Let's hear it for Lady Liberty!
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Quote of the moment:
"Compassion is a kind of fire (Aquinas says compassion is the fire that Jesus came to set on the earth)--it disturbs, it surprises, it ignites, it burns, it sears, and it warms. Compassion incinerates denial; it especially warms and melts cold hearts, cold structures, frozen minds, and self-satisfied lifestyles. Those who are touched by compassion have their lives turned upside down. That is not necessarily a bad thing."
- Matthew Fox, Episcopal priest and theologian, in the book Creation Spirituality
Monday, October 28, 2002
Why isn't murder as exciting as it used to be?
(Thanks to Susan Howell for the tip.)"Murder is so routine, including the killing of children, it doesn't even warrant serious news coverage in most cases....We don't know what to do about all this violence. We don't know how to process it. We don't even know how to cover it. We sensationalize it, glamorize it, eroticize it." Read full article from nytimes.com
Audacious retort to female superiority
First, from "her" side of the issue, an item from Fortune magazine.
BRAINSTORM 2002
Brain Scans: Why Women Should Rule the World
Boys' clubs: They suddenly have a whole lot to answer for
Justin Fox
Monday, October 28, 2002
Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, offered a solution to today's scandal-riddled world: women leaders. "The qualities that are defined as masculine are also the same qualities that are defined as the qualities of leadership. There is virtually no overlap between the qualities ascribed to femininity and those to leadership." Yet in several studies, Campbell said, "results show that when you have a critical mass of women in an organization, you have less corruption." Peru and Mexico have even implemented initiatives based on such thinking. And Campbell warned that "lest you think that all we aspire to for the world can be accomplished by male-dominated organizations, I have only to say to you: Enron, Taliban, Roman Catholic Church."
Reporter Associate: Julie Schlosser
The Fortune article
And Arthur's retort:
The author's mistake is to say Quality A has a bad side and Quality B is better because it doesn't have the bad side of Quality A. But when honestly examined, Quality B has a bad side all its own -- albeit totally different from that of Quality A.
While both genders can express any qualities, I believe it's true that men have been socialized to rely more on individual focus and women more on collective focus. BUT, there is nothing inherently more virtuous about either approach. Individualism gone awry yields corruption definitely. But collectivism has its dark side as well. Collectivism gone awry yields problems never getting address and/or people being stifled/smothering.There are political example of each throughout history (for what's its worth, my math has the "collective" registering a much higher body count). Men need to know when collective action is called for (realize when nurturing the people involved is more important than being a hero, focus on what's right instead of who's right) and women when individual action is required (taking responsibility to fix a problem instead of accommodating and perpetuating it, allowing people/minorities the space to be different regardless of what the majority thinks).
Boy's clubs have a lot to answer for? Oh brother. Try this on for size, women raise everybody. Between the overwhelming preponderance of female authority figures at home (Dad is the abstract, distant disciplinarian away at work most of the time) and at school (women teachers are far more common than men, especially at pre-high school levels) women shape society almost single handedly. The women's club has a lot to answer for. The blame game is so easy to play -- but so unconstructive and unsatisfying as well.
Are women less corrupt? Well, my guess would be women who express sufficient individualism exhibit corruption at rates equal to men exhibiting the same principle. Women who express less individualism and more collectivism would exhibit less corruption--but that's a different axis with it's own set of problems (herd mentality, asleep at wheel, problems get ignored for sake of avoiding conflict).
"But Arthur," you say, "everyone knows men have the greater tendency to commit crimes--look at all the prisons!" Sure, I agree. That's easy to spot. But if knew what you were looking for, you'd see women's greater tendency toward "criminal negligence" is as much of the world's problem.
BRAINSTORM 2002
Brain Scans: Why Women Should Rule the World
Boys' clubs: They suddenly have a whole lot to answer for
Justin Fox
Monday, October 28, 2002
Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, offered a solution to today's scandal-riddled world: women leaders. "The qualities that are defined as masculine are also the same qualities that are defined as the qualities of leadership. There is virtually no overlap between the qualities ascribed to femininity and those to leadership." Yet in several studies, Campbell said, "results show that when you have a critical mass of women in an organization, you have less corruption." Peru and Mexico have even implemented initiatives based on such thinking. And Campbell warned that "lest you think that all we aspire to for the world can be accomplished by male-dominated organizations, I have only to say to you: Enron, Taliban, Roman Catholic Church."
Reporter Associate: Julie Schlosser
The Fortune article
And Arthur's retort:
The author's mistake is to say Quality A has a bad side and Quality B is better because it doesn't have the bad side of Quality A. But when honestly examined, Quality B has a bad side all its own -- albeit totally different from that of Quality A.
While both genders can express any qualities, I believe it's true that men have been socialized to rely more on individual focus and women more on collective focus. BUT, there is nothing inherently more virtuous about either approach. Individualism gone awry yields corruption definitely. But collectivism has its dark side as well. Collectivism gone awry yields problems never getting address and/or people being stifled/smothering.There are political example of each throughout history (for what's its worth, my math has the "collective" registering a much higher body count). Men need to know when collective action is called for (realize when nurturing the people involved is more important than being a hero, focus on what's right instead of who's right) and women when individual action is required (taking responsibility to fix a problem instead of accommodating and perpetuating it, allowing people/minorities the space to be different regardless of what the majority thinks).
Boy's clubs have a lot to answer for? Oh brother. Try this on for size, women raise everybody. Between the overwhelming preponderance of female authority figures at home (Dad is the abstract, distant disciplinarian away at work most of the time) and at school (women teachers are far more common than men, especially at pre-high school levels) women shape society almost single handedly. The women's club has a lot to answer for. The blame game is so easy to play -- but so unconstructive and unsatisfying as well.
Are women less corrupt? Well, my guess would be women who express sufficient individualism exhibit corruption at rates equal to men exhibiting the same principle. Women who express less individualism and more collectivism would exhibit less corruption--but that's a different axis with it's own set of problems (herd mentality, asleep at wheel, problems get ignored for sake of avoiding conflict).
"But Arthur," you say, "everyone knows men have the greater tendency to commit crimes--look at all the prisons!" Sure, I agree. That's easy to spot. But if knew what you were looking for, you'd see women's greater tendency toward "criminal negligence" is as much of the world's problem.
Saturday, October 26, 2002
More skinny on low carb
From Lora Carpender's newsletter
This week, another few articles in the news have inspired my column... First off, let me call your attention to one such article. It's titled "Scales tipping toward diabetes" and appeared in USA Today (thank you to Janice Brown for sending me the article.) You should read the entire article (link below), but let me point out a few things...
It starts out with a bang: "If Americans keep putting on the pounds at the current rate, almost everyone is going to be overweight by 2030, a top obesity researcher says."
That's sickeningly chilling, isn't it?
It goes on... "These grim projections from some of the nation's top obesity and diabetes doctors are based on new government statistics showing that almost 65% of American adults, or more than 120 million people, are overweight or obese."
"Foreyt [a weight-loss researcher at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston] predicted in a 1995 scientific journal article that almost everyone in the USA would be overweight or obese by 2230. Now he has moved that up 200 years. At the rate we're going, he says, almost everyone could be not just overweight, but obese, by 2100."
They go on to look at how this could cripple the health care system. And look at childhood diabetes. All stark realities difficult to look at, but even harder to deny. Yet at the end of this roster of doom, there is no conclusion or answer other than to further educate people to eat "healthy" and "get exercise." The link to diabetes alone should be a clue. How can this "phenomenon" remain a mystery to them? (The full article is available here.)
Let's look around us for just a few moments, both at advertising, the news, and the way of the world:
I searched for recipes geared for kids to cook for a friend of mine. All the books I found (and there were hundreds) heavily utilized sugar and other empty carbs as the mainstay of kids' recipe ingredients. Of course the Sugar Council and every major sugar manufacturer has areas on their sites for kids (that feature "sweet treats" usually hawked by adorable characters), and have articles for parents showing that sugar is not at all harmful for children.
The news tells of the latest "craze"... fried Twinkies! (If you hadn't heard, this is spearing a frozen Hostess Twinkie on a stick; dipping it in sweet waffle batter, frying it in hot oil or shortening; and then further dusting it with powdered sugar.) Taking a product already made entirely of white flour, sugar and transfats, then adding more flour and more transfats, and MORE sugar! Then they sell 'em at fairs and fill their children with them.
When I'm standing in the checkout the other day, the clerk looks down at my stack of low carb bars. She says, "I've been thinking of giving up sugar, but it will be hard with the kids' sweets in the house." Then she leans in to me with a concerned (conspiratorial) look on her face and says, "You DO know you can't put kids on a sugar free diet, right? Kids need the sugar for their growing brains to function." WHAT?????
In this time of a struggling economy, more people than ever need to rely on grocery coupons. Have you seriously looked at coupons lately? They're 95% for high-carb food products. I am told this is because cheap (for them) carbs are where all the profits are.
Look at the rack of "Women's Magazines"... the first thing you'll note is that each one has found THE PERFECT DIET or TRICK that will allow you to lose the weight forever. They're all totally different from magazine to magazine of course. And the very next week (or month), look again... OOops.. guess they were wrong last time, because THIS is the REAL miracle! (Well, until next issue, I guess.) And it never fails that each week some of my friends are trying yet another "sure fire" diet they found in Good Housekeeping, Woman's Day, Redbook etc. They usually promise "... without giving up your favorite foods!!" So, there's a diet that will let you eat cookies, pies, candy bars, chips, fries, Coke, and Krispy Kreme and still lose weight??! Think they might have just realized that in an ever fattened up world, magazines just sell better with weight loss promises on the cover??
Have I mentioned that as a society we need to all just wake up and look reality in the face... while our reflections still fit in the mirror!?
The article referenced above says, "we won't reach a point at which every single American will weigh too much. Some small percentage, possibly 5% to 15%, probably will be able to maintain a healthy weight because they are genetically protected, or they are willing to carefully watch what they eat and be fairly active. But they will be part of an ever-increasing minority.."
You know who most of their "small percentage" of normal weight people will be?
Us. The low carbers.
This week, another few articles in the news have inspired my column... First off, let me call your attention to one such article. It's titled "Scales tipping toward diabetes" and appeared in USA Today (thank you to Janice Brown for sending me the article.) You should read the entire article (link below), but let me point out a few things...
It starts out with a bang: "If Americans keep putting on the pounds at the current rate, almost everyone is going to be overweight by 2030, a top obesity researcher says."
That's sickeningly chilling, isn't it?
It goes on... "These grim projections from some of the nation's top obesity and diabetes doctors are based on new government statistics showing that almost 65% of American adults, or more than 120 million people, are overweight or obese."
"Foreyt [a weight-loss researcher at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston] predicted in a 1995 scientific journal article that almost everyone in the USA would be overweight or obese by 2230. Now he has moved that up 200 years. At the rate we're going, he says, almost everyone could be not just overweight, but obese, by 2100."
They go on to look at how this could cripple the health care system. And look at childhood diabetes. All stark realities difficult to look at, but even harder to deny. Yet at the end of this roster of doom, there is no conclusion or answer other than to further educate people to eat "healthy" and "get exercise." The link to diabetes alone should be a clue. How can this "phenomenon" remain a mystery to them? (The full article is available here.)
Let's look around us for just a few moments, both at advertising, the news, and the way of the world:
I searched for recipes geared for kids to cook for a friend of mine. All the books I found (and there were hundreds) heavily utilized sugar and other empty carbs as the mainstay of kids' recipe ingredients. Of course the Sugar Council and every major sugar manufacturer has areas on their sites for kids (that feature "sweet treats" usually hawked by adorable characters), and have articles for parents showing that sugar is not at all harmful for children.
The news tells of the latest "craze"... fried Twinkies! (If you hadn't heard, this is spearing a frozen Hostess Twinkie on a stick; dipping it in sweet waffle batter, frying it in hot oil or shortening; and then further dusting it with powdered sugar.) Taking a product already made entirely of white flour, sugar and transfats, then adding more flour and more transfats, and MORE sugar! Then they sell 'em at fairs and fill their children with them.
When I'm standing in the checkout the other day, the clerk looks down at my stack of low carb bars. She says, "I've been thinking of giving up sugar, but it will be hard with the kids' sweets in the house." Then she leans in to me with a concerned (conspiratorial) look on her face and says, "You DO know you can't put kids on a sugar free diet, right? Kids need the sugar for their growing brains to function." WHAT?????
In this time of a struggling economy, more people than ever need to rely on grocery coupons. Have you seriously looked at coupons lately? They're 95% for high-carb food products. I am told this is because cheap (for them) carbs are where all the profits are.
Look at the rack of "Women's Magazines"... the first thing you'll note is that each one has found THE PERFECT DIET or TRICK that will allow you to lose the weight forever. They're all totally different from magazine to magazine of course. And the very next week (or month), look again... OOops.. guess they were wrong last time, because THIS is the REAL miracle! (Well, until next issue, I guess.) And it never fails that each week some of my friends are trying yet another "sure fire" diet they found in Good Housekeeping, Woman's Day, Redbook etc. They usually promise "... without giving up your favorite foods!!" So, there's a diet that will let you eat cookies, pies, candy bars, chips, fries, Coke, and Krispy Kreme and still lose weight??! Think they might have just realized that in an ever fattened up world, magazines just sell better with weight loss promises on the cover??
Have I mentioned that as a society we need to all just wake up and look reality in the face... while our reflections still fit in the mirror!?
The article referenced above says, "we won't reach a point at which every single American will weigh too much. Some small percentage, possibly 5% to 15%, probably will be able to maintain a healthy weight because they are genetically protected, or they are willing to carefully watch what they eat and be fairly active. But they will be part of an ever-increasing minority.."
You know who most of their "small percentage" of normal weight people will be?
Us. The low carbers.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Paul Wellstone died in an airplance crash today in MN. Nice guy - I'd met him on the street in St. Paul a couple of times. A populist politician, practically the only one of his degree of liberality. It's said that in any vote that was lopsided except for one or two votes, Wellstone's would have been in the minority. Only the good die young. But hey who says that we're supposed to stay here forever? There are NO GUARANTEES.
"Upon this stage of existence goes on the dance of mortal mind. Mortal thoughts chase one another like snowflakes, and drift to the ground. Science reveals Life as not being at the mercy of death, nor will Science admit that happiness is ever the sport of circumstance." Science and Health p. 250
"Upon this stage of existence goes on the dance of mortal mind. Mortal thoughts chase one another like snowflakes, and drift to the ground. Science reveals Life as not being at the mercy of death, nor will Science admit that happiness is ever the sport of circumstance." Science and Health p. 250
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Quote of the moment
Between two evils, choose neither; between two goods, choose both.
--Tyron Edwards
--Tyron Edwards
Colorado State Collegian - Guardian Angels pumping gas should serve as role models We must demand from our own actions the daily walk of self-sacrifice. We must put on our own version of ridiculous red coats, wherever we live, whatever we do.
Monday, October 21, 2002
The skinny on my low carb life
In July I read an article by Gary Taubes in the New York Times magazine that got me started on a low carb way of eating. I read a few more books, including Atkins' revised book, got on an informative and lively discussion board and talked it over with a couple of trusted friends. I have lost about ten pounds in a couple of months. This is not a lot, but is still encouraging because I believe the loss is due to a change in general habits and not the result of some unnatural imposition of drugs, potions or will power.
The following is taken from a popular blog, Rebecca's Pocket and presents a variety of informed views on the subject. Go to her site for live links to all her sources.
From Rebecca's archive: .
:: On July 7, the New York Times published What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taubes, which made the startling claim that the long recommended low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is causing our current obesity epidemic, and that the fat-friendly, low-carbohydrate Atkins Diet, long dismissed by the medical establishment, is sound.
The WSJ Opinion Journal followed fast on its heels with a piece by anthropology professor Lionel Tiger which outlined the controversy and suggested that a meat-based diet might, with moderation, be more attuned to human physiology than one that is grain-based.
In August, the Washington Post published a close examination of the NYT article, seeking to balance Taube's claims against the science his article claims to refute.
It's a terrific article, shedding light both on the research Taube rejected and his reasons for rejecting it, enabling the reader to assess the quality of Taube's journalism. It's also a lucid reminder of just how 'constructed' reportage really is.
With many readers newly confused about the benefits and hazards of low-fat and high-fat eating, we decided to take a hard look at Taubes's arguments and examine the broader record of dietary re-search that he is accused of ignoring or downplaying. We interviewed more than three dozen experts in the field -- many of them the same people Taubes spoke with -- and reviewed the scientific literature. We also spoke to Taubes himself for several hours and reviewed with him some of the research that he used. [...]
Despite the uproar, even some of Taubes's sharpest critics found merit in the story -- for example, for describing the role that corn sweeteners in soft drinks may play in the obesity epidemic and for forcing scientists to address unanswered questions on fat. 'The good part is that Taubes has stimulated discussion,' said James O. Hill, director of the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. 'The bad part is that once again the poor public is confused.'
The WP article also notes that Taube received a $700,000 book deal as a result of his provocative piece.
The American Council On Science And Health rebutted the idea that type of diet determines either health or obesity, pointing out that American activity is in a decline, and that even incremental differences add up.
The activity trends in this country seem to have been pointing down for the last several decades. And that's not just because of more TVs and computer games, though certainly these play a role. All sorts of subtle changes in society contribute to our diminishing exertion. Those of us over a certain age can even recall when driving a car took more physical energy than it does today. Remember trying to parallel park a car without power steering? Or having to actually move the seat manually without a power-assist?
Finally, on September 9, the estimable Nutrition News put it all in perspective:
The cavemen argument doesn't mean eating a lot of lean meat. It really means tracking that animal for a day before you kill it and butcher it. Few of us are willing to live that way, so we need to adapt our behaviors to the modern world. Want air conditioning, your own car, and electrical appli-ances? Then you need to find other ways to burn calories on a regular basis. This may be an ugly proposition to many, but it is the only one that works.
The following is taken from a popular blog, Rebecca's Pocket and presents a variety of informed views on the subject. Go to her site for live links to all her sources.
From Rebecca's archive: .
:: On July 7, the New York Times published What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taubes, which made the startling claim that the long recommended low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is causing our current obesity epidemic, and that the fat-friendly, low-carbohydrate Atkins Diet, long dismissed by the medical establishment, is sound.
The WSJ Opinion Journal followed fast on its heels with a piece by anthropology professor Lionel Tiger which outlined the controversy and suggested that a meat-based diet might, with moderation, be more attuned to human physiology than one that is grain-based.
In August, the Washington Post published a close examination of the NYT article, seeking to balance Taube's claims against the science his article claims to refute.
It's a terrific article, shedding light both on the research Taube rejected and his reasons for rejecting it, enabling the reader to assess the quality of Taube's journalism. It's also a lucid reminder of just how 'constructed' reportage really is.
With many readers newly confused about the benefits and hazards of low-fat and high-fat eating, we decided to take a hard look at Taubes's arguments and examine the broader record of dietary re-search that he is accused of ignoring or downplaying. We interviewed more than three dozen experts in the field -- many of them the same people Taubes spoke with -- and reviewed the scientific literature. We also spoke to Taubes himself for several hours and reviewed with him some of the research that he used. [...]
Despite the uproar, even some of Taubes's sharpest critics found merit in the story -- for example, for describing the role that corn sweeteners in soft drinks may play in the obesity epidemic and for forcing scientists to address unanswered questions on fat. 'The good part is that Taubes has stimulated discussion,' said James O. Hill, director of the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. 'The bad part is that once again the poor public is confused.'
The WP article also notes that Taube received a $700,000 book deal as a result of his provocative piece.
The American Council On Science And Health rebutted the idea that type of diet determines either health or obesity, pointing out that American activity is in a decline, and that even incremental differences add up.
The activity trends in this country seem to have been pointing down for the last several decades. And that's not just because of more TVs and computer games, though certainly these play a role. All sorts of subtle changes in society contribute to our diminishing exertion. Those of us over a certain age can even recall when driving a car took more physical energy than it does today. Remember trying to parallel park a car without power steering? Or having to actually move the seat manually without a power-assist?
Finally, on September 9, the estimable Nutrition News put it all in perspective:
The cavemen argument doesn't mean eating a lot of lean meat. It really means tracking that animal for a day before you kill it and butcher it. Few of us are willing to live that way, so we need to adapt our behaviors to the modern world. Want air conditioning, your own car, and electrical appli-ances? Then you need to find other ways to burn calories on a regular basis. This may be an ugly proposition to many, but it is the only one that works.
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Iraq Announces Amnesty for All
In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly making his case against Iraq, Bush added concerns about Saddam's human rights record, saying that if Iraq wants peace, it will "will cease persecution of its civilian population."
Iraq Announces Amnesty for All
October 20, 2002 Posted: 6:34 AM EDT (1034 GMT)
Those convicted of murder, the statement said, would only be released if the victims' families agreed and those convicted of theft would have to work out a way to repay their victims before being released. Soldiers accused of desertion and those awaiting execution of their death sentences were included.
The announcement came as the Iraqi government tries to rally domestic and international support in the face of U.S. determination to topple it.
"We are shifting the responsibility of reforming them to their families and society after we have provided them with this opportunity," the statement said. "We ask God that we will not regret this decision." [Oh, there will be other decisons to regret.]
Iraq Announces Amnesty for All
October 20, 2002 Posted: 6:34 AM EDT (1034 GMT)
Those convicted of murder, the statement said, would only be released if the victims' families agreed and those convicted of theft would have to work out a way to repay their victims before being released. Soldiers accused of desertion and those awaiting execution of their death sentences were included.
The announcement came as the Iraqi government tries to rally domestic and international support in the face of U.S. determination to topple it.
"We are shifting the responsibility of reforming them to their families and society after we have provided them with this opportunity," the statement said. "We ask God that we will not regret this decision." [Oh, there will be other decisons to regret.]
Sniping
Snipers make people feel vulnerable. The odds are greater that you'll get hit by lightning, some say. As someone else said, at least with lightning you can see a storm. With snipers you don't see anything until it's too late. But human life is pretty vulnerable - who says it HAS to go on as it has? I will not forever be here at this workbench and I will have to transit to another some time - until I learn that there are no other dimensions, no other worlds, no other realities. That's what should give me confidence to be unafraid, and ready to help my fellow man regardless of the personal cost to me.I'm impressed with the Guardian Angels project in the DC area - they don bright red jackets and pump gas for people too afraid to leave their cars. I ought to be able to do at least that. But I really should do more.
Forgive them fathers.
BBC NEWS | Talking Point | How can the US Catholic Church restore trust?Amid the media coverage of the Catholic problem, a respected US newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor, has quietly reported that sexual abuse occurs more often in the Protestant churches, and abuse is also worse in US society at large than it is among Catholic priests. There ought to be a uniform way of dealing with Catholic priests who abuse children, but the suggestion that corrupt priests are always dealt with wrongly, even if true, says nothing about the marginal proportions of these mistakes.
Charlotte Levick, USA
Charlotte Levick, USA
The march to war.
Take a good look around. If it's peaceful where you are, set it deeply in your memory. You will most likely need to review it soon.
Check out Daniel Ellsberg's blog
A radical idea!: Give "candles and prayer" a chance
Check out Daniel Ellsberg's blog
A radical idea!: Give "candles and prayer" a chance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)