Fully Engaged Democracy. Those who only work within their party are only half engaged in the democratic process. For example, in the 2012 election year, most Democratic Party members won’t consider supporting anyone other than Barack Obama in 2012. However, this election year offers an opportunity for Democratic Party members to register as Republicans and help influence the Republican choice for president — the person who may end up being our next president. Given that there is about a 50/50 chance that a Republican may be our next president, it makes sense to be engaged in the selection process. Republicans have a similar opportunity to support Democratic Party candidates they feel are more inline with issues they care about.

Campaigning to Win. Presidential campaigns are regularly lost because party extremists won’t support the party’s more mainstream and likely to be elected candidates. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) are examples of politicians who have been consistently re-elected in states where a majority of voters were from the ‘other’ party. This is because they are moderate, yet still able to advance the agenda of their party. This diplomacy is essential to avoid political gridlock and allows a leader to achieve party goals by negotiating across party lines. They do this by creating abundant bi-partisan support from demonstrating administrative competence and achieving common socially beneficial objectives. Yet, when running for president, Kucinich and Huckabee didn’t get their party’s full support because it was believed they weren’t electable or were too moderate for the party.

Beyond the Election. It’s a good idea to identify and support candidates like those mentioned above because they have a positive influence on their party even when they don’t win.

Uniting America. Extremist candidates are divisive, but moderate candidates foster collaboration and unity by focusing on solutions that bring people together. Supporting moderate candidates gives people from possibly different parties an opportunity to work together.

Candidates Worth Supporting

Jon Huntsman. According to a recent New York Times poll, Jon Huntsman has the greatest chance of winning in an election against Barack Obama. Depending on economic conditions, Huntsman may be as likely as 70% to 99% able to win in the 2012 presidential election. This makes Huntsman the smart choice for Republicans who want to win in 2012. Democrats should support Huntsman as the Republican choice because he is campaigning on non-partisan issues that everyone can support: jobs & the economy, national security, education reform, foreign policy, energy security, and financial regulatory reform.

Ron Paul. For some of the key issues that the Democratic Party claims to care about (like healthcare and bringing troops home), Ron Paul seems like a better choice than Obama. He’s considered a more appealing candidate among conservative Republicans, yet also appealing to Democrats concerned about government corruption and other non-partisan issues. Ron Paul’s campaign is centered around a portfolio of issues that are of importance to the left and the right — some conflicting, yet others not in conflict. The video below presents an introduction to Ron Paul and his campaign for president.

I felt it was worth sharing more broadly by posting it here for those who aren’t active in the discussion forum, and also for those involved in any kind of activism or social reform/transform efforts.

As we head into 2012, it’s a good reminder to stay united and focused on solutions, rather than being divided and arguing about problems.

~ Greg

* * *

‘Tis the season…

Friends,

As we finish out the year of 2011, I think we have much to be thankful for. Since 2002, our online discussion group has had 9,881 messages posted. Most of those have offered practical solutions to small home design and construction. There have been excellent discussion threads about electrical systems, water sources, alternative energy, waste disposal, and many other topics.

It doesn’t come up often in this group, but occasionally the discussion gets off topic, stays off topic, and then people may begin to bicker about their own differing opinions about the economy, religion, or politics. I recognize that such conversations will likely always be present in society, but would like us all to make an effort to keep them off this discussion forum.

I know we’re all susceptible to feeling frustrated about the down economy and as we look for people to blame, it’s easy to point the finger at corporate fat-cats or political leaders present and past who are of a different political camp than our own. Heading into an election year, those inclinations will only increase.

As you know, the small house movement brings together people from differing economic, political, social, and cultural backgrounds. This presents challenges and opportunities. The challenge will be for us to stay united and focused on solutions, instead of divided as we complain about problems. The opportunity is that we can learn to respect each other’s differences and grow along the way.

A friend of mine who is well off financially (among the 1%) lives in a 4000 square foot home. He’s done some really innovative things to renovate the home and make it more sustainable. Yet, he still wants to live in something smaller and simpler. He’s also a big supporter of the small house movement. For others, smaller and simpler living isn’t a choice, but an economic necessity for survival. Some may choose small living not for financial reasons, or a desire to live simply, instead they choose small living because they believe a sustainable life is the only environmentally ethical way to live on this earth.

I’ve been involved in social activism for decades, and one thing I’ve learned is that problems are divisive, but solutions bring people together.

Here are some simple examples (among thousands)…

• Starbucks is currently promoting their CreateJobsForUSA.org initiative. This program to create jobs brings people together. Rather than starting a movement complaining about unemployment, and blaming one political party or another, instead they are creating a movement that focuses on solutions.
• NuruInternational.com is an organization dedicated to ending poverty. It was started by an ex-Marine with 7 years of military service and multiple tours of duty. He became disillusioned about war as an effective pathway to peace. Rather than starting up an “anti-war” organization he established a “create peace on earth” organization — and it’s working.

I’d like to think the Small House Society is similar to the above organizations. We’re not here to fight amongst ourselves as we complain about the problems and what caused (or causes) them, but instead we’re here to offer innovative, hopeful, and practical solutions to people seeking smaller, simpler, affordable, and sustainable living. We’re working toward creating sustainable communities where people can live simply with dignity, in harmony with each other and the earth.

Let’s try to keep our time and energy focused on solutions that help people, rather than problems that divide them.

We have a lot to be thankful for. I’m particularly grateful for the many contributions that all of you make to this discussion, and also in your own communities and social circles. We (the Small House Movement) need all of you. We need advocates for our movement from every walk of life — every economic, political, and religious persuasion. You are all ambassadors and representatives of this movement.

Thanks for all you do.

Greg

“The economy is so bad,
you need a good dose
of Maxine!”~ Greg Johnson

We had re-posted on our website an email that has circulated the globe many times over and found its way into the email inboxes of millions. The email contained a dozen Maxine cartoons and quotes about the economy.

There are currently 197,000 other websites and photo sharing sites where you can view and read these cartoons.

However, we removed them from our site because, as it turns out, those cartoons were fake. While the images were Maxine, the captions attributed to her were not hers.

If you’re looking for authentic Maxine cartoons and quotes, consider purchasing Yelling it Like It Is or one of the other official Maxine compilations.

Copyright Notice. We were contacted by Hallmark regarding the Maxine images and quotes about the economy on our site — probably because our site was the #1 search result out of 197,000 on a search for that topic. Below are excerpts from the notice of clarification we received from the legal department at Hallmark.

“The images that you had on your site, and many of those circulated on the Internet and in emails, are not legitimate Maxine cartoons. Rather, they use an image of our Maxine character together with editorial content that does not originate from Hallmark. While we have great respect for the opinions of others and their right to share those opinions, we cannot allow Maxine to be used as the voice of those opinions.”

“Therefore, when we find sentiments used in Maxine cartoons that did not originate with us and should not be attributed to our well-known Maxine character, we request the removal of the Maxine images. As I’m sure you can understand, widespread infringement on the Internet is difficult to adequately police…”

Summary. The Fall of 2011 will mark a significant moment in the revival of Hip Hop music as Candyman 187 (Sardar Khan) and The Havenotz are planning to launch a major project that will revitalize the landscape of rap music.

Known for his involvement in films such as Thug Angel, Welcome to Death Row, and Tupac Shakur: Before I Wake, Candyman 187 has proven his ability to powerfully utilize all forms of media.

Candyman 187 was mentored by the legendary Tupac Shakur and Yaki Kadafi of the Outlawz. Tha Havenotz, was originally started by and consisted of Tupac Shakur, Yaki Kadafi, and Sardar Khan (Candyman 187).

With his band of over a dozen talented musicians, this summer Candyman 187 has released the first in what promises to be an unrelenting series of music videos. Below is the video featuring Show Em’ All.

Learn More. Candyman 187 and Tha Havenotz have taken the Internet by storm reaching out through every imaginable social network and media channel.

• Candyman187.com
• Candyman 187 Facebook Page
• iTunes Web Page
• MySpace
• The Havenotz Facebook Page
• Tumblr.com Page
• Twitter
• YouTube Channel

Commentary. Below is a commentary by Greg Johnson about the video release of Show Em’ All by Candyman 187 and The Havenotz.

“I got goosebumps when I saw the video of Show Em’ All for the first time. The lyrics of the song juxtaposed with the civil rights and protest footage in that music video carries a very powerful message.” ~ Greg Johnson

Summary. There are numerous reports in the news of people being unreasonably searched, detained, and embarrassed by security officials.

The people being harassed by security officials are not those who would appear to fit any category of people that might present a threat.

Pictured here is an 95 year old dying wheelchair-bound woman with Leukemia who was detained for 45 minutes by TSA personnel. The woman’s daughter began crying, so TSA personnel detained the crying daughter as well. A video clip of the news report is below. When asked about the incident, the Transportation Security Administration provided the following response:

“While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner. We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.” ~ TSA, June 2011

What’s disconcerting about their statement is that it implies your grandmother or elderly parent could be next, and there’s nothing you can do about it. According to TSA, what transpired with Jean Weber’s mother is perfectly normal and can happen again.

Videos. Below are videos covering this story.

CNN Transcript. Below is a transcript of the above CNN news video report.

CNN News Anchor: More complaints of absurd pat-downs by the TSA. This time the air traveler isn’t a kid, but an elderly woman who was forced to remove her adult diaper. A Florida woman says security agents asked her 95 year old mother who was in a wheel chair to remove her diaper so they could complete a full search. It happened at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend. Jean Weber says her mother was detained for 45 minutes. The pair were heading to Michigan so Weber’s mother could be with family during the final stages of her battle with Leukemia.

Jean Weber: They said they felt something suspicious on her leg and they couldn’t determine what it was, so they took her into a closed room that was private and I was left outside. They came out and told me that it had something to do with her Depends, that it was wet, and it was firm, and they couldn’t check it thoroughly. She would have to remove it. I said, ‘I don’t have an extra one with me, normally this isn’t a problem.’ They said that she could not complete the security check without the Depends off.

Associated Press Transcript. Below is a transcript from the above Associated Press video report.

Jean Weber: Because she was in a wheel chair, I understand now, that they have to do a pat-down search. That they no longer have wands. My mother is 95, she’s 105 pounds, 4 foot 11 inches, frail and in ill health. They said they found something on the back of her leg. They didn’t know what it was. They took her in a private room, and put her in a closed door session and came out in a while and told me that her Depends had been wet. There was a firm area in there that they could not analyze or feel. [They said] she would have to remove them. We’d already been there a half an hour. I knew that time was flying. I said, ‘Well can we just take them off?’ They said that would be fine, but they couldn’t clear her with those Depends because they were wet. [I] got her back to the TSA area [after removing the diaper] and had to take her shoes off again, and my shoes, and load them in the bin, and by this time I was crying. I was so upset. I knew the time was going, and so I’m now crying and that triggered another alarm that I had strange behavior, so they then took me to a glassed in area and took my purse, took everything out of my purse. [They were] swabbing it for chemicals or something, and then patted me down all over and did their gloves after they had patted me and swabbed them. In the meantime they had taken my mom back into the private room to complete the pat-down process. At that time, she came out, I said, ‘I have lost my gate pass just so I could wheel her back.’ I said, ‘Please get my mother to the plane. It’s two minutes [until departure]. Could you please get my mother to the plane.’ And I hugged her, and I kissed her, and we said our goodbyes right there, but it was a traumatic moment.

Commentary. Below are commentaries about this issue.

“You’ve seen some of these really over the top inspections that have resulted in some really humiliating experiences for some people.” ~ Kathleen Parker [source]

“Our international partners have not adapted this kind of policy. They have to look at people’s behaviors. You should’t be subject to a pat-down because your’e the fifth person in line…. They need to screen based on risk…, based on point of origin that deserves greater scrutiny.” ~ Erroll Southers, FBI Agent, Counter Terrorism Expert, Former TSA Administrator Nominee [source]

“I’m usually very conscientious and careful when traveling. However, on one occasion, I’d unknowingly traveled thousands of miles, through numerous security check points, carrying several  items on the TSA prohibited list, including a liter of water. I say unknowing because I did’t realize it and the TSA screeners never discovered it either. I had a knife, multiple liquids over 3 ounces, cutlery, silverware, and other items. After traveling about 5000 miles through numerous airports and security checkpoints, I only then discovered these things that had gone undetected by security agents. I got rid of them immediately, but wondered why it is that innocent people get detained while those who are more suspicious looking don’t get detained. I recalled seeing elderly people getting frisked and taken aside for more intensive screening while I was getting waived on by TSA personnel. It just doesn’t seem fair, rational, or effective.” ~ Anonymous

Artistic Expression and Social Commentary. Below is a graffiti drawing by Banksy that depicts our myopic and overzealous passion for policing.

Summary. There’s a movement on the Internet that involves making comparisons between the political career of Barack Obama and Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-Tung).

Both are charismatic leaders who didn’t just win the support of the people, but created a movement that was founded on basic idealistic principles.

Below are some images from China that have been updated to portray the image of Barack Obama instead of Chairman Mao.

Pictured to the right is 1950s Chinese propaganda poster showing a happy family of five enjoying life under the image of Mao Zedong. The caption above the picture reads “The happy life Chairman Mao gives us.”

Some people were referring to Barack Obama as a messianic figure prior to his election. The hope was that his progressive and hopeful optimism would help transform business as usual in Washington D.C. and hopefully bring about positive change in the United States.

Below is an image of the same propaganda poster, with Barack Obama’s image on the wall.

Below are other manifestations of this phenomenon.

Cult of Personality. One similarity between Obama and Mao is their magnetic personality and how they managed to generate a following that might be considered a cult of personality phenomenon.

“A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are usually associated with dictatorships. The sociologist Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as ‘charismatic authority’. A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is established by mass media and propaganda. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.” [source]

Personal Jesus. Perhaps one of the most powerful presentations of the cult of personality phenomenon regarding Obama is a YouTube video (below) that provides a compilation of campaign images showing idillic and worshipful portrayal of Barack Obama. The music soundtrack to the music video slideshow is the song Personal Jesus performed by Marilyn Manson. Some have found the insinuations of this video offensive.

Summary. A movement toward Paleolithic living has recently reached critical mass. Many books on paleo and primal diets are now flooding the market. One such book is The Vegetarian Myth by the Lierre Keith. Others include:

• The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat
• The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet
• Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life
• The Primal Blueprint: Reprogram your genes for effortless weight loss, vibrant health, and boundless energy

Paleo/Primal Diets. Paleo diets or primal diets are typically high in meat and advocate the consumption of foods similar to what would have been eaten 2.6 million years ago. The rationale is that humans have not evolved, but instead, “our physiology is fundamentally the same as that of people from the Paleolithic Era…” — approximately 2.6 million years ago. [Primal Body, Page 5] The claim is made that we are genetically 99% identical to our ancestors, so we should eat like them. Yet, paleo-advocates fail to acknowledge that just being genetically similar to our ancestors, or other primates, doesn’t mean we should eat their diet.

The Vegetarian Myth. Lierre Keith’s book provides a useful template and expresses the general principles and teachings brought forth in other similar books. In summary, Lierre Kieth argues that the human body is designed to eat the foods that we were eating 4 million years ago. She cites archeological evidence that shows humans were tall, strong, and had all their teeth for 4 million years up until the time of agriculture — and this is proof that vegetables are killing us (or at least a diet without enough meat). Further down this page is an interview with Lierre Keith who discusses her beliefs about vegetarianism as presented in her book The Vegetarian Myth. Rather than being pro-paleo, after 20 years as living as a vegan, Keith is waging an anti-vegetarianism crusade (as her book title implies). What Keith seems to overlook is that the advent of agriculture did not just impact our access to vegetables (those are easy to hunt), but it dramatically increased our access to meat. So, it’s more likely that we began eating more meat due to agriculture, and this has caused our modern-day illnesses. Because vegetarians compose a small part of western society, our illnesses are more likely due to eating meat than vegetarianism. Furthermore, wellness or illness are not simply determined from diet. There are many other factors that contribute to improved health (e.g. proper sleep, hydration, exercise, and reduced stress).

Dangers of Primal and Paleo Diets. There are some shortcomings of the romanticized primal and paleo diets. It’s difficult to know exactly what people ate 2 to 4 million years ago. We can assume that whatever they ate, it probably wasn’t prepared or cooked in a way agreeable to our tastes. It would have been fairly rudimentary. Don’t expect to see any Paleo or Primal cooking shows on late night TV anytime soon. It’s also difficult to get comprehensive and meaningful medical records of a sufficiently large population of people to make any conclusions. If we find one cave person frozen in ice who is several million years old, it’s tempting to start making some broad sweeping generalizations about all humans at that time. However, that’s simply not a scientific way to arrive at conclusions. What we know about human health today, based on scientific facts, is the following:

• According to the Mayo Clinic, “a well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women.”
• According to the American Heart Association, “Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. ”
• According to a statement by GNC, “Vegetarians and vegans are among the healthiest people in the world.”

Historic Record. While paleo / primal living advocates conjure up an image of humans being hunters, reliable sources indicate, “The earliest humans probably lived primarily on scavenging, not actual hunting. Early humans in the Lower Paleolithic lived in mixed habitats which allowed them to collect seafood, eggs, nuts, and fruits besides scavenging.” [source] Present-day scientific and medical data points to vegetarianism as a healthier way to live and this is supported by historic records. For example, an ancient document relates an exchange that took place around 600 BC between four vegetarians and a meat eater who had detained them.

Vegetarians: “Please let us eat a vegan diet.”

Meat Eater: “I am afraid… Why should [people] see you looking worse than the other young men your age?”

Vegetarians: “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat [meat], and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”

At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate [meat]. So the guard took away [the meat] and gave them vegetables instead.

These four young men [gained] knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning.

There is a scientific explanation for what transpired above. Because heavy foods require more of the body’s energy (and blood) to digest, by eating lighter foods and drinking plenty of water, these vegetarians were able to keep their brains functioning optimally. Presumably, the vegetables were less likely to be carriers of various diseases and toxins common in meats then (and now).

Historic Life Expectancy Rates. Those promoting Paleo / Primal diets are quick to point out the problems with modern-day western diet and medicine. Yet, life expectancy rates are higher now than ever before in history. So, the evolution and refinement of our food, diet, and lifestyle doesn’t seem to be harming us too much. Perhaps history teaches us that getting away from a Paleo diet has allowed people to live up to 4 times longer.

Diet and Ethics. There are many reasons for becoming a vegetarian. Health benefits are just one reason. Some people choose vegetarianism out of concern for the exploitation of animals and animal suffering. Such people choose ethics rather than personal health as the bottom line for their food choices. For these vegetarians, even if it were proven that their diet would result in living 5 years less, they would remain vegetarian. Even among meat eaters, if they were told that eating kittens would provide nutritional benefits allowing them to live a healthy long life, many would simply forgo kitten consumption.

Diet and Exploitation. As we increasingly recognize and feel our global connectedness, people are making choices based on compassion rather than their economic cost.

• As an advocate for women’s rights, Lierre Keith campaigns against the pornography industry, citing that women are typically demeaned and exploited by that industry.
  • The porn consumer would argue that they gain benefit, pleasure, and perhaps longevity and health through the consumption of porn. The porn consumer might express that they aren’t concerned about the welfare or possible exploitation of those involved in the creation of porn — their personal gain and benefit exceeds their concern.
• Human rights activists campaign against companies and factories that engage in labor practices that exploit workers.
  • Like the consumer of porn, the person who buys products manufactured by exploited workers would argue that they gain value, savings, and ultimately free time through the economic exploitation of someone else’s time/labor. Their gain means more to them than concern for others.
• Vegetarians and animal welfare advocates express concern about the suffering and exploitation of animals for human consumption.
  • The meat eater would argue that what they believe they are gaining in health benefits from meat is more important than any concern about animals being killed.

So, in all three examples above, people sometimes choose pleasure or personal gain even when their choice may result in someone else’s suffering. War is perhaps the greatest expression of this truth, and results in indiscriminate suffering and destruction on many levels, usually for personal gain (e.g. oil, security, land, resources, labor, etc.) So, it’s the same thinking process and values system that leads one to consume porn, exploit workers, eat meat, and wage war. In general, it’s selfishness and short sighted.

Holistic Compassion. What sometimes happens is that people become compartmentalized and insular with regard to their compassion. A person might be concerned about the exploitation of women, yet simultaneously exploit vulnerable and innocent animals by killing them and eating them. The contradiction and hypocrisy isn’t visible to the person who has become insulated by the self fabricated cocoon of self righteous indignation toward the suffering of a certain group (e.g. women, workers, or animals). Compassion that isn’t holistic is often contradictory and hypocritical — or at least it’s incomplete compassion. What’s needed to change the world is holistic compassion.

Video. The video below is an interview with Lierre Keith who discusses her beliefs about vegetarianism as presented in her book The Vegetarian Myth. This video is a helpful tool in identifying your own irrational thinking as well as that of others. Note: Lierre Keith seems to be a sincere and passionate person. The commentary below is not meant to be an attack of her, but simply a response to and commentary upon the teachings that she and millions of other profess.

Commentary. Below are quotes from the interview and responses to those statements.

• Claim. [0:00-0:13, 2:19-2:33] For millions of years, humans have been, “… tall, and strong, and they keep all their teeth and their bones are disease free until you hit agriculture, and then suddenly everybody shrinks six inches and they loose their teeth and their bones are riddled with disease.”
  • Response. One form of irrational thinking is to assume a cause and effect where there is none. Advocates of Paleolithic living claim that agriculture has resulted in a decline of health among humans. However, they tend to overemphasize the role of agriculture – since health and wellness involves a holistic array of many factors, not just diet. Of course, the onset of agriculture did not usher in vegetarianism. So, any decline in human health was probably due to something other than vegetarianism. The opposite is more likely. Hunting and gathering produced a small amount of meat, but raising animals for meat consumption has allowed us to eat more meat than any other time in history. So, in fact, the onset of agriculture has resulted in an increase of meat eating and that has caused us to shrink, and caused our teeth to fall out, and caused or bones to be riddled with disease. Today we have people who predominantly eat meat, yet they get sick just like anyone else. Some of the illnesses we see today are a result of people living longer.
• Claim. [1:43-1:51] “There’s a human template that needs certain nutritional elements and they are not provided by a vegetarian diet.”
  • Response. This is simply a fable that is easily disproven by scientific and medical facts. Were this true, then billions of people in primarily vegetarian countries would all be malnourished.
    • According to the Mayo Clinic, “a well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women.”
    • According to the American Heart Association, “Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. ”
• Claim. [1:52-2:02] “You can go back 4 million years to the very beginning of the human race and there is no question that we were hunters. This is what we ate for literally 4 million years, and it’s the reason we have really big brains.”
  • Response. This is another good example of assigning a causal relationship where none exists (e.g. hunting = big brains).  First of all, the size of a brain doesn’t determine the level of intelligence. Women’s brains are generally smaller than men’s brains, yet women’s brains are more dense and computationally greater.
    • “…studies suggest larger animals may need bigger brains simply because there is more to control — for example they need to move bigger muscles and therefore need more and bigger nerves to move them…” [source]
• Claim. [2:02-2:20] We have the largest brain of any primate and the smallest digestive tract. Which is to say, ‘How are you going to feed that brain?’ Our brains use 25% of our energy needs, and you’re not going to get that out of plants. It’s quite clear that we must have been eating meat to get brains that are this large.”
  • Response. The assumption that we have large brains and so we must have been meat eaters is another good example of assigning a causal relationship where none exists. Other animals with big brains are vegetarians, and some animals with small brains are meat eaters. The other question is that of how one measures the brain. Is it only based on the size of the brain, or is the measurement and comparison based on size of brain with respect to the size of the body.
• Claim. [3:08-3:42] “saving the planet, and all these political concerns about oppression… It all comes together when you learn about veganism because you can stop oppressing animals and you can stop polluting the earth and you can feed hungry people. It makes a total picture. You get this complete plan, if you just eat this way. … except none of it is true, and that’s the problem.”
  • Response. Other than the assertion that the benefits of veganism are false, no facts are presented that could be refuted.
    • “Vegans are frequently misunderstood as fringe eaters with an unnatural passion for animal rights. While many vegans do feel passionately about animals, its time for others to see that a vegan diet and lifestyle go way beyond animal rights. Following a healthy, balanced vegan diet ensures a host of health benefits as well as prevention of some of the major diseases striking people in North America. Read these blogs to find out about the health benefits or going vegan or just provide better information to your patients.” ~ 57 Health Benefits of Going Vegan
• Claim. [4:29-4:36] “There’s a whole generation of us now who have been through this. We tried it. It didn’t work. Our health collapsed, and we had to try something new.”
  • Response. One of the mistakes people often make when embracing a new way of thinking or living is that our old was didn’t work for us and so it can’t work for anyone else. In our zeal, we can sometimes believe that the way we think and live is the way that everyone else must think and live. This seems to be the mistake made by meat eaters who try to push their way of life on others.
• Claim. [4:49-5:02] “The problem with protein that comes from plant sources is that its wrapped in cellulose. We have no way to digest cellulose. We’ve got that one stomach. So, we can’t eat grass.”
  • Response. Anyone who claims we can’t eat grass has probably been smoking it. Not only can we eat grass, the benefits of consuming grasses such as wheatgrass are well documented. The benefits are so obvious that even carnivorous cats will instinctively eat grass for the many benefits.
• Claim. [5:15-5:29] “There are fat soluble nutrients you cannot get from plants. Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, Vitamin E. You cannot get these from plants. They don’t exist in plant foods. They are essential. You will die without them.”
  • Response. That’s a persuasive argument for eating animal products. However, it doesn’t explain why or how billions of vegetarians have lived long lives for many generations in countries such as India, where meat eating is not common. It also doesn’t explain why vegetarian athletes and vegan athletes perform so well. For example, Dave Scott is a six-time winner of the Iron Man Triathlon competition. He holds the world record for the most victories ever. If meat eating produces superior results, then why do vegetarians and vegans commonly out perform meat eaters? Why don’t they die?
• Claim. [26:52-]26:58 “A nuclear disaster is better for the planet than civilization.”
  • Response. This is an example of misplaced aggression and blame. The claim being made is that civilization does more harm to the planet than a nuclear disaster, and the evidence of this is that at the Chernobyl location, there are animals living together in harmony, but no people, except women. So, presumably, according to this logic what we need is a world devoid of men, and then there won’t be any problems. There’s a lot wrong with that line of thinking, but for starters, the overconsumption, war, crime, and destruction caused by today’s civilization is really just a problem of over population. A smaller civilization based on sustainable principles and better ethics would not create the same problems we have today.

Conclusion. For the remainder of the interview, Lierre Keith seems fairly coherent and rational, which is a demonstration of how people can have one area of their life be based on irrational and unscientific beliefs while other areas of their life are founded on rational and scientifically based facts. It’s fairly evident that Keith believes her 20 years of vegetarianism caused her to develop a degenerative spinal disease, and so her book and campaign against vegetarianism seems to be partly retaliation and misdirected projection of anger toward vegetarianism.

Lierre Keith’s campaign and crusade takes conclusions and choices from a personal experience and projects that to all those around her. Rather than saying, “This is the path I’m choosing,” she speaks in broad-reaching proclamations, denouncing her old way of life and declaring that her new way of life is the way everyone should live. This is common among people who go from one religion to another. They denounce the old religion and point out all its flaws, and then portray the new religion as the only truth. It’s most pronounced in cult-like sectarian insular groups of adherents to religious, philosophical, intellectual, or social-based practices and beliefs.

Commentary. Below is a commentary from Greg Johnson about thoughts on meat eating and vegetarianism.

“My grandmother was a two-pack-a-day smoker. She drank alcohol and she was overweight. She regularly ate meat and foods high in cholesterol and animal fat. She lived a full life, and lived into her 90s. Yet, I don’t think one anecdotal story should be the basis for people’s life choices.

Those who eat meat, and think they are making a better choice for their health and the planet will likely be let down. It’s like someone becoming a Christian with the voodoo-like belief that Jesus will ward off all of life’s problems. Either belief is based on irrational thinking.

No religion is going to be perfect and cure all of life’s ills. Similarly, no diet is going to be an elixir that saves you from all health problems. In fact, wellness and health is much broader than just a matter of what we eat.

I’m saddened when I see people peddling philosophies, religions, practices, or lifestyles with a promise of it being a cure-all. So many people are hurting, and want to believe, and they are sucked in by such sincere presentations, only to be disappointed, and ultimately lose faith, loose hope, and become jaded.

We need to think, speak, and live holistically. We need to respect and understand ‘the other’ while holding to our own identity and beliefs. In seeking to understand ‘the other’ we’ll see ourself in them, and realize how much we all have in common.” ~ Greg Johnson

Alternative Possibilities. Below are a few possible reasons why Lierre Keith is on her crusade against vegetarianism.

• Cult Psychology. Certainly not all vegans or vegetarians have a cult-like identity to the movement. However, some people, regardless of what group they join, develop an unhealthy obsessive cult-like adherence and commitment to the cause. This happens in other areas of society such as politics or multi-level marketing. When someone is an obsessive passionate vegan, and then switches to become an obsessive passionate meat eater, it’s fairly clear that the person has the kind of personality that results in them wanting to belong to some group or cause. When most people change their diet, they don’t feel compelled to write a book discrediting their previous diet.
• Hoax. One possibility is that the Lierre Keith campaign against vegetarianism is a hoax in the Steven Colbert tradition, to make meat eaters seem stupid.
• Human Annihilation. Keith stated clearly her sentiments about civilization causing harm to the planet when she said a nuclear disaster would be better for the planet than civilization. Her crusade to get humans to eat meat may, possibly, be a high level strategy that ironically allows animals to kill off all the people through our consumption of them. Given the health problems associated with ingesting large quantities of meat and animal byproducts, it’s possible Keith is attempting to crash the system by promoting meat eating.
• Troll. It’s possible that she’s an anarchist “troll” without any particular agenda other than agitation and creating dissidence.
• Mind Control. She may be the target of a mind control experiment, who has somehow been brainwashed to channel the words programmed by her controllers. This possibility is less plausible.
• Retaliation. In the interview above, Keith shares that she became a vegan at a time in her life when she was very impressionable (16 years old). Presumably one or more people influenced her decision to become vegan. She further shares that eating vegan (she believes) caused her to develop a degenerative disease. So, it’s likely that she has some resentment and bitterness toward the people who (she believes) injured her health, or at least some ill feelings toward the movement.
• Sensationalism. It may be that she’s drawn to the sensationalism of being a 20-year vegan and animal rights advocate who is now promoting meat consumption.

In recent years, one of the victories often cited by political consultants (on the left and right) has been the transition of blue states to red states as Republican political candidates have won local and state elections in areas that were previously consistently Democratic.

Much of the Republican growth in has come from hispanic voters, religious people, and the working poor migrating from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

In the past, Democratic politicians have served the working poor, partly because of ethical reasons, and also because the working poor voted for them.

Often seen as the party of the underdogs, the Democratic party, like Robin Hood (pictured above), served to balance out unfairness in the marketplace. As Barack Obama recently put it, “Spread the Wealth Around.” Like a modern day Robin Hood, Obama’s vision of spreading the wealth around was to take money from the wealthy and give it to those who’ve been less fortunate.

The concept of asking for more from those who have more isn’t new. It’s a theme that’s been echoed by political and religious leaders throughout history.

“For of those to whom much is given, much is required.” - President John F. Kennedy, January 9, 1961

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” – Jesus (Luke 12:48)

The Republicans recently voted to spread the wealth around. However, their plan was not to give to the less fortunate, but instead to take from the poor and give to the rich. This is both a bad decision politically as well as unethical by any standard. If not for ethical reasons, Republicans should for political expediency defend and support those who elected them. For this reason, over 75 professors at Catholic University and other prominent Catholic colleges have written a letter of protest.

Our country was founded on the principle of providing opportunities for everyone, even the poor, not exploiting the poor to create opportunities for the wealthy. Yet today, it’s the wealthy who are enjoying the American dream at the expense of others who don’t.

“Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, not only paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2009, but received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS, according to their own shareholder report.” [source]

“At a time when we have a $14.2 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion federal deficit, it is unacceptable that Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Bank of America, Chevron, Boeing, and other large, profitable corporations are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes at all but have actually received huge refund checks from the IRS.” [source]

Given these circumstances, we should just skip the middle man and make our tax payments directly to the corporations that are controlling our government.

* * *

This article was inspired by The Religious Indictment of Republicanism by Nicholas Johnson.

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.” – Jessica Dovey

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Public Opinion. In the days immediately following the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the above quotes were mistakenly merged into a single quote attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. — and the quote began spreading around the world as people copied and pasted it to indicate their sentiments regarding the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The wide use of this quote became a news story in itself and was reported by CBS News, The Atlantic, and many others.

When considering the broad public opinion above, it seems that an assassination of Bin Laden wasn’t what Americans wanted. Not only was it not what Americans wanted, it seems that it was not in America’s best interest, and was an act that was counter productive. It is an action that goes against our ethics, violates international laws, and makes the world less safe.

Measuring Effectiveness and Outcomes. Below are a list of points to consider when evaluating the impact and consequences of Osama Bin Laden’s assassination and the expected outcomes. These points are arranged with those having greatest relevance and significance first.

• Death Penalty for Suicide Bombers? People are of mixed opinions regarding what a just punishment should be for someone who has committed an atrocious crime. Some believe the death penalty is best, while others believe time in prison is a better punishment and deterrent. Certainly among suicide terrorists like Bin Laden, assassination is not effective as a punishment or deterrent (since such people are willing to die for their cause). Prison time or public service would have been a better choice.
• Bin Laden’s Fame Increased. At the time of the assassination, Bin Laden’s fame had diminished. At his natural death, there would have been little if any media attention or public awareness. The assassination brought Bin Laden back into international news and elevated him to the point of being a martyr and hero among his followers. The official Al-Qaeda statement about his martyrdom proclaims, “That the Americans were able to kill Osama is not shameful to us. Where else do men and heroes die except on the battlefield? Every end is predestined. But can the Americans with their media, agents, machinery, soldiers, intelligence and equipment kill what Sheikh Osama lived and fought for?  Never, never. … Many more men and heroes like him will come.”
• Videos Show Positive Portrayal of Bin Laden. In an effort to help demonize Bin Laden, videos obtained from the raid were released by the US government to media outlets. The videos attempt to show Bin Laden as backwards and despicable. According to one analyst, these videos (now released to the Muslim world), will foster identification with and compassion for Bin Laden — the opposite reaction we were hoping for. Bin Laden is depicted in the videos as a humble and self-sacrificing pious man with multiple layers of symbolism that will invoke images of the prophet Mohammed.
• Our Policy on Torture Violated. Many forms of torture during interrogation have now been made illegal. It seems that shooting someone in the head should be among the list of things you can’t do to someone who hasn’t had a trial.
• A Respectful Assassination? It’s an odd juxtaposition to have someone assassinated by Navy SEALs in front of their family, and then shortly after conduct a very formal religiously-observant memorial service for the person with a military burial at sea. That’s a kind of romanticized memorial service only reserved for heros. If you respect the person enough to have a first class memorial service for them, why not give them a trial?
• Disregarding Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established in 1948 as a guideline for civilized and ethical nations to follow. It’s not a menu to pick and choose from, or a list of considerations we want for ourselves, but refuse to extend to others. In assassinating Bin Laden, we violate Article 10 of that declaration which states, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” We also violate Article 11.1 which states, “Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.” There are other Articles of the declaration that were violated as a result of the assassination.
• We Are Less Safe. The U.S. State Department acknowledged that we are less safe after Obama’s death. [source] So, the goal of making the world a safer place seems to have not been achieved. In fact, the act has incited calls among Bin Laden supporters for ongoing violent retaliation, “the blood of the mujahid Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may God have mercy on him, is too precious to us and to every Muslim to be wasted in vain. And it will remain, with permission from God Almighty, a curse that haunts the Americans and their collaborators and pursues them outside and inside their country, and that soon, with God’s help, their joy will turn to sorrow and their tears will mix with blood…”
• Intelligence Gathering Compromised. Had there been a capture and trial of Bin Laden, it would have been possible create a greater intelligence awareness about his remaining network and bring other involved parties into scrutiny. We’re told that some information was gathered from among his personal belongings. Yet the intelligence gathered was likely limited, and will quickly become irrelevant given the morphing and transitory characteristics of the terror movement. We’re told the Navy SEALs were able to capture the equivalent of a small library. To the extent that his library contained books available at the local bookstore on religion and other topics, these are less helpful or relevant in uncovering terror networks.
• The American People Deserve a Trial. People feel that Bin Laden doesn’t deserve a trial. Due process isn’t about what a person deserves, it’s a process we follow. It isn’t something extended only to those who deserve it. Even if Bin Laden didn’t deserve a trial, we, the American people, do. The process of having a trial is important because other facts come to light in a trial. Questions get answered, such as… Who provided Bin Laden with a safe house for 6 years? Who was funding Bin Laden? While highly unlikely, we’ve seen in the past where a corrupt member of a government or a government agency will work with criminals and terrorists. Was someone in our government or another government working with Bin Laden? He could have told us. Now he can’t. Why did our government want him dead instead of captured? What were we afraid he might disclose if put on trial? Is it possible that simply killing him and denying him the right to a trial was a coverup of some kind? The likelihood of this is very slim, but it’s one example of many for why trials are important. Conducting a covert assassination rather than a public trial, helps create a frenzy among the conspiracy theorists. It creates confusion rather than clarity.
• World Opinion of Bin Laden Strengthened. Had there been a capture and trial of Bin Laden, testimony and evidence of his wrong doings would have turned Muslim sentiment against him (among the minority of people who are his supporters). Without a formal trial, and stripped of due process, his death was not an execution or sentencing by a court, but an assassination — further elevating his hero status among followers who could believe he was innocent and unjustly killed.
• World opinion of America Hindered. The USA is known as a country where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not only does a court determine the extent of someone’s guilt, but also determines an appropriate punishment. Assassinations are viewed by some people as a violent, unethical, and inconsistent with American values. It’s now coming to light that the assassination took place in front of Bin Laden’s young daughter. This isn’t the kind of image we want to have. Now, the US wants to interview the widows. How are we going to make that request? “We killed your husband. Now we have a few questions for you.” In every respect, it seems that the assassination doesn’t serve to create a better image for America.
• Secret Operations are Problematic. The US government claims that we couldn’t trust Pakistan and so the operation needed to be carried out in secret. It’s common for a government or agency to monitor a criminal without capturing the person because the intelligence gained is greater. Was Pakistan engaged in an intelligence gathering operation? That’s something we won’t know now.
• Negative Geopolitical Impact. The assassination is viewed by Pakistan as uncooperative and undiplomatic — further straining US-Pakistan relations. It would understandably cause other countries to be suspicious and untrusting of America.
• Turning an Assassination into a Media Event. Media outlets announced early that the president was going to be making an important public address. This set the stage for making the news story a media event. According to CBS News, “Shortly before midnight, with a cheering crowd gathering outside the White House, the president went on national television.” To anyone watching the president’s announcement, and seeing video of the crowd outside the White House, it seemed a bit odd that so many people would have gathered to celebrate what presumably was a secret operation up to the moment of the president’s announcement. How did so many people learn details of the news seemingly before it was public? When did they find time to make signs? How is it that so many people were available and awake at such a late hour so close to the White House? It’s quite a coincidence that numerous major networks were also present, with lights, and full video crews, outside the white house to video record the event. Why did they think people would spontaneously show up outside the White House? This is not to suggest that the spontaneous crowd was part of a conspiracy to portray public enthusiasm about the assassination. However, it is plausible that some effort was made to stage a pro-Obama event. This kind of thing is done in politics all the time. According to one person who was there, “… one thing that crossed my mind was how many people had huge American flags readily available for the celebration. And who had time to put on face paint?” To commit an act of violence and then turn that into a media event and political statement is something that terrorists do. It’s not something our politicians should be part of. Even if egging on crowds to cheer at the news of someone’s death was politically expedient, it’s probably not the image we want to have as Americans.
• Creating a Climate for Suspicion. It’s in people’s nature to be a bit suspicious and cynical. The way the assassination was conducted creates an environment to feed that. Had Bin Laden been captured, put on trial, and then executed, there would be no question about his guilt and demise. Killing him at night and dumping his body out at sea creates conditions for people to question his death.

Benefits. The numerous points above seem to indicate that the assassination of Bin Laden was a bad idea. However, there are some possible benefits to his death:

• Closure. Because it’s impossible to retaliate or take vengeance upon a suicide bomber, people would understandably be left with a sense of unfulfilled justice. For some who lost family and friends in the 9/11 attacks, the killing of Bin Laden may help bring closure and a sense of satisfaction.
  
• Establishes New Standard. Some people have suggested that a simple air strike on Bin Laden’s home would be sufficient to kill him. Others have suggested that capturing him and putting him on trial would have been more diplomatic. An assassination is a middle ground between a war and having a trial. It also provides an opportunity for positive identification (something an air strike would not offer).
• Avoidance of War. An unauthorized covert military operation on foreign soil is sufficiently undiplomatic that it could result in a war, yet it is less likely to do so than an air strike like the bombing of Baghdad.
• Money Savings. An air strike on the Bin Laden compound, and possible war with Pakistan could have cost much more than an assassination. For example, the bombing of Baghdad developed into a full-scale war in Iraq costing over 700 trillion dollars. [source]
• Time Savings. Trials can be time consuming, so killing people suspected of having done wrong or suspected of possibly doing something wrong in the future helps avoid time consuming trials. However, some people would argue that the time savings don’t outweigh the unethical nature of assassinations.
• Obama’s Electability. For some voters, Barack Obama is now perceived as a strong leader willing to take risks and pay a high price geopolitically for the cause of retaliation and vengeance. This makes him more electable in 2012. It’s unlikely that the assassination was entirely motivated by political reasons. However, there are political benefits.

Summary. When our actions and behavior toward terrorists are similar in nature to the acts the terrorists have engaged in, then we lose the war on terror.

Further Reading. For further reading on this topic, refer to the article Justice was Done by Nicholas Johnson.

* * *

Document History. This document was started on May 1, and subsequently was edited and added to. It was posted on 6 May 2011 at 5PM. It’s current version was re-posted on 10 May 2010 at 8:55 AM.

Summary. The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard explores how outdated legislation is creating restrictions and barriers to progress. [BUY NOW]

Distressing, disturbing, devastatingly detailed–this stunning examination of how modern laws are diminishing America exposes the drawbacks of rule-bound government, tells why nothing gets done, reveals the phony pretensions of law, and shows why well-intentioned laws have actually devalued rights.

In short, The Death of Common Sense demonstrates how the buck never stops and how ell-meaning laws are creating a nation of enemies.