(While I certainly had the intention of discussing what led to the Depression and the impact of the New Deal, I will resist the urge to do so for now.)

President Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who will hereafter he referred to as FDR for understandable purposes) had vastly different philosophies for government – one favoring government experimentation, and the other adhering to the belief that government itself, in the interest of not establishing what Hoover perceived as a central “bureaucracy”, should have a minimal role where economic relief is concerned.  The latter of these two philosophies, encompassing a greater debate that continues on today, also promoted voluntary action in the stead of federal aid to struggling families (which, ironically for Hoover, could not keep wages in the nation constant.)

    One of these aforementioned philosophies prevailed in an election, while its minimalist counterpart lost credibility with Americans after Republican loses in the House and Senate during the 1930 midterms.  Hoover, an uncompromising man who had invested more of his life in business than politics, championed the concept that government's role should be truncated in order to allow the domestic markets to make a natural comeback, but he was more than willing to embrace the idea of “trickle down” economics that, with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (which will hereafter be referred to as the RFC), would lend government credit to certain institutions with the expectation that their success would translate into prosperity for the agonized middle class.

    This, as we know, left a considerable opening for FDR, President Hoover's highly charismatic and idealistic challenger.  As the Governor of New York from 1929-1932, Roosevelt knew how badly ordinary Americans were suffering because of the Depression that the incumbent Republican administration largely ignored, and he possessed a distinctive quality that the sitting president, who was chosen by Republicans in June for re-election at their own peril, did not:  genuine compassion, induced in Roosevelt by a bout of polio that had rendered him unable to walk.  In contrast, Hoover was condemned for insisting that the crisis could be remedied by confidence and an acceptance of the supposed fact that the Great Depression was the result of a world-wide economic issue.  These two blemishes on his reputation led to the impression that he did not commiserate with suffering citizens.

    As one of the first state governors to establish an unemployment commission and a relief administration that was intended to assist lower-class workers, FDR felt that his “new deal” in politics – a willingness to experiment with the role of government in society and economics – would ultimately benefit the nation.  While it was widely known that these two men were perhaps the most ideologically diverse candidates in American history – one an unpopular incumbent who was once hailed for his European relief programs during World War 1, and the other a man who had a reputation as a proponent of social reform, from Woodrow Wilson's administration to the streets of New York City – it was Hoover himself who offered the most fitting summation of the 1932 elections:  “This campaign is more than a contest between two men...it is a contest between two different philosophies for government.”

    We could rightfully say that FDR was a subscriber to the economic theories of British economist John Maynard Keyes, who held that massive spending by the government would encourage an influx of private spending and, with infrastructure amendments, increase the production of goods and services in domestic markets (remember – Hoover himself made the fatal mistake of increasing import taxes for European companies, shattering the credibility of this proposal and its effectiveness).  However, it would be fair to acknowledge that Hoover himself did his best to spur growth in local and state governments by allowing the RFC to distribute government credit to these areas.  President Hoover also permitted the government to extend relief directly to railroads, parks, and dams, but it was far too late:  Americans knew well that his actions were insincere attempts to salvage his reputation.

    As for which philosophy I find myself in harmony with, I must confess that each, both professed to be the best avenue for economic growth by their respective proponents, contains its own flaws and strengths.  However, we must look at Hoover's tenure in office and conclude that government inaction, as honorable as the intentions behind such “economic neutrality” may be, is ineffective, as it reposes too much trust in the markets to rebound without addressing the persistent issue that obstructs their recovery; confidence in a spluttering system is confidence in a demon slumbering in a closet.  FDR's set of economic beliefs, on the other hand, repose too little faith in the markets, as they assume that the governed still need these programs even after the economy makes a significant comeback.  This could only result in wasteful spending that encumbers future generations with debt.

    In essence, neither philosophy addresses long-term economic prosperity.  While I believe that commissions intended to combat unemployment are worthy, we must ensure that the jobs we create aren't solely from infrastructure spending – they must be sustainable, not temporary.  Because of this, I find myself in agreement more with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who knew that, while state and local governments should be encouraged to contribute, a federal system for recovery would be the most suitable way to ensure that the Depression became less of a reality.

    However, that is certainly not to say that I fully disagree with some of Hoover's proposals, such as negotiating mortgages in order to allow homes and small businesses to remain under the control of their owners.  Confidence cannot be a pretense that covers reality; it must be something that's not the sole solution.  As Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew, confidence from the nation had to be earned by the virtue of actions, not by the false reassurance of words.

If anything, my intent in this blog is to dispel misconceptions about vegetarians. Ever since I decided to abstain from meat and most dairy products diet to show my love for animals, I've received a slew of comments about how I'm treading a path that will only result in hospitalization and unfulfilled dreams. I must first take the time to applaud you all for your rank stupidity and inability to comprehend life's most fundamental nutritional facts. I also laud your ability to blatantly make conclusions about other lifestyles without thoroughly examining them first and taking the time to learn about them. If you want to return to your meal of maltreated animals, there's nothing I can do to hinder you. I will, however, say this: you, sir, are a proponent for a movement that contributes to the maltreatment of farm animals.

You all have to realize that there are untold millions of vegetarians in the world, and the "they all are frail and unhealthy" comments sustain themselves on misconceptions and a lack of understanding. If your knowledge of vegetarianism ends at the fact that we opt not to consume meat (which, because you're so accustomed to it, is the only way you know how to obtain what's needed in your diet), then you don't know that there are alternate sources of protein that also support life (such as tofu, which can be found in numerous recipes for both vegan and vegetarian diets). Oh, no! Did I just boldly state that you are all incorrect?

Some of us are oblivious to the deplorable acts of violence perpetrated against animals by our factories. We assume that they are fair with their work, and that the animals do not experience too much suffering. That assumption could not be more wrong, and I'm sorry to inform you that the entire process is more heinous than most of us would think. The plurality of stations are required to knock the animals out before they are ravaged for their meat, but they oftentimes arrive fully awake and aware of the pain. Since the factories don't want to forfeit profit by slowing down the line, they will proceed with the slaughtering even if the animal is fully conscious throughout the whole ordeal. Furthermore, the use of knives to cease the kicking of the animals is accepted and considered necessary if it allows the worker to do what he must.

My eyes have been subjected to the absolute horror of seeing workers (in videos, of course) chuckle at half-dead cows that break free and lamely endeavor to escape. The process is a humiliation to humanity, and a reminder that our dependence on animals has transmogrified into an addiction that encompasses sadism and cruelty when we are dealing with them. Their legs are removed; they are skinned; and rods uncomfortably move through them as indifferent workers shamelessly turn a head to their constant screams and twitching.

Instead of actual milk, I drink soy milk. I don't eat cheese or other dairy products, simply because I don't advocate for the torture or killing of animals for our food. Just because it's what you claim to be "life", it doesn't mean we have to follow the misguided plurality and do what they suggest. It's making an unmistakably resounding statement to the world about how we can support ourselves and expand as individuals without depending on animals. It's a strong message about what's right over mere convenience. It's, more importantly, about love and co-existence over slaughtering.

I don't profess to be the purest vegetarian in the universe, and the process of converting may not exactly be a simple task for someone who has spent most of their life eating meat without much knowledge of the alternative. The benefits of making the switch couldn't be more appealing: a lesser risk of cancer, heart disease, an increase in self-confidence, a generous boost in how you perceive yourself as a whole, a lowered risk of diabetes, and greatly lower blood pressure. I invite you now to show your love for animals, break from the crowd that advocates the slaughtering of innocent beings, and spread tolerance for all forms of life. The "circle of life" and "how it should be" do not govern our choices; our lifestyles should be based on the convictions of our heart and the subtle pulling of our morals.

I'm not imploring any of you to actually consider converting by abstaining from meat, but I do want to enlighten others on the lowly standards of factories. To ask meat-eaters to do what I propose simply because I think it's correct constitutes an unrealistic request, and it's also one that I would never make as a reasonably tolerant man. All I know is that I'm content with my choice, and I strongly believe that I'm contributing to a secure and more loving community that promotes brotherhood between men and all animals. This world is how we form it, and individual choices make subtle differences that add up when we all stand together for a common cause. It ultimately becomes a collective statement that calls for the end of torture. And I'm ecstatic to play a role in this calling, however inconsequential it may be.

We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.

- William Ralph Inge