Charlotte's Web Blog

Confessions of an Adopted Child

I was born in the backseat of an Oldsmobile. My mother was in labor for 15 minutes, not long enough for my father to drive us to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. I popped out during the Drifters’ song “There Goes My Baby;” and moments later, there I went. In the emergency room parking lot, I was whisked away by a nurse, complying with a pre-arranged adoption pact and who was under the assumption—as were most adoption “experts” in 1960--that cutting ties should be done in an abrupt and swift fashion like pulling off an old Band-Aid. I would never see my natural parents again. At least that’s what everyone thought.

My adoptive family always had the appropriate number of cars, boats, housekeepers and country club parties; they were skilled at complying with “old money” standards. Those who had “new money”--such as show business folk or overnight get-rich schemers--were naturally inferior to us, or so I was told. By adopting me, my parents were on track for procuring a suitable number of children for a respectable family: two. My brother was adopted a couple of years later.

To the neighbors, everything looked primed and painted, but I was well acquainted with the wood filler and industrious termites beneath the surface. Partly, my negativity stemmed from a perception that I was an outsider with an entirely different value system. I did not qualify as the black sheep of the family for only one reason: sheep tend to be followers. I was more like the independent, black cat, who went my own way.

From grade school to high school, my classmates regularly criticized me for supporting the civil rights movement, for rejecting communism conspiracy theories, for failing to be enamored with all Republican candidates, and for not accepting Jesus as my Redeemer, despite the fact that I attended religious services six days a week.

It galled my friends when I lusted over the flashy, sequined evening gowns that the “new money” movie stars would wear to the latest premiere. Then I’d show up at the school dance wearing one and watch the whispers percolate throughout the room.

I felt ideologically out of place regardless of whether I was at home, school or the local mall and wondered why. Many studies point to a connection between biology and criminal behavior, but what about biology in relation to simple, run-of-the-mill beliefs? Could a person have a genetic predisposition towards particular moral values and favored activities? Could “nature” make a person more likely to support universal healthcare, gay marriage, educational vouchers or the National Rifle Association? Could DNA be a factor in a person’s distaste for vintage automobiles or her attraction to sports?

The answer seems to be yes. British and Australian researchers determined that twins who are reared apart think similarly on subjects ranging from sex, religion, politics, divorce, apartheid and tough-mindedness; and twin research at the University of Minnesota confirmed the finding. “Nurture” has little influence on a child’s personality. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker makes the case that as much as 70% of the variation between individuals, in areas such as political leanings, personal philosophy, intelligence and personality, are derived from genes.

According to the Washington Monthly, a study conducted by Bruce Sacerdote found that biology rather than environment correlates with income. He learned that “being raised (as an adoptee) in a high-earning family doesn’t seem to have much effect (on the income of the child when she grows up), while being born (as a natural child) to a high-earning family does.” Did this mean I might have to give up those big-ticket gowns and go from being “old money” to “no money?”

Adult children often seek out their natural parents in order to address health concerns, such as to determine whether cancer or heart disease runs in the family; but I wondered if it could help a person better understand herself? I aimed to find out and started the search for my natural parents at the age of 25.

The process was jammed with roadblocks. Adoption records were closed; in other words, I was not supposed to gain access to names or identifying information. Although the bulk of my detective work took place by phone from my home in Los Angeles, at one point I traveled to the Atlanta adoption agency that had placed me and persuaded an employee to divulge the names of my mother and father.

When I was told “Wilson,” I anticipated a needle-in-the-haystack search and realized I had not even arrived at the farm. Today, there are two and a half million listings on Google with my father’s exact first and last name.

As I sleuthed after data, I picked up helpers along the way. Amiable strangers in Georgia, Maryland and Virginia—most of who lived in residences that were once occupied by my mother or father--volunteered to devote investigative hours and legwork to my pressing mission. I made calls. They made calls. In the end, I found my father’s former college and got his contact number from alumni records. I located my mother via a Baltimore school that had employed my grandmother.

I learned one parent is a university professor and author, and the other works for the U.S. Government in Washington D.C. They gave me up for adoption because they were in graduate school and did not plan to stay together. They didn’t.

In the end, I found parents—as well as aunts, cousins and a grandmother—who have values and interests akin to my own. They study philosophy, are environmental advocates, teach aerobics, have similar taste in art and suffer from the migraine headaches that have plagued me since I was a child.

My mother’s religious path detoured in the same way as mine. We were both raised Christian, then attended a Unitarian church for a while, and eventually converted to Reform Judaism.

Although my natural family is rich in heart, their pockets are not totally bare; so genetically speaking, it looks like I may be able to feed my “frock habit” for a few more years.

The ongoing connection with my kin has taught me why I am the way I am, and why I am unlike those who raised me. I appreciate my adoptive parents’ efforts, but have learned that one can never have too many parents.

Desperately Seeking DNA

Maybe the recent Connecticut home invasion didn’t mesmerize us for months like the cable news soap operas I affectionately call “The Guiding Light of Anna Nicole Smith” and “As the World Turns around Natalee Holloway,” but it still got entangled in the media’s “news flash” net and held our collective attention for a full 48 hours. In the end, two men were arrested and charged with robbing, raping, and killing a suburban family as well as torching their home.

I was not overly surprised by the villainous events of that day. A 2005 U.S. Department of Justice report reveals there is one rape for every 1,000 Americans per year and six murders for every 100,000.

I was also not shocked when the story became the centerpiece on the marketplace of ideas dinner table that night. A review conducted by the Project for Excellence found that media outlets tend to replay the same select news pieces. This gives the stories a life of their own.

What perked my ears about the home invasion crime was the media’s obsession with a particular, seemingly out-of-place detail: one of the alleged perpetrators, Joshua Komisarjevsky, had been adopted. One newspaper went so far as to title its story, “Alleged Connecticut Killer Adopted as Baby.”

Why not title the story “Alleged Connecticut Killer Ate Lima Beans for Lunch?” Is it because lima beans rarely cause an average Joe to explode into a lawless rampage? Can “defective” genes be a precursor to crime?

Clearly, the adoptive family, the press, or both, accepted the premise that biological factors can trigger violence. It’s possible the family, hoping to distance themselves from the heinous act and convey that they have “good DNA,” pitched the “he’s not related to us” angle to reporters. It’s equally possible that members of the press decided this detail was somehow meaningful. Whatever the case, the idea was embedded in multiple articles, although there was no outward mention of a possible link between hereditary factors and criminal behavior.

Newspaper pieces and Internet blogs revealed how Komisarjevsky’s family struggled for years to straighten out the wayward boy, who became a burglar at the age of 14. Attempts to make him feel like part of the family were futile.

This reminded me of a disturbingly similar story from a 1999 60 Minutes segment, which described the case of Jeff Landrigan, a young man who was adopted at birth by a law-abiding family, but who now sits on death row for murder. Landrigan’s adoptive sister speculated that her brother had bad genes, adding, “I personally think that the day by brother was born, his fate was probably sealed…”

While on death row, Landrigan found out his birthfather was imprisoned on death row in another state and that his family tree was peppered with felons. He told 60 Minutes he believed crime was passed down in his family “like cancer or heart disease.”

A body of evidence supports Landrigan’s theory, although environmental influences are likewise powerful and should not be discounted. In Change Your Brain /Change Your Life, psychiatrist Daniel Amen states that the cingulate gyrus, curving through the center of the brain is hyperactive in murderers. Other researchers have determined that violent males have low levels of serotonin, a condition that has a high rate of heritability. The National Institute of Health conducted a study on the serotonin levels of prison inmates and determined with an 84 percent accuracy which ones would return to crime upon their release.

Dr. Sarnoff A. Mednick’s study of 14,427 adopted children, as discussed in the New York Times, reveals how a propensity to chronic criminal behavior may be passed through the genes. Although Mednick does not believe criminal behavior is directly passed down, he holds that certain biological factors that might be associated with crime can be inherited. He cites a biological predisposition towards substance abuse as an example.

What does this theory mean for the person looking to adopt? And what are the chances a newly acquired child will have gene-related difficulties? Although there do not seem to be any studies on this topic, it is possible there are a greater percentage of adoptees today with problematic tendencies. In the more puritanical past, a woman was more likely to give up her child simply to avoid stigma and social ostracism. She may have become pregnant while unmarried or involved in an affair, but beyond that was law-abiding and well adjusted. A woman who puts a child up for adoption today is arguably more likely to do so for pressing reasons, i.e. due to problems with illegal substances, imprisonment or family abuse, factors that could be hereditable. In addition, celebrities, such as Madonna and Angelina Jolie, make it fashionable and more common to adopt infants from foreign lands whose biological predispositions are unscreened and unknown.

On the other hand, it is possible there are a smaller number of adoptees today with so-called genetic flaws. Abortion is now an option for “troubled” women. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner say crime has declined over the past twenty years because “the pool of potential criminals (has) dramatically shrunk,” a fact they attribute to Roe vs. Wade. Although these authors are not arguing for biological connections to crime, they say women in adverse family environments are more likely to have children who grow up to be criminals, and these are typically the women who get the abortions.

In addition, adoptions have become more open and cooperative. According to the LA Times, adoptive and natural parents meet at least once in 90% of all infant adoptions, and 25% of these adoptions are completely open. This means an increasing number of birth parents and adoptive parents come together in some way, review each other’s physical and personal history and stay in contact. Genetic secrets are less likely to be locked away in bureaucratic clinics; problems can be confronted and resolved to some degree through positive environmental reinforcement.

Most scientists and psychologists will tell you the nature vs. nurture debate is complex and by no means resolved. Landrigan promoted the “my genes made me do it” argument in several court appeals. In the end, he lost. The US Supreme Court made the final ruling against him three months ago, and he is likely to be executed soon.

Komisarjevsky’s case is next and inquiring minds want to know: Will he desperately seek his DNA, or do what most defendants do and blame it on his “nurture” resume?

Unfortunately, the “lima beans defense” rarely works.

 

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The Controversial Peter Singer

Recently, I had the opportunity to eat, drink and make moral calculations with philosopher Peter Singer. The average person might think hanging out with a philosopher—even a renowned and accomplished one—would be a non-event or cause a pain in the brain, as in the soreness that can develop after a college class of induction, deduction and cerebral gymnastics. But as a lifelong fiancée of philosophy, I was thrilled that Dr. Singer agreed to meet with me.

Singer has the distinction of being the epiphany-trigger in my life. My first experience with him was on paper. In 1985, I read his book, In Defense of Animals, in which he talks about “speciesism,” a prejudice similar to racism and sexism in which humans believe they are superior to other species. Singer argues that nonhumans are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration and that an animal’s ability to feel pain should give him protection under the moral umbrella that humans typically reserve for themselves. This idea was like a starter pistol, signaling me to begin my mission to help the truly voiceless and defenseless members of society. I stopped eating meat that day.

When I heard that the normally reclusive Singer—who lives in Australia and New Jersey and who is called the Father of the Animal Rights movement-- would be speaking at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles about animals and art, I figured why not take him out for a bite? Controversial utilitarians have to eat, too.

Singer is controversial mostly because of his position on infanticide and euthanasia. For example, he holds it is morally proper in some circumstances to kill a severely incapacitated infant whose life would cause immense suffering for himself and his family. Singer comes to this conclusion in the same way he comes to every conclusion: by embarking upon a utilitarian calculation.

A utilitarian deems an action right or wrong based upon the consequences of that action. He tallies the positives (hedons) and negatives (dolors) of the situation in advance and selects the course of action that is likely to result in the most positives or hedons.

Deontological moral theory is, in effect, the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontologists are hedon and dolor haters, and argue that consequences are inconsequential in the moral realm. Deontological theory states that people have certain duties or moral obligations which are based upon some absolute authority; the authority might be religion, universal reason, natural rights, natural law, or some other entity altogether. A deontologist would most likely believe it is wrong to kill an infant, regardless of the child’s level of disability, a precept that might be supported by Scripture.

In order to impress Dr. Singer, I figured I had better be on top of the “utilitarian calculation” game. No slacking. I had to be on my guard every second, ready to shift my actions to the right “utilitarian” course of action. I did not want this great philosopher to construe his time spent with me as in any way immoral.

The first order of business was to choose a restaurant. Singer had only put forth one requirement: there had to be a vegan entrée on the menu. But as a good utilitarian, I knew I had to weigh a parade of other factors. His hotel was in Santa Monica, so I chose a place nearby so as to save fuel and not contribute to global warming. I selected a totally vegan place, as a gesture to encourage exemplary establishments to be fruitful and multiply. I ultimately decided it was ok for the restaurant to be situated in Santa Monica after grappling with whether the area is more or less moral than surrounding communities.

I picked up Singer from his hotel and flipped on the car’s air conditioning because I wanted my important guest to be comfortable. In a polite way, he explained how my action was destroying the environment and suggested we simply lower the windows. I couldn’t believe it; I had already screwed up! I quietly chastised myself for failing to make the necessary moral calculation. 

My second test came when I was confronted with whether I should make a left turn; and in so doing, hold up a long line of vehicles behind me. The alternative was to drive all the way to a signal light, turn onto a less busy street, do a three-point turn into a driveway, go back to the original intersection and make a right turn, an undertaking that would take an extra five minutes. Most people in our “I’m entitled,” me-first society feel morally justified in holding up a long line of other drivers, some who may be rushing to an emergency or who may be late for a critical appointment. But would a utilitarian come to this conclusion? I decided not and opted to inconvenience only my erudite passenger and myself.

The vegan restaurant was like a beehive, bustling with customers and lean on seating. We were directed to an airless corner where we were expected to jam ourselves into a pint-sized table. Part of me wanted to put down my philosophical foot, refuse the cramped conditions and demand a roomy, nearby table. But I heeded to utilitarianism, resolved that a party of four deserved the extra space. As the heat intensified during the meal, I began to regret my decision because it was “dolor city” in that stuffy corner. 

Singer sipped on his mixture of beet, apple and carrot juice as he explained why he was leaning towards supporting Barak Obama for President. We discussed Congress’ proposed immigration legislation and how the issue is dealt with in Australia where his three kids live.

When we exhausted the media’s prized topics, we delved into the hypotheticals that make philosophy a cocktail party favorite; such as “if a trolley is rolling down a hill, should you let it kill your own child or a stranger’s child” and “is there a difference between killing someone and letting him die?” We even explored the always-popular free will debate. I asked Singer if he was choosing to have an enchilada or whether he was merely picking the entrée as a pawn of the universe. He thought he was choosing, but I argued that he was probably just a chess piece in a board game called “life.” 

After spending two hours with Dr. Singer, what struck me most about the man was his humility, flexibility and open-mindedness. He is able to examine an issue with a fresh pad of paper. He lacks the cumbersome, preconceived ideas that stalk most individuals; and he is willing, even eager, to alter his opinion when new data and better arguments come to the fore. I find many people to be the reverse: stubborn, immovable objects, bogged down by pages and pages of notes, unwilling to white them out under any circumstance.

Perhaps this illuminates the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological mind. Utilitarianism by its very nature welcomes, even mandates, ideological pliability while deontological ethics thrives on being a moral tank, oblivious to its environment.

Society reacts to the utilitarian / deontological dance. In The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger says that people invent ideas, but forget they are the architects of these ideas, later attributing them to an outside, religious source. Non-religious precepts seem to migrate down a similar path. They become rooted social norms like a brazen statue at the center of the town square. They may emanate from a deontological or utilitarian source, but they become more deontological, immutable and transcendent as they stand erect at the center of people’s lives. The statue is virtually impervious to the elements, in part because the average townsperson leans towards resisting change. It is easy and comforting to reinforce the laws, moral rules, and codes of conduct.

Utilitarianism may receive low marks in some circles because it has been manipulated to justify actions. We have all heard excuses like, “I had to cheat on my taxes because I figured the government has enough money” or “I didn’t return the lost wallet because I figured I need the money more than the other person does.” This “figuring” or calculating is a misapplication of the utilitarian method; it does not reflect what an impartial observer would decide. It reflects only the outcome the thief seeks: to avoid taxes or keep the lost wallet.

Despite periodic misuse, utilitarianism has a critical role to play in society. It can chisel away at or altogether overturn deontological values, which philosopher Jeremy Benthem claims are merely camouflage for the popular morality of the day. Utilitarianism allows undiscovered evidence and improved arguments to emerge. It is our best hope for a improved future, and we should recognize it as such. 

I thank Dr. Singer for being a living example of the flexibility of utilitarianism. And from now on, when someone asks me to guess who’s coming to dinner, I will hope it’s a utilitarian. Especially a controversial one.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Illegal Status

This is an actual letter by Iowan resident Donald Ruppert to Senator Tom Harkin. This brilliant piece deserves to be posted for all to see.
         
Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal  Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.   If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way  that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying  premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would  receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of  renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms,  I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

              Your Loyal Constituent,
              Donald Ruppert
              Burlington, IA

Seems Ruppert has the right idea. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The Myth of Affordable Housing & Blaming the Condo Conversion Bogeyman

The Los Angeles City Council has been looking at the issue of condo conversions / tenant relocation costs and affordable housing.

Condo conversions provide entry-level property ownership opportunities. It is a shame these opportunities will be less available in the future.

Paying $9000 to relocate an individual and $19,000 to relocate a family is exorbitant. Tenants could turn "relocation" into a profession, moving into a building likely to be slated for conversion and getting paid handsomely to move.

Lack of affordable housing is a myth; I am baffled when affordable housing advocates and others talk like there is a serious problem. It is not my experience as a Realtor for the past 20 years. Sure, it is expensive to live in Beverly Hills, Marina del Rey or West Hollywood, but those with low or moderate income cannot expect to live in the most affluent areas.

I think the affordable housing myth has developed from an entitlement mentality. Some people seem to think they are entitled to live in million dollar plus neighborhoods regardless of their ability to pay the prices in those areas. I am offended by this perspective. First time buyers and low to moderate income renters should expect to compromise a little on area. Over time, the person will most likely be able to move to a more desirable location, and up and up and up. My clients do this all the time. They start out small. After a few years, most are living in prestigious neighborhoods.

My 20 year old daughter is looking for a place around $700 - $800 per month right now, and there are plenty of singles, one bedrooms and guest houses that fit this description. Utilities are often included.

I recently rented my Valley Glen 5 bedroom house for $1700 per month (about $300 per bedroom). I rent my 4 bedroom Sherman Oaks home for $2300 per month (about $600 per bedroom). There are many affordable homes in the Valley (and many with rentable guest houses) that sell in the $400,00 - $500,000 range.

Affordable housing advocates and entitlement-minded tenants often tell me, "Well, I don't like the Valley. I don't want to live in the Valley." This answer is not likely to win friends and influence people, especially those who have worked hard to get where they are today.

Those who have worked hard and sacrificed do not want to subsidize others to live in multi-million dollar Westside communities.   

I say a short drive over the hill is in order. The Valley is an excellent place to live! It has less traffic, better parking and family-oriented communities (a benefit that high-rise sections of the Westside lack). I would not move to the Westside even if I could afford to do so....

The Value of a Diamond is Relative

And the relative is dad.

Maybe you can’t afford a diamond, but someday you can be a diamond. 

According to Reuters, a woman in Germany asked the court to allow her to transform her dead father into a diamond. Ashes (even human ones) can be pressed, heated and made into synthetic diamonds, a process that has existed since the mid-1950’s.

The court would have agreed, but did not feel there was proof that her father wanted to be a precious stone.

It’s comforting to know that a diamond can be a girl’s best friend. Literally.

Are You the Terrorist Next Door?

I was an ordinary American until November 27, 2006 when I became a terrorist or more accurately what I call a “stand-by terrorist.” Perhaps I cannot truly own this newfound nickname until the government decides to prosecute me for word crimes, if that day ever arrives. Until then, I just think of myself as being on stand-by, just as are most--if not all--Americans, whether they realize it or not.

You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as “domestic terrorism” when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.

You may ask, what does this have to do with me because I’m no nature fan or animal lover? Well, it could eventually have very much to do with you because the AETA--a natural child of the Patriot Act--is likely to be the first of many assaults on the social justice movement in favor of corporations and other moneyed interests. If you think you may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something, anything, then you had better be very concerned.

You should also be concerned about whether law enforcement protects you from the Bin Ladens of the world or fritters away your hard-earned tax dollars investigating pacifists. The American Civil Liberties Union says the FBI uses “counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate (nonviolent) domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies.” An FBI special agent recently told me that planting undercover agents at legal, peaceful events--with hopes that they will somehow learn about illegal activities--is a favored tactic of the bureau.

What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey’s 15 million viewers in 1996?

It is indeed possible because the AETA is overbroad, vague and subject to the whims of law enforcement, as evidenced last year when six young, New Jersey website operators became the first individuals convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges. The young people were part of the Stop Huntington Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, which targeted the Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) animal research labs. The website operators did nothing more than assert their First Amendment rights: they posted videotape of tortured dogs inside HLS and reported the legal and illegal handiwork of activists, which eventually caused the corporation to lose profits and to be dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The FBI were unable to catch the underground activists, so they targeted the website operators, who are serving up to six years in prison for their speech.

If the government fails to catch a thief or saboteur, should it be allowed to pursue the CNN reporter who delivers the news? Or an outspoken op-ed columnist? Or six kids from New Jersey with a website? The AETA ignores Shakespeare’s recommendation, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” potentially stigmatizing a “speaker” with the most heinous, post-9/11 label in America: terrorist.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman to talk about Mad Cow disease on her television show. Lyman knew first-hand how cows--even diseased ones--were fed being to other cows and how their diets were supplemented with ground-up dogs, cats and road kill. He explained the meat production process, and Winfrey offered that she would never eat another burger. The audience cheered. On the following day, cattle futures plummeted, and the financial disaster was labeled the “Oprah Crash.”

Estimated losses to the beef industry were $10 - $12 million, and a group of cattlemen filed a lawsuit against Winfrey and Lyman under a Texas food disparagement law. They wanted compensation for loss of profits. Winfrey and Lyman won, but only after spending over a million dollars on legal fees. In his book, Mad Cowboy, Lyman says that those who sued “apparently believe that the First Amendment… was not meant to be interpreted so broadly as to allow people to say unpleasant things about beef.”

If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is entirely possible.

But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say to Winfrey, “Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows before slaughter,” his comment could be interpreted as a violation of the AETA, more specifically as a “conspiracy to interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise.” Without a transcript from the show, one cannot know what casual exchanges floated between Winfrey and Lyman that day. It may seem far-fetched to envision the pair in prison, branded terrorists--especially since Winfrey is affluent and popular--but it is not far-fetched within the parameters of this poorly drafted legislation, which leaves much open to interpretation by law enforcement and the court system.

Just as the AETA chills speech, it has disturbing ramifications for those who commit slightly illegal misdeeds. The Act can transform misdemeanors into federal crimes, and it can turn ordinary Americans--who, for example, post illegal signs or engage in graffiti--into domestic terrorists.

Let’s assume a high school senior enters a national science fair, and his project involves decapitating live mice. His mother objects to the experiment as cruel and immoral, but the son ignores her. She takes matters into her own hands by stealing the mice and placing them in a loving home, then smashing the remainder of the project and shoving it in the trash. Science fair projects are specifically protected under the AETA, as are vivisection labs, factory farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, furriers and rodeos. The mother has intentionally damaged her son’s animal-related property, which means the U.S. government may arrest her as a terrorist and throw her in jail.

Let’s take another case. A small boy is murdered, and his older sister is devastated. Because law enforcement officers fail to read the killer his rights and bungle other aspects of the case, he goes free. A year later, the sister discovers the killer owns a horse boarding facility in a neighboring state. She drives to the location and paints his fence with the words, “He murdered my little brother. Don’t board your horses here” in attempt to ruin his business and warn customers about the danger. The girl has intentionally caused damage to an animal enterprise. Under the AETA, her graffiti can be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

As a final example, a journalist writes an article about combating the AETA. He suggests peppering the country with signs that read “ALF.” “ALF” is an acronym for the Animal Liberation Front, a group that has vandalized companies that use and kill animals. When “ALF” is scribbled on a fence, building or sign, the FBI is automatically called to investigate. This is routine because the bureau considers the group the number one domestic terrorist threat, even though the ALF has never injured a human or animal.

Investigating the acronym “ALF” would be a laborious task if thousands of signs throughout the country had to be checked. The sign placement strategy would run law enforcement ragged, educate the public about the absurdity of the AETA, and further water down the word “terrorist” so that all Americans could come to realize how they themselves qualify as “terrorists on stand-by.”

At some point, it is likely an animal enterprise owner or employee would play “the fear card.” A butcher, for example, could claim to be frightened by an “ALF” placard adjacent to his shop, alleging an impending attack by angry animal rights activists.

It is a violation of the AETA to intentionally induce fear (of bodily harm) in those associated with an animal enterprise, even when no property is damaged. The “victim”--or the butcher, in this case--would determine what constitutes fear, and it would be easy for him to prove nefarious intentions since everyone knows animal advocates would like to see butchers out of business. Posting illegal signs is common in most neighborhoods, such as when advertising garage sales and political candidates, yet fines are rarely imposed. In the case of “ALF” placards, the “graphic artists” could be arrested as terrorists; the journalist who originated the idea could also be at risk.

It is important to know that AETA terrorism charges cannot be brought against someone when the “target” is unaffiliated with an animal enterprise. If the son’s science project had involved no animals, if the murderer had owned a bicycle shop instead of a horse ranch, and if the illegally posted signs had advertised an estate sale, the FBI would not be called. This demonstrates how the AETA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law.

Why should biomedical corporations and their executives--as well as other animal industries that bestow hefty campaign donations upon Washington politicos--be provided with a special law? Aren’t there more (or equally) deserving “targets” in need of activist protection, such as abortion clinics, anti-union employers, gay-run businesses and houses of worship? Should there be an Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others? Or would these niche laws further impede efforts to identify real terrorism, as the AETA does?

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the “terrorist” tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

By the same token, it is unfair to drag a mother off to prison as a terrorist due to bad luck, in that her son decides to embark upon an animal project. If she had destroyed his chemistry vials, she would not be facing terrorism charges. Her compassionate response to animal abuse should make her a hero, not an Al-Qaeda operative. It is dangerous to dilute the word “terrorism” so it loses all meaning, so it describes the most caring and justice-loving members of our society, and so it theoretically applies to the entire citizenry, many who sweat nervously in “standby” waiting rooms.

The AETA may lead to consequences its originators did not foresee. It may embolden aboveground activists who no longer need to limit their activities to that which is legal. After all, they are viewed as terrorists either way. Why should they cheer from the sidelines when they can run with the ball?

Inequitable and oppressive laws can propel pacifists into action, as depicted in the movie, Catch A Fire. The film relates a true story about an apolitical black man who is wrongly accused of being a terrorist by South African authorities in 1980. After enduring arrest and interrogation, he comes to the realization that it is only right to be a “terrorist,” so as to combat the entrenched apartheid of the day. He becomes a rebel fighter, planting an incendiary device at an oil refinery. Ironically, the government--convinced it is keeping him under control by choking him with the heavy hand of the law--wakes him up to injustice and ignites him into action. Animal liberation is no less a noble cause, and a similar result could be expected. Who could be next to catch a fire?

America is about nothing if it is not about fairness and free speech. The AETA does not comport with this image. It is unjust and unconstitutional, and it interferes with the prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.

Once we faced a “red scare”; now we are bombarded with a “green scare.” The time has come to ask yourself: Do you really want to be on stand-by or do you want to take a stand?

And are you now, or could you someday be, the terrorist next door?

The Diet of Distraction: Not Food For Thought

I am not a diet guru, the czar of calorie counting or a member of the binge police. I don’t have a cookbook, weight-reduction program or fad to peddle. In fact, I’d say “experts” who push a single, “one-size fits all” weight-loss approach are a few fries short of a happy meal or a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It’s disingenuous to think there is only one way to help the plump. 

I’m a big fan of my own creation--the diet of distraction—but I’m the first to admit it may help some drop pounds and lead others over the pig-out cliff.  Because we are all unique, a habit that fattens Jack Sprat may not faze his wife.

The diet of distraction is based on two premises: forget about food and throw yourself into an activity that will propel you away from your gluttonous routine. In order to succeed, you must not weigh your food, mark your calories on a chart, or look up codes in a tiny book. How many times have you blurted out, “Oh no, I’m not allowed to have any more number threes (miniature puddings) today?” Then, all you think about are miniature puddings.

To calorie count or diary-keep is to think about food, and this is a no-no when you’re committed to the diet of distraction. Thinking about food leads to obsessing over food. Obsessing over food, leads to temptation. Temptation leads to overeating and never escaping the dreaded see-saw. 

I know a lot about see-saws as a former member of See-saws Anonymous. In my teens and early twenties, I could both lose weight and gain it back before a lemon torte defrosted. There were times when I fasted for 17 days with nothing but water—a feat I can no longer accomplish as an adult. Once, I refused to go out with a man for two months because I felt too fat. He thought I didn’t like him. Crazy men. Don’t they understand women at all? 

Then there were those nights of extreme exercise. I would leave my childhood home at 10 pm and run to my high school and back in the dark--a 24-mile journey--carrying a rock for protection and hiding behind trees when I saw oncoming vehicles. You never know who’s a mass murderer. At 9:00 am the next morning, you’d find me limping up my driveway, convinced I was suddenly skinny.

As I got older, I left behind the playground and the see-saw. I discovered some interesting tendencies in myself. I found that I ate very little when I vacationed, when I moved to a new place and when I became immersed in an interesting project. Vacationing and moving were projects in themselves. I realized that my problem had less to do with overeating than it did over-thinking. The trick was mostly to forget about food and to stay busy.

Furthermore, the diet of distraction required me to grocery shop on a full stomach and to think very little about my purchases beyond making sure they were reasonably healthy. My rule was no meat products (including fish and chicken), no fried foods and no sweets. I did not plan meals ahead or coordinate how rice and squash might go with a salad.  That would, of course, be thinking too much.

I found it advantageous to refrain from buying my favorite starches, knowing that if I liked something too much, I might be tempted to over-indulge. I never felt deprived, because my life was focused on projects, rather than food. When I dined at restaurants, I ate what I wanted, as long as it was vegetarian.   

The tendency to overeat is one many of us have experienced. According to the Obesity Society, more than 64% of Americans are either overweight or obese. The U.S. Surgeon General blames obesity for 300,000 deaths every year, and 3.8 million Americans weigh over 300 pounds. 

Health is fulfillment, not just what you put in your mouth. Health means using your brainpower to realize your personal calling rather than to calculate caloric intake or weigh a slice of bread. Health means putting energy towards the positive rather than obsessing over the negative.

You might want to try the diet of distraction. It’s (not) food for thought.

Democracy Can Be Muddy

The neighborhood councils have been criticized for mudslinging and infighting at meetings. But democracy is messy. Conflicts often represent a sincere effort to communicate with each other and build a foundation for the future.

Establishing dispute resolution commissions in every planning area to arbitrate neighborhood council related disputes, however, would reduce the time the Department of Neighborhood Empoerment (DONE) and the City Attorney spend sorting out conflicts. The commissions would provide an impartial body to hear complaints, so that valuable neighborhood council meeting time could be reserved for important issues, rather than personality disputes.

I have attended meetings for over 50 neighborhood councils in the past two years and can report that the system is a success. The councils are improving their communities and empowering stakeholders. They should not be faulted for getting a little muddy in the process. We must be patient while the neighborhood councils get their houses in order.

Proposition H: Housing Hocus-Pocus

If I could wave my magic wand, Proposition H—the billion-dollar “affordable” housing bond measure--would disappear from the November 7 stage, and the Prop H supporters would be revealed as illusionists. 

These illusionists want you to accept “official statistics” about a “dismal” L.A. housing situation, but these figures amount to pulling a rabbit out of a hat; they are not grounded in reality. According CNN Money, Los Angeles is statistically more affordable than 43 other large cities, and Forbes says LA has a less expensive rental market than cities such as Boston, San Francisco and Honolulu. 

Middle-income Angelenos buy property every day in this city, so why should we believe Prop H illusionists who argue that families making over six figures need financial assistance, especially when this financial assistance will come from taxpayers with lower incomes than they have?

 

The illusionists want to hide the fact that wealthy developers--often masquerading as nonprofit organizations--are the true backers and beneficiaries of the measure. The illusionists hope to distract you with tear-jerking tales about how H will help the elderly and the down-and-out in downtown L.A., but this is merely a device to gain sympathy and votes. Numerous elderly and lower income Angelenos will be seriously hurt if H passes because they will be paying higher taxes, and not receiving any benefits. 

The illusionists want you to believe that this billion-dollar housing bond will cost you no more than a Frappucino, when in truth it could cost you personally over $10,000 during the 30-year bond period, with absolutely no benefit. 

Proposition H is comprised of three parts, and like oil and water, the parts do not mix. Part One is the “water” or the sustenance factor. It allocates approximately one third of the funds for the homeless and truly indigent of our city, a noble cause which may or may not need supplemental funding. Los Angeles’ current surplus of $717 million could be used for this purpose.

Parts Two and Three, the oily or “subsidizing the rich” components, do not in any way merit funding and necessitate a vote against the entire proposition. Part Two—which will receive another one-third of the funds--is nothing more than the latest brand of rent control, and the traditional arguments against it apply. Studies show that rent stabilized buildings—even those that start out new--eventually become dilapidated and drive up the cost of market-rate rents, hurting the poor and middle class in the end. The developers who build the projects are the true beneficiaries. 

Rent control can also impede those it is supposed to help. Rent control tenants who experience any degree of financial success often do not buy, but instead remain psychological prisoners, sacrificing equity-building opportunities and hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to cling to their cheap rentals. “Clinging,” a common practice, negatively impacts affordability for others. 

Part Three is related to home buying and is the most problematic or slippery component of Prop H. It taxes “property owner” families so that “non-property owner” families (even those making six figure incomes) can buy real estate. If Prop H passes, lower and middle income Anglenos will be required to subsidize those who make more money than they do. A family of four with an income of $103,950 could receive Prop H money from a family with a mere $50,000 income. This gross injustice could lead to financial hardship, even foreclosure, for existing property owners, such as the elderly on fixed incomes.

The illusionists are inaccurate when they say H helps middle-income workers. I did a calculation for five of my real estate clients—a small business owner, an advertising sales employee, a police officer, a construction worker and a teacher—to determine the impact of Proposition H on their wallets. They all made sacrifices to buy homes within the last two years, including investing in bread and butter rental properties. If H passes, all will be seriously penalized for their hard work. They may be forced to sell or to lose their properties to foreclosure.

Over the 30-year bond period, the small business owner with a family annual income of $90,000 would pay between $23,214 and $34,980. In the end, he will have paid one-third to one-fourth of a year’s income for nothing. 

The salesperson with a family income of $80,000 would pay between $17,958 and $27,060. The police officer with a family income of $70,000 would pay from $9,636 to $14,520.

The construction worker with a family income of $60,000 would pay from $4,380 to $6,600, and the teacher with a family income of $48,000 would pay from $2,190 to $3,300. It should also be noted that these numbers are based upon the probably underestimated figures provided in the Voter Information Pamphlet; they could be higher due to interest rate hikes in the bond.

Prop H is flawed in other ways: it is not financed by everyone. Wealthy renters and many corporations pay nothing. Why should a tenant who makes $300,000 per year and rents a $9,000 per month mansion in Brentwood be exempt while the lower income teacher who lives in Van Nuys be taxed? Why should a multi-national corporation leasing retail space for $30,000 per month pay nothing while the construction worker who resides in Canoga Park be burdened? 

Prop H was rushed through City Hall rather than vetted by the people of our city, and it is detail-deficient and ill-timed. There are no specifics in H about how the money will be spent, leaving one to conclude that the measure may fund wacky Inclusionary Zoning-type plans. H is badly timed because the real estate market is stumbling; it is the wrong time to conjure up new units that the market cannot absorb. Socialized programs hurt affordability in the end; the market adjusts itself to compensate for unsustainable price hikes and dips.

Magic is not necessary to increase the number of homeowners in Los Angeles. There is a knowledge deficit, not a housing deficit. Education rather than subsidization is the key. A huge number of middle-income families can afford to buy, but simply need information as to how. This is where Realtors and lenders come in. Public/private partnerships between government and real estate professionals provide the key to increasing homeownership.

Vote against smoke and mirrors. Vote against the tax dollar disappearing act. Vote against Housing Hocus-Pocus. Vote against Prop H.