Dalai Lama urges universal teaching of compassion

The Dalai Lama had long kept up a demanding schedule, crossing the globe for speaking engagements until doctors recently told him to slow down. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro sits down with the 80-year-old spiritual leader to discuss his hopes for spreading peace and winning autonomy for Tibet, as well as why he says he’s not sure there’s a need for a next Dalai Lama.

SEE PODCASTS

TRANSCRIPT

JUDY WOODRUFF: As Pope Francis visited the East Coast a few weeks back, another world religious figure, the Dalai Lama, was in Minnesota, where doctors at the Mayo Clinic advised him to cut short his own tour of the U.S.

Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro recently sat down with the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism at his exile home in India.

A version of this story aired on the PBS program “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.”

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Until doctors recently told him to slow down, the 80-year-old Dalai Lama had kept a breathless pace. In just a few weeks last summer, he was at a music festival in England, a presidential library in Houston, and a sold-out stadium near Los Angeles.

There is perhaps no world figure today with a more diverse face of fans.

Why are you so popular globally? Why are you a rock star?

DALAI LAMA: I don’t know. I never pay attention about that, why people praise me, why, why.

CROWD (singing): Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And he said he’s not concerned about another matter that is many minds, who will succeed him, or, as he’s increasingly said in recent years, whether anyone will.

DALAI LAMA: Many people showing interest about the institution of Dalai Lama. For me, not much interest.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That’s significant. Like the familiar laugh, his role as Dalai Lama — the world’s best known Buddhist leader — has been central to who he is, the reincarnation of Dalai Lamas going back six centuries, leader of a fabled once-upon-a-time country high in the Himalayas.

He fled with U.S. help to India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Tibet’s annexation by Mao Zedong’s revolutionary People’s Republic of China.

Today, at his home base in Dharamsala, India, he still keeps a full schedule. It begins early each morning as a diverse crowd lines up for a chance to meet him.

Many are from the tens of thousands of Tibetans who followed him and settled in India, where the Dalai Lama set up a secular Tibetan government in exile and later took on a mostly ceremonial role.

DALAI LAMA: You see, in 2011, I totally retired, now no connection with political responsibility.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He says he’s now focused on his moral responsibility as an advocate for world peace, one that’s won him numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize.

A prolific lecturer, he says that peace must start with the individual, with compassion for one’s fellow human beings. It’s a message that he says isn’t uniquely Buddhist.

DALAI LAMA: All major religions teach the practice of compassion, love, forgiveness, tolerance.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He wants to see ethics common to all religions taught in schools, because he says religious leaders have too often focused on excludes and division, leading to both conflict and growing inequality, between and within societies.

DALAI LAMA: Like America, a very rich country, but many people poor, and then India and China now developing great potential, like Africa also, a lot of potential.

But I think this lack of moral principle, in that respect, I think, you see, we need some sort of lesson, education about socialism.

(LAUGHTER)

DALAI LAMA: I am socialist. And then, furthermore, as far as social economy theory concerned, I am Marxist. I am Buddhist Marxist.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He says materialism and consumerism have prevailed, even in places where political leaders pledge themselves to Marxist or socialist ideals.

The most prominent example is China, he said, now trying to regain its moral compass. Its leader, Xi Jinping, recently acknowledged a role for its religious traditions, including Buddhism.

DALAI LAMA: It’s unthinkable, a communist, atheist, you see, leader of that express publicly importance of Buddhism, is something quite unique. So this, I think the reality now shows just the material development alone will not get satisfaction to the public, to the people.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: While the Chinese government and Communist Party have called for more tolerance and religious freedom, they have condemned the Dalai Lama as a separatist and a puppet of the West.

With China’s prominence in global trade as the world’s second largest economy, many Western nations have become more muted in their support of the Dalai Lama. For his part, the exiled leader, while alleging human rights abuses and the destruction of Tibetan culture in his homeland, has moderated his demands.

DALAI LAMA: We are seeking genuine autonomy, not seeking independence.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But he’s drawn a line in the sand on one issue, China’s insistence that the government approve the next Dalai Lama.

The anointing can take years after the Dalai Lama’s death, in which monks look for supernatural signs to lead them to the young boy who is the reincarnation. The current Dalai Lama, born of simple peasant stock as Tenzin Gyatso, was identified at age 3 and installed at 15 after years of rigorous study.

DALAI LAMA: As far as 1969 I publicly stated this institution, whether should continue or not, entirely up to Tibetan people.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In the modern age, when democratic governance and Buddhist scholarship are much more accessible, he says he’s not sure there’s a need for a new Dalai Lama. When he turns 90, he says, he will consult on the question with religious elders and the Tibetan people, before deciding whether to be reincarnated, like his predecessors, or to end the tradition.

For now, it’s a decision that this very public figure says is very private.

DALAI LAMA: These inner values and world peace and a happy world, this is our common responsibility. About next life is individual business. Our concept of God, concept of nirvana, concept of next life is private business.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For the PBS NewsHour, this is Fred de Sam Lazaro in Dharamsala, India.


Source
.

GOP presidential hopefuls address religious right

June 20, 2014 at 6:00 PM ET.

Source
.

How retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens would amend the constitution

April 21, 2014 at 6:25 PM EDT






Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens talks to Judy Woodruff about his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” In his book, the 94-year-old liberal justice calls for major changes to the Constitution on issues such as the death penalty, firearms, redistricting and campaign finance.


SEE PODCASTS

TRANSCRIPT

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: A former Supreme Court justice takes on the U.S. Constitution and the court he stepped away from.

John Paul Stevens was known in his 35 years in office for views that evolved from the time he was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford to one of the court’s most outspoken liberal voices.

Today, four years after retiring, the 94-year-old continues to make waves with an ambitious new book. It’s titled “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

I talked to him last week in his chambers at the Supreme Court.

Justice John Paul Stevens, thank you for talking with us.

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS, U.S. Supreme Court: Well, I’m happy to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re asking to amend the Constitution six different ways. How practical is that?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, it certainly would take time to do that job completely, but there’s no reason why — one or two amount amendments might be adopted before the others.

And I think the issues in each of the ones I discussed are sufficiently important that it’s worth spending time debating them and thinking about it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You single out rules, Justice Stevens, that were handed down, as you point out, by a slim majority of the court over the last 40 years that you say — and I’m quoting you now — “have had such a profound and unfortunate impact on our basic law, that resort to the process of amendment is warranted.”

You’re essentially taking on the modern Supreme Court.

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, because I have been trying to do that for a good many years.

But I think there were incorrect — incorrect decisions that were profoundly unwise, and really contrary to a lot of things that our country stands for. And I think they should be changed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re speaking in a mild mannered way, Justice Stevens, but I can tell you feel pretty strongly about this.

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, I do.

(LAUGHTER)

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: There’s no doubt about that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s talk about some of the ways that you would like to see the Constitution changed.

Among other things, you want an amendment that would require the states not to draw legislative or congressional districts in a way to increase partisan strength. We know, clearly, there is partisan redistricting. But most redistricting is done around where populations live, whether it’s an urban area, a suburban area. Why isn’t this something that is better left to the political process?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, because the political process has misfired.

And in a number of states, the dominant party has redistricted with its own objective of strengthening its control of the state in the future and of its congressional delegation at the time by drawing bizarre districts that have no purpose whatsoever, other than to enhance the political strength of the party in power.

Now, it’s my very profound view that a person in public office has a primary duty to follow — to make impartial decisions, not motivated by personal profit or personal gain or advantage just to the political party of whom — of which he is a member.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you’re saying take it out of politics?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, not entirely. But don’t allow districts to be drawn for no reason other than political advantage.

There are times when political — political considerations can be taken into account in making certain minor adjustments such as that.

But the examples that I talked about in the book are examples of districts that are bizarre in shape and have absolutely — obviously no justification, other than the impermissible justification of partisan advantage to those who drafted the districts.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You also want to amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. People who have always opposed the death penalty lament how long they say it took you to change your mind, from the time you came on the court in 1975 until 2008.

Why do you think it took you as long as it did to change your mind? And was it for humane reasons or constitutional reasons?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, I think that what has happened in the period that I have been on the court is that the court has used death penalty litigation to develop rules that make conviction more likely than it should be, the rules governing the selection of the jury, for example, rules governing the admissibility of victim-impact evidence at the penalty phase of the trial.

Those rules have slanted the opportunity for justice in favor of the prosecutor. And I think it’s particularly incorrect to do it in the capital context, because the cost is so high. If you make a mistake in a capital case, there is no way to take care of it later on.

And the risk of an incorrect execution in any case to me is really intolerable. And the system shouldn’t permit that possibility to exist.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another controversy you’re jumping right into is campaign finance. You believe Congress should be able to put limits on the amount of money candidates spend on their campaigns…

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: … and that the Supreme Court has made mistakes in several decisions, allowing corporations, labor unions to advocate and spend money on candidates.

Considering all the court has done, Justice Stevens, to open the door for huge money to pour into American politics, including the recent McCutcheon decision, what effect does all this have on American politics?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, I don’t think it’s a healthy effect.

And I think it’s a change from what the people who direct — framed our basic government envisioned. For the — as the chief justice said, I think, in the first sentence of his opinion in the McCutcheon case the other day, there is nothing more important than participation in electing our representatives.

But the law that developed in that case and in a number of other cases involved not electing the representatives of the people who voted for them, but electing representatives of — in other jurisdictions where the financing is used. In other words, that was a case that involved the right of the — of an individual to spend as much of its money as he wanted to elect representatives of other people. He didn’t use any of that money to elect his own representatives.

And I think that’s a distortion of the concept that we started with many, many years ago.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The last area that I want to ask you about is what this country should do about guns. You would change the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution to say the right of people to bear arms to own a gun should apply only when serving in the militia.

Is it your ultimate hope that there would be no right to own a gun for self-defense?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, it would be my ultimate hope that legislatures would decide the issues, and not be hampered by constitutional restrictions, because, clearly, legislators are in a much better position than judges are to decide what could be permissible in different contexts.

And the effect of the Second Amendment as it is now construed is to make federal judges the final arbiters of gun policy, which is quite, quite wrong, I think, and quite contrary to what the framers intended when they drafted the Second Amendment, to protect states from the danger that a strong federal armed force would have been able to the states of their own militias.

JUDY WOODRUFF: When you look at all of these changes that you would like to see in the Constitution, and whether it’s campaign finance, redistricting or something else, do you believe the more conservative members of the Supreme Court have a partisan agenda? Do you think they are actually trying to get conservatives elected to office?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: No, I don’t think so. I wouldn’t question their motives at all.

I think they have come to the incorrect conclusion, but I do think they have — where they have had chances to take a different tack, I think they have acted incorrectly. But I wouldn’t suggest that any of them were improperly motivated.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think you should have stayed on the court longer?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Should I have stayed on — no.

(LAUGHTER)

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: If anything, I stayed on too long.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How does a justice know when it is the right time to retire? What do you think?

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, in my case, the time — I can remember the events that triggered the specific decision.

I announced my dissent in the Citizens United orally, and I stumbled in my announcement. I had a little difficulty expressing myself. And that was out of character. And I used to have no problem at all being articulate and coherent.

And I took that as a warning sign that maybe I had been around longer than I should.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Justice John Paul Stevens, thank you very much for talking with us.

The book is “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Thank you. It’s been a pleasure being here.
 

Source
.

Special envoy says Obama admin. moving aggressively to transfer Gitmo detainees

Transcript

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Pentagon announced a significant milestone was reached this week in the long saga to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. The last three ethnic Uighurs from China were released and sent to Slovakia. A total of 22 Uighurs were captured after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

They were found not to be a threat, and a judge ordered them freed in 2008, but the U.S. struggled to find a place to send them. All told, nine detainees were transferred in the month of December.

So, just who has been released and under what conditions? And what will happen to the remaining 155 prisoners?

For that, we turn to the State Department's special envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan.

Cliff Sloan, welcome to the NewsHour.

CLIFF SLOAN, U.S. State Department Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure: Thank you. Happy to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So there was a slump in the release of prisoners for a period of about two years, until you came in this summer. Just in the last month, as we have said, several released.

What's changed since you have been there?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, Judy, as you know, in May, the president gave a speech at the National Defense University.

And he strongly reiterated and renewed his commitment to close Guantanamo. And he's been very committed to closing it from the beginning. And in this speech, he said, we were going to move forward on transfers, we were going to move forward on closing the facility.

He announced the appointment of special envoys at the State Department and the Defense Department who would be focused and moving forward on closure. I started the beginning of July. Paul Lewis, my counterpart at the Defense Department, started in November. And so we are moving full-speed ahead.

And I'm also pleased that we are able to work with Congress in the last few months to change the law in a way that removes some of the obstacles and restrictions that had led to that slump that you referred to. And I think that's also going to be very helpful to us in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, is that what made the difference? And how did you prioritize who was going to be released first among these prisoners?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, in terms of changing the law -- and the law will be different in 2014 -- I think that is going to help us very much in moving forward with the transfers.

In terms of prioritizing the transfers, let's step back for a second and have an overview of the facility; 155 detainees are there right now; 76 now are approved for transfer; 79 are not approved for transfer. And when I say approved for transfer, there's a very important point that I think people don't realize, which is that the executive branch in 2009 and 2010 undertook a very rigorous review by the national security agencies and departments.

And those who are approved for transfer were unanimously determined that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security arrangements and humane treatment arrangements.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That they were no longer a threat, or...

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, that they should be -- that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security and humane treatment, assurances and agreements with other countries, that there was no need to continue to hold them.

And so those are the priority. And we have been moving forward as aggressively and quickly as we can on those approved for transfer. Now, let me just say...

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Can I just say, is the hold -- has the holdup then been finding the countries, the places that will take them?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, it's a -- it's a complicated process, which includes, as I said, there were the congressional restrictions which we think were far more burdensome than necessary and helpful.

There's the question of the countries they're going to. And in some cases, it's to their home countries. And in some cases, if that's not possible for security or humane treatment reasons, it would be to third countries. And that takes negotiations. And it is a -- it is a complicated process.

But one thing that I think is very important, Judy, and that I have tried to emphasize and Paul Lewis at the Defense Department has tried to emphasize, we don't want to relitigate the old battles. We don't be looking backward. We want to be looking ahead.

And we feel very strongly there is a new air of possibility on moving forward on closing the Guantanamo detention facility. That is what we are focused on. We don't want to go over what happened in the -- during the last several months and the years when there was that slump. We feel very good about moving ahead now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, of the 155 left, you said 70-some are cleared for -- how long is it going to take to get those detainees out of the country to a new location?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't give you an exact time frame, but what I can tell you is, we are working just as hard as we can. We are moving forward as aggressively as we can.

As you mentioned, nine were transferred in the month of December alone, 11 in the last couple of months. We are working very hard on all those approved for transfer. But the other point that I want to make which is also very important is, the 79 who are not approved for transfer, we have also started a new administrative process for them, a new hearing, where they have the opportunity to show that they now should be approved for transfer. They get a fresh look.

And that's important as well in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So it's -- so they may not necessarily stay at Guantanamo, because right now it looks as if you have got several dozen of them who are -- who will be there indefinitely?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, they -- as I said, we have 79 who are not approved for transfer. Eight of those are facing criminal charges. So, of the remaining 71, they now will have this new administrative hearing.

That's already started. That's going to accelerate on a rolling basis, and that is going to be very important in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe that Guantanamo will close within the foreseeable future, and that all detainees will be taken care of one way or another?

CLIFF SLOAN: Absolutely.

We are going to close the Guantanamo detention facility. I have no doubt about that. And President Obama is very strongly committed to that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: By when?

CLIFF SLOAN: I'm not going to give you a time frame on it, but I am absolutely convinced that we going to close the Guantanamo facility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why are you convinced, if you don't -- if you can't say how long it's going to take?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't say how long it's going to take because there are variables, and I don't want to give an artificial timeline. I don't want to just pluck a date out of the air and say it.

But those who have been approved for transfer, we will do everything we can to transfer those. Those who are not approved for transfer will have the new administrative hearing. Now, there is more work to be done with Congress, because there currently is a ban on bringing any detainees to the United States, including for prosecution in our courts.

And we think that is unwise. And we think that restriction should be lifted. But we are going...

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you think you can be successful changing that?

(CROSSTALK)

CLIFF SLOAN: I think so. And I think you are seeing a new recognition across the spectrum that it's time to move on, it is time to put this problem before us.

When you look at the facts and when you just take a sort of reasoned view of it, there is a much better solution out there than just -- just keeping them at Guantanamo. And we can and we will close the Guantanamo detention facility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Cliff Sloan, who is the special envoy for Guantanamo closure, we thank you.

CLIFF SLOAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.


Source
.

N.Y. survivors of Sandy ditch the city to 'bug out' in preparation for doomsday

PBS NEWSHOUR

Survivors of Sandy ditch N.Y. to prepare for doomsday
N.Y. survivors of Sandy ditch the city to 'bug out' in preparation for doomsday

Premiere Date: October 25, 2013 Rating: NR

SUMMARY

 Some Hurricane Sandy survivors have begun to study up on "doomsday prepping" in case another environmental disaster hits. City slickers by day, survivalists in the NYC Preppers Network head up to the Catskill Mountains on the weekends, armed with just the basics to practice living off the land. Paul Solman reports.

 Transcript

JUDY WOODRUFF: Time for a change of pace.

It's been nearly a year since superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast. We will have reports tied to its anniversary next week on what's being done to prepare for extreme weather events.

But, tonight, a different take from a less conventional group of folks preparing for disaster, natural or manmade.

The NewsHour’s Paul Solman has the story.

NARRATOR: All across America, people are preparing.

PAUL SOLMAN: The once-August National Geographic Society's huge TV hit Doomsday Preppers.

MAN: I'm going to survive a genocidal siege by building a tunnel that will lead my family to safety.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, whether they fear terrorist attack, a shift of the magnetic poles, zombie apocalypse, or, these days, more proximate threats like U.S. debt default and global economic chaos, Nat Geo's ever-more-popular preppers seem to be prepping for a war of all against all, which is why they practice bugging out: quickly leaving their lairs with just enough supplies for a couple of days en route to lives away from their fellow would-be antagonists.

Season three of Doomsday Preppers debuts October 29, the one-year anniversary of superstorm Sandy, which threatened to doom New York. Were there New Yorkers, we wondered, among the two million or so Americans who reportedly consider themselves preppers?

Sure enough, a meet-up group known as the New York City Preppers Network. And so we repaired, one Friday afternoon, to bug-out practice a couple of hours' drive, or, in case of catastrophe, a couple of days' walk, north of New York, in what passes for wilderness around Woodstock in the Catskill Mountains. The organizers had said they'd arrive between noon and 1:00 p.m.

MAN: Preppers?

PAUL SOLMAN: Improbably, given that this was prep for an emergency get-out-of-town evacuation, they were late.

Jason? Jason?

When fireman Jason Charles, who runs the meet-up group, arrived three hours later, he explained that he'd had to buy dog food before bugging out.

JASON CHARLES, New York City Preppers Network: My wife, she ran me on a bunch of errands before we had to go.

PAUL SOLMAN: Some buggers-out showed up even later.

WOMAN: I have been camping once in my life, and I had no intentions of ever going back.

PAUL SOLMAN: Jodi Paulovich is a realtor and local cable access TV host.

NARRATOR: Live from New York City, it's "The Jo Show."

JODI PAULOVICH, New York City Preppers Network: I am the antithesis of your stereotypical survivalist.

PAUL SOLMAN: But stormy weather had driven city slicker Paulovich and boyfriend Joe Suba, an actor and stuntman, out into the wild.

JOE SUBA, New York City Preppers Network: I was there when Sandy hit. So I have seen people in lines -- I have it on video, lining up down the block, Pampers, milk. And it's like, hey, are you going to stand there, or you are going to do something?

PAUL SOLMAN: Sandy had converted prison guard Preston Williams as well.

PRESTON WILLIAMS, New York City Preppers Network: I had just had surgery on my shoulder, and I was in a sling, and trying to run through waist -- I mean, thigh-deep water with an 8-year-old. It was scary, because you didn't know how high it was going to go. It made you step back and look at everything and say, wow, I need to be prepared.

PAUL SOLMAN: What do you do now that you didn't do before Sandy?

PRESTON WILLIAMS: Well, I started dehydrating food. Usually, I will try to cook a big dinner, and then I will dehydrate it and pack it away and put it in a barrel.

JASON CHARLES: A disaster, it's -- it's a test, and this is a test. The basic idea is for everybody in the group to live out of their bug-out bag for two nights.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, armed with food and water, ropes and knives, tents and sleeping bags, the New York City Preppers trekked the two-mile trail up Slide Mountain.

The NewsHour’s suburban slickers, you may not be surprised to learn, trekked back down to spend the night at a motel. But we were back at the campsite at the crack of dawn to see how the preppers had fared.

The first casualty had been Preston Williams, the food dehydrator. He wound up with a case of, well, dehydration himself, a gastrointestinal illness that kept him confined to his cocoon. Jodi Paulovich had had better nights herself.

JODI PAULOVICH: Lying on the mud, and it was so hard, and there were all these tree roots under us, and even though our sleeping bags were pretty warm, it was still freezing. It was just freezing.

PAUL SOLMAN: As might be expected if one were really fleeing the ravages of an October storm in the Northeast.

So, first on the weekend agenda, learning to make a fire, then how to use a compass, read a map.

MAN: There's true north, grid north, magnetic north.

PAUL SOLMAN: Helpful when setting out to find water, though a word to Joe Suba: Next time, maybe ditch the bottle, and bring a flexible bladder bag, like everyone else.

Also, it turns out there's a reason for cargo pants. Then it was back to camp for a little gruel: some precooked chicken. Italian tuna fillets in olive oil?

JODI PAULOVICH: Why not? I mean, why bring those yucky cans, if I can could this?

PAUL SOLMAN: And, finally, the critically important first-aid class, with Jason Charles apologizing for his handiwork.

JASON CHARLES: This is by far the crappiest looking stretcher you will see.

PAUL SOLMAN: OK, we admit it: No matter how pervasive preppers are becoming, or how earnest they are, it's almost irresistible to make fun of them, especially urbanites first venturing out of the asphalt jungle.

But, in the end, we thought we learned something worth sharing. The basic vision of the prepper movement is that ours is a "Mad Max" world, in which, once disaster hits, you take from the other guys before they take from you, or, as Jodi Paulovich put it:

JODI PAULOVICH: We don't want to be stuck on a little island with crazy people in martial law.

PAUL SOLMAN: And yet here was a stunningly diverse group of random New Yorkers brought together by legitimate fears, with perhaps a whiff of paranoia, who were learning what? To prep for disaster by depending upon each other, to survive, but in community, trusting people they had never even met before with their very lives.

MAN: And when you're taking him out, always keep his head above the broken extremity.

PAUL SOLMAN: Community, not every man for himself, as the key to survival come doomsday, a hopeful punch line with which to end a news story for a change.


Source
.