FACT CHECK: Obama's words on home aid ring hollow

By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress — and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

___

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

___

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

___

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

___

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

___

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

___

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

___

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.

Spoken intro: 
And after three days of drinkin' with Larry Love 
I just get an inklin' to go on home 
So, I'm walkin' down Coldharbour Lane 
Head hung low, three or four in the mornin' 

The suns comin' up and the birds are out singing 
I let myself into my pad 
Wind myself up that spiral staircase 
An' stretch out nice on the chesterfield 

Pithecanthropus Erectus already on the CD player 
And I just push that remote button to sublimity 
And listen to the sweet sculptural rhythms of Charles Mingus 
And J.R. Monterose and Jackie Mclean 
Duet on those saxophones 

And the sound makes it's way outta the window 
Minglin' with the traffic noises outside, you know and 
All of a sudden I'm overcome by a feelin' of brief mortality 
'Cause I'm gettin' on in the world 
Comin' up on forty-one years 

Forty-one stoney gray steps towards the grave 
You know the box, awaits it's grissly load 
Now, I'm gonna be food for worms 
And just like Charles Mingus wrote 
That beautiful piece-a music, 'Epitaph for Eric Dolphy' 

I say, so long Eric, so long, John Coltrane 
And Charles Mingus, so long, Duke Ellington 
And Lester Young, so long, Billie Holliday 
And Ella Fitzgerald, so long, Jimmy Reed 
So long, Muddy Waters, and so, long Howlin' Wolf 

(Wo-wo-woke up this mornin') 

Woke up this mornin' 
Got yourself a gun 
Mama always said you'd be the chosen one 
She said, 'You're one in a million 
You got to burn to shine' 
That you were born under a bad sign 
With a blue moon in your eyes (yeah) 

Woke up this mornin' 
And-a all that love had gone 
Your papa never told you 
About right and wrong 

But you're, but you're looking good, baby 
I believe you're a-feelin' fine 
Shame about it, born under a bad sign 
With a blue moon in your eyes 
So, sing it now 

(Woke up this mornin') oh yeah, oh yeah 
(Woke up this mornin') oh yeah, oh yeah 
(Woke up this mornin') oh yeah, oh yeah 
(Woke up this mornin') oh yeah, oh yeah 

I see ya woke up this mornin' 
The world turned upside down 
Lordy, but a-things ain't been the same 
Since the blues walked in-a town 

But ya, but ya, one in a million 
'Cause you got that shotgun shine 
Shame about it, born under a bad sign 
With a blue moon in your eyes 
So, sing it now 

(Woke up this mornin') 
You got a blue moon 
(Got a blue moon in your eyes) 
(I gotta free your eyes) 
(Woke up this mornin') 
So sad, god-damned 
A god-damned shame about it 

(Woke up this mornin') 
You got a blue moon 
(I've gotta free your eyes) 
(Got a blue moon in your eyes) yeah 
(Woke up this mornin') oh yeah, oh yeah 
(I'm not dreaming) 

Oh, yeah! 
(Scared, yeah-yeah) 
Uuh! 
(Too much, too much, too much) 
Oh, yeah! 
(Your pain, your pain, you pain) 
Of your pain 
(Woo-hoo-hoo, low) 

'Mister D. Wayne Love' 

When you woke up this morning 
Everything was gone 
By half past ten your head was going 
Ding-dong ringin' like a bell 
From your head down to your toes 
Like some voice tryin' to tell you 
There's somethin' you should know 
Last night you was flyin' but today you're so low 
Ain't it times like these 
Makes you wonder (go back) if you'll ever know 
The meaning of things as they appear to the others 
Wives, husbands, mothers 
Fathers, sisters and brothers (tell 'em go home) 
Don't you wish you didn't function 
Don't you wish you didn't think 
Beyond the next paycheck and the next little drink 
Well, you do so make up your mind to go on 
'Cause when you woke up this mornin' 
Ev'rything you had was gone 

(Woke up this mornin') 
When ya woke up this mornin' 
Woke up this mornin' 
Ya, woke up this mornin' 

Woke up this mornin', you wanna be 
You wanna be the chosen one 
(Yeah, you know what you're talkin' about) 
You just can't help yourself, yeah 

Woke up this mornin' 
When ya, woke up this mornin' 
(Woke up this mornin') 
(Woke up this mornin') 

Woke up this mornin' and 
(My dreams gone bad) 
Got yourself a gun (gotta hold, a-wind yourself up) 
A-got yourself a gun 
(Larry, one more time now it's almost done) 
Got yourself a gun. 

Oh yeah! 

~

Party-Hoppers Ought to be Hanged, Drawn and Quatered

“What is worrying is that the fall-out of this crisis is sullying the reputation and credibility of many legal and constitutional institutions while the root cause – the despicable phenomenon of party hopping – remains unaddressed.” - Dr Shad Faruqi

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr Shad Faruqi (read his article below) gives his opinion on what many now perceive as a Constitutional Crisis in Perak. Call it a constitutional crisis or a political crisis if you want, but Perak is not the only state that is going to fall to Barisan Nasional. Kedah and Selangor may be next on the cards.

Five Pakatan Rakyat State Assemblypersons from Kedah have already met the higher echelons of Umno and have given their undertaking to cross over en bloc once the numbers enable Barisan Nasional to form the new government in Kedah. RM100 million has been allocated to the Kedah exercise and those crossing over are going to be well rewarded.

In Selangor, Hassan Ali has been promised the post of Menteri Besar if he can convince enough of his people to join him in crossing over. This is of course further to the millions he and his gang are going to receive. So far he has only two from PAS and another two or so from PKR who have agreed to join him. So he will need a couple more to finalise the plan.

Rest assured it is all about power and money. Hassan Ali wanted to be the Menteri Besar of Selangor way back in 1999. The only problem is that in 1999 the opposition did not win Selangor. He still wants to be Menteri Besar. And if crossing over to Barisan Nasional with enough of his supporters to enable Barisan Nasional to form the new Selangor government is what it takes, then that is how he will do it as long as he can become Menteri Besar.

Even Hee Yit Fong, the State Assemblywoman who had been with DAP for 20 years, crossed over for money. She has thus far received RM15 million from Vincent Tan of Berjaya fame. She will probably be paid another RM10 million once the dust settles. It seems she needed the money to bail out her husband who was heavily in debt. This was the same situation with Lee Lam Thye who was forced to leave DAP so that he could bail out his wife from her gambling debts. Barisan Nasional, of course, helped settle all his wife’s debts once he ‘abandoned his cause’ and turned pro-establishment.

When we told Pakatan Rakyat that Perak was going to fall, they replied they have things under control. Now we are telling them that Kedah and Selangor too are in a precarious situation and they had better do something about it. Please don’t tell us you have everything under control and then, a few weeks down the road, we see these two states go the way of Perak. 

Anyway, while Pakatan Rakyat figures out how to defend Kedah and Selangor from the RM200 million onslaught by Barisan Nasional, read Dr Shad Faruqi’s take on the Perak crisis.

************************************************

Legal turmoil over Perak defections
Reflecting On The Law
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI, The Star

THERE is a constitutional impasse in Perak. The descent into naked and unprincipled struggle for power was triggered by the defection of a Barisan Nasional Assemblyman to Pakatan Rakyat and an immediate four-stroke counter-punch by the BN.

What is worrying is that the fall-out of this crisis is sullying the reputation and credibility of many legal and constitutional institutions – the Sultanate, the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the public prosecutor and the police. Despite this damage, the root cause – the despicable phenomenon of party hopping – remains unaddressed. Let’s examine some of these issues.

Defections: The “right” to switch parties in midstream is based on Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of association.

However Article 10(2)(c) permits Parliament to restrict this freedom in the interest of security, public order and “morality”.

In the 80s the governments of Kelantan and Sabah passed anti-hopping laws to curb this right on the ground of morality.

However, in the Nordin Salleh (1992) case, the Federal Court declared that the anti-hopping law was unconstitutional on two grounds. First it was passed by the wrong legislature. Second – and this was most unconvincing – that the term “morality” does not cover political morality.

I believe that party hopping by an Assemblyman after his election on a party ticket amounts to a fraud on the electorate.

There are three possible ways of taming this turpitude. First, a constitutional amendment to Article 10 by a bi-partisan two-thirds majority should be attempted.

A second way could be for Parliament to enact an ordinary Anti-Defection Law and to enforce it immediately.

If and when the law is challenged on the Nordin Salleh precedent, vigorous arguments could be proffered to invite the Federal Court to overrule its prior, indefensible ruling.

One possible way of expediting the overruling of this bizarre decision is for the King to refer the issue to the Federal Court under Article 130 to seek an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the word “morality” in Article 10(2)(c).

A third way of enacting an anti-defection law would be to promulgate an Emergency Ordinance under Article 150. In the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan (1968), the Privy Council ruled that “emergency” includes “collapse of civil government”.

Without doubt, defections bring about the collapse of civil government and an Emergency Ordinance would be legally, morally and politically justifiable.

Resignation letters: The legality of the undated resignation letters from the two Pakatan Rakyat defectors is at the heart of the constitutional imbroglio in Perak.

The Speaker of the Perak Assembly accepted the validity of the letters and issued a notice to the Election Commission. In favour of the Speaker’s view, it can be stated that in the UK it is part of the privileges of parliament to determine questions relating to casual vacancies in the House.

The decision of the House is generally regarded as final. Also, Article 35 of the Perak Constitution permits a member of the Assembly to resign “by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker”.

The problem is that the two hoppers denied that they wrote to the Speaker. There is also a relevant judicial decision. In 1982 the validity of open-dated resignation letters was rejected by the High Court in the Sarawak case of Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium Mutit.

In the light of this decision and the denial by the two defectors, the Election Commission had some basis to make up its own mind and to declare that the seats had not fallen vacant.

Perhaps the safest thing was to seek a quick Federal Court decision on the interpretation of the Perak Constitution. The Perak Constitution in Articles 63-64 admirably provides for such a course of action. Regrettably, the parties to the dispute and the Sultan did not adopt this course of action.

Dissolution: Under the Federal and state Constitutions, the Sultan has an undoubted discretion, guided by his own wisdom and the broader interest of the state, to refuse a request for premature dissolution. We have examples from Kelantan and Sabah where such requests have been refused.

Confidence of the Assembly: Having been appraised that Pakatan Rakyat had lost the confidence of the Assembly, Tuanku Sultan was faced with many difficult choices. First, he could have prorogued the Assembly pending a court decision on the validity of the hoppers’ resignation letters and the question of vacancies.

Second, he could have asked the antagonists to face the Assembly and prove their support in accordance with usual parliamentary traditions. I am of the view that if an Assembly is in session, or can be quickly brought to session, it is its right to determine the question of confidence and no one should usurp this power nor should factors outside the Assembly be taken into consideration in determining the question of confidence.

Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution is not crystal clear as to how it is to be determined whether the Mentri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly but there is a 1966 Sarawak judicial decision in Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Hj Openg Tawi Sli that the Governor cannot dismiss a Chief Minister unless he is voted out by the Assembly.

In Perak, however, Tuanku took it upon himself to shoulder the lonely burden of determining who commanded confidence of the assembly. He took pains to interview all four defectors and to hear out the Mentri Besar and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak more than once.

The Sultan paid heed to the EC decision that there were no vacancies. Undoubtedly he was also influenced by the Speaker’s threat that the Speaker would not allow the defectors to enter the Assembly to participate in the confidence vote.

Dismissal of Mentri Besar: The Constitution of Perak in Article 16(7) states that a member of the Executive Council other than the MB shall hold office at the Sultan’s pleasure. This implies that an MB cannot be dismissed except by a vote of no confidence in the assembly.

The problem is Article 16(6) states that if an MB loses confidence then he has two choices. First, advise dissolution and second, if that request is denied, then resign. There is a lacuna in the law. What if an MB loses the confidence of the Assembly, is denied dissolution, but refuses to step down?

Can the Sultan dismiss him? It is submitted that life is always larger than the law. There are always unchartered territories. If an MB who has lost confidence, and is refused dissolution, is shameless enough not to walk away, then the Sultan would be justified in dismissing him, Article 16(7) notwithstanding.

But in Perak this was not the case. The question of losing confidence was not constitutionally investigated. There are many triable issues and the courts must accept the gauntlet.

Treason: Opinions are being expressed that to defy the Sultan and to threaten to go to court for defence of one’s legal rights amount to treason and a ground for deprivation of citizenship. There are fundamental misunderstandings here.

From day one of Merdeka, the King and the Sultans were open to civil suit for their official actions. They were only immune personally. In 1993 even the personal immunity was taken away.

In sum it is not a violation of the Constitution to resort to the courts to seek an authoritative opinion on one’s rights and duties. Where else does one go, what else does one do, if one has a claim?

Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM.

It is with a heavy heart that I comment on this piece of news....It has been gnawing at my heart for the past 2 weeks and I have held off commenting until now..........the fact that the Ruler of Perak, a man that I have had the deepest respect for (he was after all a person worthy of his position), a man who was after all the youngest Lord-President of the Malaysian Judiciary, and who delivered some of the best judgements in the history of this nation....that such a man who upheld the consicence of the nation in its darkest hours, and who continues to represent an enlightened monarchy which is sympathetic to its people and unabashed in its support of democracy...that such a man would allow such an unrelenting assault on the only freedom malaysians have...that of the ballot box, and to deny them the government that they chose.....there is nothig more worse than a Ruler abandoning his subjects...A Ruler is answerable to his people, NOT to the ruling federal government of the day. What has happened in Perak is a shame, a blot on the conscience of the King, and a further taste of Najib's ruling style. Witness now, as you would, the dying embers of democracy and free speech in Malaysia, witness how money, corruption, and the naked ambition for power has lead a man to condemn his country to the deepest pits of dictatorial hell. When Najib comes to power, be prepared for a return to the times of darkness, a time when we criticised the governemt in hushed whispers, from behind the comfort of locked doors, when children were always warned never to speak ill of the government outside of the home, when we censored our facial expressions and our thoughts, when we lived in mortal fear of the police (they were bigger rogues than the most hardened of criminals), when even our cell-phone conversations were censored for fear or electronic tapping.....this is what might pass when that man becomes Prime Minister.........Good luck to all malaysians......if you wish to prosper you have but 2 choices: leave and leave at once your country, or stay back and fight till end. For if you do neither, you may lose everything, 

How to make a case against vegetarianism... (no offence to vegetarians: this is just in the spirit of debate) :P

This was just a kind of an intellectual response to all those people who kept bugging me with all sorts of reasons of why non-veg is bad, evil, heartless, and impure; nothing personal here,just light hearted jousting but my take on this is this: each to his/her tastes; one man's meat is another man's posion. (pun intended). Most of the arguments I get against non-veg is pretty ridiculous, not very well thought-out, and can be defeated in debate. This is how to defend yourself when confronted by guilt-inducing activist-vegans/PETA-ans:

Warning: Do respect other people's beliefs and restrictions: Just as you have a right to eat meat, so do they have not to. My take on this is this: Moderation at all levels in the right way. A vegetarian diet can be just as healthy or unhealthy as a non-veg diet. There are many non-vegans who are just as healthy as vegans, and just as happy. It all boils down to having a healthy balanced diet which provides all the necessary nutrition for you to stay healthy, with plenty of exercise as well. 

Please do feel free to engage in creative and friendly debate in this: I love a passionate debate, well-fought and argued, with the opponents parting as friends, not enemies.

How to defend yourself against activist-vegans' seemingly iron-clad arguments:

1. Question its effectiveness: One popular Utilitarian argument is that even if I, a single individual, were to stop eating meat, this would not reduce the number of animals killed at all. The meat market is far too large for the meat producers to register a single person's consumption or lack thereof.
2. Don't let emotional appeals sidetrack you. A vegetarian might ask 'Well, how would you feel if you were slaughtered and eaten?' How you would feel may not be comparable to how a lower life form feels. Similarly, using excessively graphic descriptions ('misleading vividness') to evoke a negative reaction is a fallacy.
3. Don't let overly-broad generalisations stand. You may be forced to admit that some farms or slaughterhouses treat the animals with unnecessary cruelty. But not all do. There are plenty of ways to make sure you eat well treated animals. What if you just ate free-range chickens? Why isn't that okay?
4. Consider less extreme measures. This is related to previous step. Consider: It's widely accepted that most Americans eat more meat than is healthful, but this does not mean the best option is to eat no meat at all. What if we just ate half as much? Or a third? Having too much of something doesn't mean you should have none; just that you should have less.
5. Attack tenuous hypotheticals. Consider the point that the grain it takes to feed one cow can feed a hundred people. With all the starving people on the planet, it would make sense to have them eat grain and not meat. The problem with this statement is that those people aren't starving because there isn't enough food--they're starving because they don't have access to the food. When the vegetarian says 'We could feed all the starving people with the ', respond with 'but would we?' One recent study found that half of all food in America goes to waste. If we had twice as much, wouldn't we simply waste the increase too?
6. Use the 'circle of life" argument. When you get down to it, most animals, including humans, are naturally suited for eating other animals. It is clearly possible to have a healthy diet without any meat, but it's often a lot harder.
7. Blow apart the animal rights argument. When a vegetarian claims that you're violating animal rights, remember them that many researches can prove us that plants have some level of awareness of their environments. How can one argue about animal rights without knowing how much does a single plant can feel(or how much is a plant aware of what it feels) at all?
8. Point out their use of other animal products. Most vegetarians still use animal products in things like leather, glue, gelatin, and some pharmaceutic capsules. Question their hypocrisy in using some animal products despite claims to the contrary
9. Describe the biological case for eating meat. If we were made to eat only plants, wouldn't we have multiple stomachs, like cows? Our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

• One argument is that being a vegetarian is healthier than eating meat (all things being considered). This requires proof; beef is packed with B12 and tons of healthy stuff. The key is not to eat it all the time and preferably not in cheeseburger and fries form. Further, chicken is not all that fattening. Now if you deep fry it in trans fat and smother it with sweet and sour sauce (essentially a tablespoon of sugar mixed with a tablespoon of salt with BHT to preserve freshness) then you might not be reaping any benefits.
• Anyone who has studied anthropology would know that early hominids that had meat in their diet had larger brains than the early hominids that had an exclusively vegetarian diet. There are a lot of theories about this finding, one of which is that meat provides more calories than vegetarian fare which allowed our ancestors to spend more time thinking and less time foraging. The ones that had the larger brains and could fuel those brains with meat survived better and passed those brains on to the next generation. On a side note, it's been hypothesized that early humans weren't necessary hunters, they were scavengers, so saying it is natural for us to eat meat might not be accurate but it may have helped make us smarter.