpersticker that says "I love animals. They're tasty."

I think there are reasons why a vegetarian diet can be a good thing, but in my opinion, none of them have anything to do with ethics or morality. I came to that conclusion by looking around at the real world. (Enter quote number two.) The real world is a nasty, brutal place where everything gets eaten eventually. Our teeth suggest that we are supposed to be omnivores, capable of eating almost anything. The idea that there is something morally superior about not eating Bessie the Cow after you know how she got butchered really annoys me. And don't get all self-righteous on me just because you are squeamish about my food supply.

Most of the vegetarians I know just love animals. They think they are cute and cuddly. They want to help them. They want to protect them. They forget that if most of those cute, cuddly animals had the wherewithall and the means they would turn an erstwhile vegetarian into a pile of bones and birkenstocks without batting an eye. But it is so much more emotionally satisfying to ignore the reality, anthropomorphize to their heart's content and all the while congratulate themselves on being morally superior and enlightened in comparison to the rest of us who have not yet seen the error of our ways. Unfortunately, just because they want all the critters in the animal kingdom to live together in peace and harmony, without any of that nasty killing and eating stuff (enter quote number three), that's just not the way the real world works. And all of the anthropomorphizing and wishing and concentrating on the "cute and cuddly" aspects and ignoring the brutal nature of Nature doesn't mean that the killing and eating part isn't there or is going to go away. Claiming moral superiority for ignoring reality is a joke, at best.

Based on this argument, I think it is essential to vote for George W. Bush in the coming election.

(Say What? you are saying to yourself...)

OK, I can explain. Think for a moment about the ideas behind the quotes and then think about Terrorists and Radical Islamists and their sympathizers and apologists. Think about those who say we should eschew violence and military means when dealing with this problem. Think: France, or any devout American leftist. They tend to be quite self-righteous about the whole process. They have defined the use of force to be anachronistic, uncivilized and un-enlightened. They are right because they have defined themselves as right, not to mention morally superior.

Unfortunately, deciding you are right and that your way is better only works if you can get everyone else to play along (see quote number 3).

Normally, I try not to quote long passages of other people's writing, but Bill Whittle at Eject!Eject!Eject! has said what I'm thinking here so much better than I can that I can't seem to find a way to say it better. (The whole article is here. Read it.)

...And contrary to post 9/11 spin, the most accurate translation of Islam is not “peace.” Prior to 9/11, the universally accepted translation of the concept of Islam was “submission.”

Of course, submission sounds a little more prickly to American ears. Matter of fact, it’s hard to imagine a word that would so enrage the American psyche than the concept of submission. “Tyranny,” perhaps, but tyranny is only what we are expected to submit to. Americans have fought against submission and Tyranny since there have been Americans. That’s what we do. That is who we are. And ever since the Revolution against submitting to the tyranny of King George, American revulsion with the entire idea of submission has been watered each generation by fresh waves of immigrants who have fled here escaping submission.

And here are two final thoughts on this issue:

First, Islam philosophically divides the world into two camps – this is Islam’s definitions, not mine -- Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is the House of Submission. Dar Al-Harb is not the House of Infidels. It is the House of War.

I, and others who see a terrible threat in the growth of Radical Islam, did not invent this term. It is considerably older than my humble self; besides, I do not speak Arabic. It is their term. And unlike people determined to hide until this problem goes away, I am determined to take Islam at its word.

Finally, consider this: Muslims are angrily at war with Buddhists in East Asia. Muslims are at enraged with Animists in Africa. Of course, none of this approaches the sheer hatred that Muslims bear towards Hindus in the South Asia peninsula. And this foaming hatred blanches compared to the white-hot fury Muslims feel to the Christian American Crusaders. And this fury is but a candle to the incandescent, boiling, supernova of murder they feel toward the Jews.

Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here? You know, my Dad told me once, “Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total assholes, then maybe it’s you.”

I am not a religious person. I do not have a horse in this race. But everywhere I turn in the world today, I see Radical Islam -- and not the United States -- at war with everybody. And I have no choice but to conclude that this is not a blip or a hiccup. It is a growing threat. And it needs to be met head-on. Right now.

Make no mistake, Radical Islamists have no intention of playing by "civilized" rules. They have said so, repeatedly, and contrary to their sympathizers and apologists, continue to do so. Just this past week, they threatened to kill Donald Rumsfeld and start a new round of jihad against Americans.

The leftists would say that we brought this on ourselves (an argument which cannot be factually confirmed or refuted, and so is, by definition, true because the enlightened ones say it is). But if we would just be more civilized and call off our use of violence against the Radical Islamists, give them what they want and negotiate (as the French and the leftists suggest), this would all go away, right? Well, you tell me. The Spanish chose to pursue the more "civilized" path, withdrew their troops from Iraq and gave the Radical Islamists what they wanted. That course of action generated so much goodwill with the Islamists that they are now trying to recruit people to carry out attacks on Spanish embassies (among others.)

So what's the point? We can choose to believe that military force is not necessary, that negotiation is the answer, that the world isn't a nasty, brutal place, that everyone respects and admires our civilization and culture, and that everyone will play by our rules because we are morally superior and obviously right because we think we are. Or, we can look around the real world, take people like the Radical Islamists at their word when they say they want to destroy our society and impose their own, and meet the threat with the force that it deserves.

I am no big fan of George W. Bush. I have great misgivings about his social and economic policies. But I believe the single greatest threat we face is the threat from Radical Islam. I think it is pretty clear what the President will continue to do in that regard if re-elected. I don't think it is clear at all what Senator Kerry would do and that is a chance I don't think we can take.

Because out in the real world, the wolves are definitely not in favor of vegetarianism.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, August 31 2004 01:36:42 AM

You don't know what you've got til its gone
link

...and even then you may not know.

I finished upgrading to the latest versions of Firefox and Thunderbird a few of days ago. As far as I can tell, both are working fine. I did have one problem, however. I didn't manage to get my profile saved correctly from the previous version of Firefox, so all of my bookmarks disappeared.

After I got over the initial shock, I discovered that I really wasn't all that upset. For most of the places I visit regularly on the net from my bookmarks, I remember the URL's anyway (or at least enough so that I can find the site) and most of the rest I haven't visited in months or years. Call it an inadvertent spring housecleaning, but there is now a whole lot of white space in my bookmarks toolbar. Oh, there is the odd website address I can't remember that I will miss, but I found most of them through search engines, so I can probably do it again.

Perhaps it is a function of age, but I have been feeling the need to get rid of stuff with a vengeance lately. I have been an inveterate packrat most of my life. But it occurred to me the other night that I probably don't need and won't use the classroom notes I took for Chem 101 in 1977.

That said, I still can't resist cluttering up my life with useless information. Things like this from The Smoking Gun. (The Smoking Gun uses the Freedom of Information Act (when neccessary) to obtain copies of a variety of official documents. One of my all-time favorites was the court filing by Parker Stevenson when he was suing Kirstie Alley for Alimony.)

• AUGUST 25--Claiming that a Dave Matthews tour bus driving on a Chicago bridge dumped "80 to 100 gallons of liquid human waste" on dozens of people taking a river boat tour, the Illinois attorney general yesterday sued the band and one of its drivers for $70,000... ...as the Matthews coach drove on the Kinzie Street bridge, the "contents of the bus' waste tank were released through the drain at the bottom of the bus and were discharged down through the open grating onto the bridge deck, into the river and onto the sightseeing tour boat."

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, August 30 2004 10:36:16 PM

Reason and Justice
link

"Reason and justice tell me there's more love for humanity in electricity and steam than in chastity and vegetarianism."

Anton Chekhov

I first ran across this quote from Chekhov when I was in High School. I really didn't think too deeply about its meaning. I'm not even sure why it caught my attention, other than perhaps it was the only way I was likely to use the word "chastity" in a sentence.

A couple of days ago (while looking for something else, as usual) I stumbled onto it again at a website called ThinkExist.com . Now, 30 years or so after I first saw it, I view it in terms of form vs. function. I don't think that Chekhov was saying that there is no value in chastity or vegetarianism. They may well be noble ideas and noble practices. As a practical matter, however, it is hard to quantify any tangible value they might have for humanity. Steam heat and electricity, on the other hand (and especially in Chekhov's day) have/had definite, tangible benefits. I find Chekhov's interest in function over form fascinating. It is certainly rare.

I'm not saying that form is inherently inferior to function or that form has no value. Without form, function is irrelevant. The problem is that we tend to get caught up in form/ideas/ideals/causes and forget about their functionality, or for that matter, whether they are functional at all. Being enamoured with an idea/cause is more romantic and emotionally satisfying than concentrating on function.

Chastity, vegetarianism, animal rights, economic justice and any number of other ideas/causes, when viewed at a purely conceptual level, have a certain elegance. Because of the nature of the ideas themselves (as defined by their adherents) they are attractive because they allow their adherents to feel morally superior to the rest of us "un-enlightened masses" without the inconvenience of actually practicing or conforming to any system of conventional or religious morality. For example, let's consider animal rights activists (and no, I have nothing against the animal rights movement, it is just a convenient example). You can be a completely reprehensible human being with few (if any) redeeming qualities and as long as you spray-paint a few people in fur coats once in a while, you still get to have that warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with the sure and certain knowledge that you are morally superior.

So, what set me off on this little rant today? Rat, Jr. was listening to the radio this afternoon. I walked through the room while some news program on NPR was on. There was a report on "tens of thousands" of protesters getting ready for the upcoming convention. In particular, there was a sound bite of some protesters singing a song (to the tune of "Yankee Doodle") ridiculing George W. Bush and his Presidency. The part I caught was something about "Georgie" going to Washington even though he wasn't elected. Several things were apparent from the sound bite: these individuals despise George W. Bush, they thought their song was quite clever, and, by virtue of their "position" were secure in the knowledge that they were morally superior.

Now, perhaps these individuals have a coherent set of ideas and a definite agenda for change or something (I certainly wouldn't want to make any judgments about that based on a selectively edited sound bite). But the whole point seemed to be that they were protesting that George W. Bush is the President. Call me closed minded and judgmental, but in terms of meaningful debate about issues crucial to the nation, that seems to me to be a bit lacking in substance. Its sort of like whining that your team would have won if the referee hadn't blown a call at the end of the game: it may make you feel a little bit better, but it doesn't change who won.

A lot of what passes for public "discussion" of current issues, on all points of the political spectrum, has this same whiney quality. And the beauty of these whine festivals is that the participants define themselves as being right, simply because they want to be. Because they have defined themselves as being right, without regard to whether or not their ideas bear any relationship whatsoever to conditions in the real world, they are unassailable, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is un-enlightened and intellectually and morally inferior. Hence, most "discussion" is semi-rabid mud-slinging, at best; the epitome of form over function.

One of my favorite websites is The Smedley Log. (Now that Steven Den Beste has apparently retired from the blogoshpere, at least for the forseeable future, TSL is my first read of the day.) The Smedley Log is one of the few bastions of civilized discourse I've found on the web. The author seems like a genuinely nice guy. I disagree with a significant chunk of his political commentary, but I read him regularly because his opinions are grounded in his real-world experience, he asks questions that I don't always have easy answers to, he is brave enough to offer suggestions as to what might be done (rather than just whine about what "they" are doing wrong), and it is all done without name-calling, mud-slinging or any significant rancor. A good example is his current article the co-opted Christian.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, August 29 2004 10:43:08 PM