Monday, June 20, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 5 MELANIE KRUVELIS| VW POINT Where's the beef. JEFF ZUSCHLAG As I sit here writing this, I finish my last bite of steak. Not because I'm particularly hun- gry, not because I'm iron deficient - but because I believe in mak- ing a difference. Standing up for what's right: eating meat. Why? Because advocating for animal rights is essentially an erroneous, philosophically-flawed argument that calls for the defamation of the human condition simply to prevent the defecation of the animal. Philosopher Peter Singer famously argued that our current perception of humanity revolves around a wholly speciesist mindset, noting that the entirety of human existence is marked by anthro- pocentric behavior. We're selfish. We don't exhibit any empathy for anything beyond ourselves. Maybe Denny's Maple Bacon Sundae is a little indulgent. Maybe we should consider a different societal system, one that avoids assigning values to distinctions between species. You know, stop putting people first. Maybe. But probably maybe not. Speciesism is not only difficult to say, but idealizes the animal king- dom, turning it into some fairy tale Disney theme park. The majestic two-toed sloth does not spare his victim - why should we? Yes, it could be argued that since we do have a heightened sense of moral- ity, as exhibited by the congrega- tion of Westboro Baptist Church and the cast of "Jersey Shore," perhaps we should extend our eth- ics to beings beyond humans. But come on, an eye for an eye, right? It's not just some outdated retribu- tion principle that should probably be left in Babylonia - no, no - it's essential in understanding the lack of responsibility humans have to protect animals. And of course, makes intercourse and Helen Keller jokes possible. You can read more about specie- sism in Larry the Cable Guy's lat- est novella, "Git-R-Done," available nationwide at Walmart or truck stop restrooms. But for now, there are bigger fish to fry - religion, my friends, religion. Yes, it's true - you can keep eating your Double Down - God wants you to. In Genesis 9, God told Noah that animals were inferior to humans. They should fear us, and we should eat them, or as the Word of God colorfully raunched it up - "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." And then Noah gets plastered and naked in a tent by himself, and poor Ham has to see his dad Noah's bacon and eggs. But I digress. Religions, even those beyond Christianity, uphold the inherent value humans have over animals through the wide- spread acceptance of dualism, or the doctrine that states humans are both physical beings and immate- rial minds. As Descartes explains it, animals are simply physical enti- ties, completely barren of any sort of moral compass. "(Animals) are destitute of reason...and it is nature that acts in them (mechanically)." He then goes on to explain that dis- secting "the heartof some large ani- mal possessed of lungs" is so choice, and ifyouhave the means, he highly recommends picking one up. Anyway, the point - based on the infallibility of the theological compliance with dualism, we can of course infer that humans are the only creatureswith any moral, epis- temological value. What separates humanity from other species is that animals are simply not conscious beings (though it could be argued that many of our fellow humans here at the University are not exact- ly conscious beings either; at least on most Friday evenings). Animals cannot reason, think, feel pain like humans do. Nor are they capable of creating the splendor humans are capable of. War, crime, Michael Bolton - these are entirely human constructs that only truly moral creatures could produce! Yeah, you're welcome, Simba. And so, what have we learned today? One, my neighbor picks up the paper in the nude. Two, animal rights advocates incorrectly argue that creatures beyond humans have values, when it's quite clear humans are the only beings that conduct themselves with dignity and class. And hey, if you don't believe me, just look at Michele Bachmann. Melanie Kruvelis is a senior editorial page editor. ykdo a e you readyfor th,,sure .? Hre'ste bubbe-blowng station, wee ~ kid lshare ,onetlarge tinividualcontes Tsteaches,, Btomtm oetoldme it's Your mom lied to you. E-MAIL JEFF AT JEFFDZ UMICH.EDU :he store! Kids can well, that concludes our tour. y, o wot gold sejtnd! Y what? $ Can I gohome now? Why they hate us It's no secret that Arab senti- ment towards the United States is incredibly negative. A recent Pew Research Cen- ter poll of vari- ous Muslim nations found that in Jordan, Turkey, Paki- stan, Egypt and Palestine, approximately JONATHAN 15 percent of AYLWARD people viewed the U.S. favor- ably. During the Bush Jr. presi- dency, the question was often asked, "Why do they hate us?" We were quick to claim that they must hate our freedom. The truth isn't too hard to see, and it isn't pretty either. That's probably why we've clung to our simplistic clich, avoidingthe less self-affirming truth. One of the primary reasons for this abundant anti-American attitude is actually much different than the afore- mentioned Bushism. Though we have labeled ourselves champions of democracy and human rights, by blindly pursuing our economic interests in the region, we actual- ly help limit the access to freedom for entire nations. About a month ago, in a speech responding to the events of the Arab Spring, President Obama asserted his commitment to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. He boldly pro- claimed, "It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democra- cy." After a long history of strong economic and political relation- ships with dictators, this was an incredibly weighty declaration. Not surprisingly, it has already proven to be a largely empty statement. Let's pretend that Obama's speech has created a new para- digm in U.S. foreign policy. In r the past we acted with economic interests in mind, and it was unimportant whether a nation's government was democratic or promoted human rights. How- ever, according to the speech, the U.S.'s interests now depend on a shift to the promotion of democ- racy and human rights. Conse- quently, in the time since the speech, we would expect to have seen a monumental change in our relations to a number of regimes. After gently chastising Yemen and Bahrain (two close economic and political allies) in his speech for their prolonged brutal crack- downs on pro-democracy pro- testers, Obama has done little to demonstrate that we are serious about adhering to our new ideals. Just as with Egypt and Mubarak, the U.S. maintained support for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh up until the point when it was obvious that he was on his way out. Two weeks ago, while hosting the Bahraini Crown Prince, Obama pledged enthusi- astic U.S. support and failed to acknowledge the ongoing violent government crackdowns. The clearest indicator that the United States will continue to act out of self-interest, and not out of concern for democracy and human rights, is our rela- tionship with Saudi Arabia. An Islamic monarchy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia prohibits free speech and political parties, dis- allows women from driving and only allows them to travel with the permission of their closest male relative. It considers death an appropriate punishment for homosexuality and actively cen- sors the Internet. Yet Saudi Ara- bia is one of our closest allies in the region. If this seems incon- gruent, there's one more impor- tant fact to consider: They are the number one exporter of oil in the world. Clearly democracy and human rights, let alone stopping the societal conditions that breed terrorists, can be put on the back- burner if you have enough oil for sale. It's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the nine- teen hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks. Despite Obama's lofty asser- tion, it's clear that we still active- ly support regimes that repress democracy and human rights in the Middle East. This simple fact goes a long way in explain- ing the question we've been ask- ing since 9/11: "Why do they hate us?" Anti-American sentiment will continue to grow as the gap widens between what we say we represent and what we actually represent. The U.S. limits freedom for entire nations. As the democratic fervor of the Arab Spring lingers on, we are faced with two paths: we can truly embrace the ideals of democ- racy and human rights with our actions, or we can continue to simply talk about them. One choice garners the support of the masses, one further exacerbates our current dilemma. As people in the Middle East continue to reject dictators and implement democ- racies more representative of pub- lit sentiment, the United States' popularity will shift from a mere statistic with little consequence, to the unpleasant political reality of decreased trade opportunities and an increasingly isolated role in the world. Jonathan Aylward can be reached at jaylward@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.