Oh come on. Sure, Rainforest Ceral is probably more symbolic that substantive, but any issue can be divorced from its sustantive base and embraced as symbolic.
Earlier, dec you wrote:
Your accusation *can[i/] be true at times, but at their core these positions address substantive, real-world problems (although the devil is in the details). Religion OTOH is a huge set of issues that is wholly symbolic and solidly in the conservative camp.
Religion is solidly in the conservative camp? Tell that to Fr. Daniel Berrigan, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Dorothy Day . . .
Just to throw a little more fuel onto this fire:
I seem to recall that there was a movement called “vegetarian feminism.”
First of all, so what? Adolf Hitler was also a white male, should we demonize every one of those, too? He was also a painter; should we throw that out the window?
Secondly, Hitler was a vegetarian because of doctor’s orders, not because of personal preference. He had a medical condition that didn’t allow him to eat meat, even though he very much liked to.
fluid, I’ve never heard that particular factoid (about the doctor’s orders). I had read that Hitler was contemptuous of meat eating, referring to broth served as “corpse tea”.
Can you slip us a cite? What medical condition would preclude meat eating?
december,
I’m a bit confused by what you mean by a symbolic act. Are you saying that its symbolic because purchasing Rainforest Cereal won’t save the rainforests in and of itself? If so, I respond of course not. However, any economic benefit from rainforest crops for the people in the source area has to eventually end with consumers —and ideally US consumers – being willing to purchase the product. It’s a minute part in an overall complex political and economical situation— obviously. I don’t think the average purchaser of Rainforest Crisp Cereal thinks that their purchasing act is going to make much of a difference by itself—just like I don’t think the average voter believes their one vote is going to make any real difference in an election. But you do it anyway…and hope that your action is part of a larger action that might ultimately make a difference. Are you saying that only liberals act in this fashion? Explain further please.
<Adjusting kaftan>
I’ve always been amused – yup, it don’t take much – by how neo-conservatives like to dress in ill-fitting and often brown (fer crissakes) business suits – for example, Rumsfeld seems to have bought a job lot – and hey, who* irons* his shirts ?
I tend to think that this is because they’re aware that smart neo-conservatives tread dangerously close to the imagery of fashion conscious Fascists. Always something more sinister about a smartly turned out conservative…shiny face, neatly parted hair…looking too healthy…
Thus, I’ve concluded that either it’s all nonsense or I need to be more aware of brown suede, slip-on conservatives bearing down with inappropriate lens frames. I went with the former.
It’s all a tribal uniform thing. Isn’t it ?
</Adjusting kaftan>
<Lighting incense>
Much of the “Intellectual” Fascism in Germany at the start of the 20th century promoted strict vegetarianism and a return to nature. One leading light was Nietzche’s sister who wanted to start an Aryan utopia in Paraguay. This is incidentally where Adolf Mengele ended his days.
That would be Josef Mengele.
Well, he had intestinal problems and problems with flatulence, but as far as I know, you’re right. Regardless of his medical problems, Hitler seemed to be morally opposed to eating meat.
“smart neo-conservatives tread dangerously close to the imagery of fashion conscious Fascists. Always something more sinister about a smartly turned out conservative…shiny face, neatly parted hair…looking too healthy…”
Yup, gotta watch out for them neat, clean-shaven suit-clad neo-conservatives. :rolleyes:
A fascinating topic! I think you’ve raised a very interesting question: why do some apparently unrelated psychosocial traits correlate? I could loosely define “liberal” and “conservative” as (1) one who seeks and supports new ideas and pluralism; and (2) one who values tradition over inclusiveness and change/progress. Regardless of whether I’ve accurately sketched the basic meaning of the terms here, my point is that these simple terms have snowballed into social and political personalities under which many traits have grouped together, and, in my opinion, quite arbitrarily. For example, I notice that liberalism is an argument for some connection between a worship of safety (as a right for everyone), a focus on compassion, an interest in “alternatives,” and an openness to change (some of which would explain an active preference for organics). Conservatism, as I observe it, is an argument for a connection between a worship of individual responsibility, a focus on the cause of one’s own demographic group, a preference for the traditional, and a need for stability. (some of which would make a great ad for hamburgers). Is there any rationale for these connections?
Not that old, Hitler vegetarian myth again! It keeps cropping up again and again despite efforts here at the SDMB to fight ignorance. Either Cecil or Snopes ought to tackle it for once and for all. Put this old disinformation to rest.
It was Hitler’s propaganda minister Göring who spread this disinformation, trying to appeal to fans of Gandhi by playing up vegetarianism. The truth is, Hitler chowed down on sausage.
So you’re saying Hitler was gay? 
A cite here giving details about how Hitler came to eat a vegetarian diet. It doesn’t seem to be propaganda – and I can’t imagine there being an overlap between followers of Gandhi and Hitler.
Walloon, the truth about Hitler’s alleged vegetarianism is that he fudged the definition of vegetarian to make himself appear so. He did set out to be vegetarian, but did not live up to it. Also, there was sloppy reporting, then as now, as to what constitutes actually being “vegetarian”: in 1937, the New York Times published an article “At Home with Hitler,” that said
So since when are ham eaters considered vegetarian, if the word is to have any meaning in the real world at all?
I think I can speak for most other vegetarians in expressing exasperation at the claims of people to be vegetarian even though they still continue to eat meat.
The image of Hitler as a self-denying, disciplined ascetic was part of his propaganda, but was fake. Although he didn’t smoke, he was otherwise a bon vivant, enjoying rich food (including meat) and sex with mistresses.
“He had … toyed with the idea of vegetarianism but this time according to Frau
Hess, he meant it. From that moment on, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver
dumplings.” About this passage, which is cited in John Toland’s biography of Hitler, Dr.
Kalechofsky comments: “This is consistent with other descriptions of Hitler’s diet, which always
included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings.”
Cite: Why Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian
Another cite: Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian
The German Vegetarian Federation was forced to disband during the Nazi years, and could not resume its activities until after the fall of Nazism in 1945. So in one sense Hitler was anti-vegetarian.
Hitler’s Vegetarianism
What Sort of Vegetarian Was Hitler? A fake one.
I’ll admit that I didn’t read every response in great detail, but has someone actually shown a link between diet and political beliefs in any kind of scientific study? If so, would someone link to it please?
My scientific study consists of that episode of The Simpsons where Homer becomes a free-love hippie, to which George Carlin comments, “Homer! You’ve gone granola!”
WooHoo!
D’oh :smack: