What is the difference between wearing a fur coat and eating a grilled chicken sandwich? Both actions require the termination of animal life; both are not necessary (one could wear a down coat or eat a tofu burger). However, I resist placing them on the same plane of acceptability. Eating a chicken sandwich just does not feel as inappropriate as wearing a fur coat.
In order to continue this discussion, it is imperative to establish what I find inappropriate in eating a grilled chicken sandwich or wearing a fur coat. The taking of another animal's life for my own whims is the crux of the impropriety. I do not feel that my desire of the hour should allow me to abet the death of a fellow member of the animal kingdom. Why? Because it gives me far more power in terms of life and death than I would wish anyone to have, regardless of whether that person is or is not me.
Then, how is eating a chicken better than wearing a fur coat? Is it merely an issue of class warfare? That is, am I just angry that only rich people can afford a fur coat and, thus, for me, the fur coat has become an outward symbol of the unnecessary, overly decadent, and, perhaps, personally unattainable, lifestyle of the ridiculously rich? The answer to that is, simply put, no. The more complex answer is that I have no problems with the other things rich people do: purchase clothing at expensive stores, have meals at delightfully extravagant restaurants, establish offshore bank accounts to shelter their income from US taxation, the list goes on. Seriously, none of the above bother me; I take them all as part and parcel of the total richness package. You can have your expensive dinner, but then you also have to deal with the problem of placing your money somewhere it won't "leak". So, based on the above, I can safely say that I do not see myself as a class warrior.
If not class warfare, what is it? Could it be some sort of instinctual feeling that meat=food whereas fur!=clothing? Do I find some weird hunter-gatherer rationalization every time I see people eating meat which is lacking for the fur-wearers? That is an interesting supposition. It certainly fits with another fact I have not mentioned yet: I find wearing leather shoes/boots rather acceptable. Could it be that I have some inherited memory of my ancestors wearing leather foot coverings and eating meat off the skewer that allows me to continue in my non-vegetarian, leather-boot-wearing ways? The answer to that, I think, is no. Fur must have been worn rather often during the days of the hunter-gatherers. While not a social statement regarding one's status, fur did keep one warm, even during the ice age. So, to assert that fur was less a part of my hunter-gatherer ancestry than leather shoes would be a false statement. Therefore, it is not an instinctual feeling that allows me to eat meat but not wear fur.
Ultimately, it comes down to economy and respect. That is, a fur coat does not seem as economical in its solution to the problem it addresses as meat or a leather boot. Less abstractly speaking, a hunk of meat goes much further to resolve the issue of a lack of protein in one's diet than any other form of protein available to me: lentils, tofu, etc. (certainly, I could bring in the issue of aesthetics and point out how horrible tofu tastes, but that would defeat my argument). In much the same way, a leather boot will outlast almost any other form of extreme weather shoe wear by a long shot because, and this is rather unsurprising, it is made out of the stuff that animals wore to protect them from the elements their entire lives - skin. Fur, on the other hand, could be replaced by all sorts of "more economical" warmth-preserving objects: woolen coats, down jackets, goose feather parkas, even leather jackets. I say even leather jackets because leather is an animal product, one that kills the animal, despite which it is better than fur because it is more economical than a fur coat. How so? It takes far fewer total animal lives to synthesize a leather jacket as compared to a fur coat. So far, I have only talked about the economy aspect of the issue. But the leather jacket comparison brings in the respect aspect. It shows respect for the sacrifice of the animal lives being made for one's warmth/nutrition/etc to minimize the overall effect one's life has on other animals. That is, the less animals I kill to continue functioning the better. Of course, I could become a vegetarian, but, in my thinking, that detracts from the economy side of the equation. Thus, a careful balance of economy and respect may explain why eating meat and not buying fur clothing seem perfectly consistent to me.
Do I ultimately buy this ultimate explanation of my stated moral dillema? I would have to say yes. Sure, there are other ways of explaining why fur is wrong (ie, anal electrocutions, wire cages, psychological anguish, overall cuteness of chinchillas, etc), but really, all those are just appeals to any emotional attachment one may have to small furry animals. Also, many of those same reasons (the ones in parentheses just above) would also apply to eating meat and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up on the fine taste of a leg of lamb... Cheers.

Yesterday, I went to a modern music concert. Usually, I find something that turns me off the group. But that was not the case yesterday. Try as I might, the ensemble seemed to be doing everything in a striving for perfection. Their composition and performance both yearned for a ... no, an expression of ideas. While everyone is always doing that, I am usually not convinced by it. Yesterday was different, I felt they were reaching for perfect expression. I don't know, I just appreciated their efforts. What's more interesting was that I wanted to leave as soon as the music was done. I didn't want to ask questions, hob-nob with the performers or the composers, or sip some wine while everyone else did that. I couldn't have that. The music had shown me the pure, noble side of these people and, I knew, if I stayed any longer, my perception of them would invariably become stained by their personalities, behaviour, speech patterns, etc. It already started happening as I was trying to make my exit. I noticed their choices of alcohol, their conversations with each other, etc. I really wanted to leave. So badly did I desire it that I couldn't wait for the elevator - I walked down the stairs to avoid waiting with others for the elevator.
Upon ruminating further with a friend, I decided that there are two sides to people - their personalities and their visions. I've found personalities are a much more subjective issue - they can be great but not appeal to me or they can be really shitty and totally win me over. It's so subjective that I'm sort of afraid to subject the visions of people to their personalities. If I've only experienced their visions, I would be wont to know who they are - my perception of those people is as high as it can get. Meeting those people will not only reduce my consideration of them but also, sadly, of their vision. That's ultimately why I left as quickly as I did. That is all.

It's been quite a while since I've posted here. It seems that this blog has become a place for me to vent about political happenings. I was reading the Princeton Tory, a WAY-WAY-WAY right-wing magazine published by apparently well-educated people (being Republican and smart always seemed mutually exclusive to me, but perhaps I am "misguided"). Most of the stuff there was balderdash (the typical neo-con crap: anti-abortion, pro-religion-in-state, etc.). But there was a kernel of truth in there: they pointed out that most people in this country don't know half the people they are getting angry with. Of course, their argument stemming from that fact was complete crap, but still, that fact did bother me; mostly because it's true. Thus, my new goal, for the time between work and sleep this summer, is to a) become more educated regarding our government and b) help others do the same. Hopefully, this will enable everyone to make better choices when election time comes around.
Well, that's out of the way. Now to the real political venting. Obviously, the prisoner humiliations and the beheading are on everyone's mind right now, and rightfully so. Both show a rather disappointing side of the human psyche. However, I believe that the militants who beheaded the US citizen (Berg) were being truthful when they said it was in retaliation for the humiliations they (as a group) suffered at the hands of the prison guards (read: retarded 18 year old drunks being made to do something they were DEFINITELY not equipped to do). Terrorists might be vengeful, over-the-top, and other extreme things, but when they are brainwashed, they are probably going to say what is on their mind. So, all that BS people have been saying about the terrorists trying to pin the beheading on Abu Ghraib when they just wanted to kill is exactly that: BS. Someone I know, who shall remain anonymous, said to me: "I'd rather be humiliated like in the prisons than be executed like in the video." Now, sure, that makes sense, TO US. But has anyone consulted a Middle Easterner? Apparently not. The humiliations they were forced to bear are AS BAD IF NOT WORSE than a beheading. Being forced to perform sexual acts with others (especially for the married men) places a stigma on those men worse than death. Most of them say they can't again live in their hometowns and are being forced to move. They and their families will forever be separated from the rest of their society as the people who were humiliated at Abu Ghraib. So, in all, DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU'D RATHER BE HUMILIATED BY 18-YEAR-OLD HICKS (FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY RUNNING A HIGH-SECURITY PRISON THAT SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE RUN BY SOMEONE WITH FAR MORE EXPERIENCE) THAN BE BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED TO GO THROUGH EITHER!!!! That comment really pissed me off, so I figured I'd vent here. I saw the beheading, it was extremely gruesome and TOTALLY reproachable. But that doesn't somehow make the Abu Ghraib prison torture somehow, 'less bad'. That is all. If anyone wishes to explain another point of view, feel free to post comments.

I'm not really angry about any political event right now, so I'll spread some interesting news:

I just found out that the number two al Qaeda guy they had surrounded for the past 5 days or so escaped! How you ask? Through a TWO KILOMETER long tunnel!!! That is a LONG tunnel. One mile is the same as 1.6 km, so that tunnel was about 1.25 miles long! That's incredible, especially considering the countryside in that area is rather rocky/hilly etc. Now, the Pakistani brigadier in charge is trying to tell us that the tunnel is brand new; that they didn't come across it the last time they looked through the area. I find that to be really funny. Noone digs a 2km long tunnel that fast! In Great Escape, a 300 ft tunnel took them well over 5-6 weeks. That leads me to believe that I must have misinterpreted the brigadier; he must have meant either that the last time they checked this area was NEVER or ... really, really, really long ago. That makes sense.

In other news, Sedna is not the tenth planet, but Pluto is still the ninth planet. Why? Sedna is only a smidgeon smaller than Pluto (about 10-15% smaller, I think). They're both on the inner edge of the Oort Cloud. There's no reason one should be a planet and the other not besides the whole 'tradition' thing. If we kept with tradition, we'd still be teaching that God created Earth and all its beings rather than that mumbo-jumbo scientists call evolution. Why, I bet we'd even be teaching that the earth is flat and in the center of the universe. What I'm trying to say is that tradition holds back science. It may be useful in other fields, but not science. Let either Sedna become a planet or let Pluto's planethood fall by the wayside. We can't be hypocritical just to keep with tradition.

There's nothing else to report really. Even though I'm liking Kerry less and less the more I find out about him, I'm still going to vote for him (namely because Bush can't seriously be allowed to "run" this country for four more years). It really hurts to admit to this, but I'm more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. It's a sad day when one has to do that in a democracy...

Time for a bit of political venting:

I'm sure everyone has heard about Spain. Zapatero is now in power, finally doing what all of Spain really wanted: the removal of Spanish forces from the US-led invasion of Iraq (yes, invasion). Of course, as soon as he takes power (Zapatero), there is a document found, purportedly by US intelligence (in Spain [why are they there]), belonging to al Qaeda that explicitly states that the group set off those bombings in order to make the conservative government lose the upcoming election.
Now, there are (at least) two obviously absurd conclusions to be made from this "discovery." Firstly, if the al Qaeda were in fact setting off the bomb to force the expulsion of the conservative government, wouldn't it be rather obvious to the operatives working in Spain? That is, would they really need a document explicitly stating the reason for the attacks? (The answer is no) It makes no sense to have such a document.
Secondly, again assuming al Qaeda set off the bombs with the explicit intent to remove the conservatives in Spain, why would they not come out as soon as possible and take responsibility. Seeing as this is a time-sensitive thing (as elections usually are), they would like to let everyone know that al Qaeda is doing this so that the populace of Spain knows to expul the government that got the al Qaeda on Spain's back in the first place. But they didn't; rather, they let it come out on its own through slow police inquiries and the CAPTURE OF THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES. Would they REALLY have wanted their arrests to be the final keystone in the framework for determination of guilt in the attacks? I don't think that makes sense (not even to Dubya).
Finally (yes, there are three, not two), assuming the al Qaeda wanted to get Spain to leave Iraq alone; would this REALLY be the best way to do it? First of all, the entire notion that al Qaeda would care enough about getting Spain out of the US-led coalition is ridiculous. First of all, al Qaeda IS NOT RELATED TO IRAQ IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Secondly, assuming that the fundamentalists in al Qaeda wish to see Westerners out of Iraq, history has shown them that bombing a country usually doesn't help in getting the country to leave them alone (case in point: Sept. 11, 2001). Unless we assume that al Qaeda members (and the several university-taught terrorists leading that organization) refuse to learn from history and like to put their heads in the guillotine, the whole notion makes no sense.
Now you ask, why did they attack the Madrid trains? That's a good question. The way I figure it, there are several terrorist cells in cities across the world. I don't think this was intended as an attack on Spain alone; rather, it was meant as a second iteration of the attack on the WTC in New York in 2001. The al Qaeda (brainwashed by their leaders as they unfortunately are) wanted to further drive home the fact that no Westerner is safe from them -- not in the US nor in the EU. It is a sad state of affairs that you kill 6000+ and then 200+ people to state your message, but I believe that is the reasoning behind it. Nothing as fancy as the conservative right would have us believe.
In conclusion, don't believe the tripe they feed us in the television news (seeing as it is tripe, I hope no one would believe it even if I didn't tell them [unless of course, they like tripe]); it's all just a big lie to justify W's desire to be the World Good Guy (even if that means we break every single piece of international law and custom in existence today).