In Defense of Empathy

My next book to read is Jeremy Rifkin's The Empathetic Civilization. I'm very excited to get started on it, as everything I've been reading about it seems to confirms some things I've been thinking for a while. I also think there's a lot in it that could be applied to theology. Anyways here's a quote from Rifkin writing about real freedom in his latest piece on Huffington Post.

"Freedom requires that one is treated by others as an end not as a means. One can't really be free in a society where everyone treats each other in an exploitative or instrumental manner. True freedom, therefore, is only possible in a society that lives by the "golden rule." "By doing onto others as we would have others do unto us" we express our support for the optimizing of each other's life. This is the embodiment of what freedom means. A society that lives by the golden rule and embeds it in its laws and public policy is a free society. The golden rule is rarely exercised in authoritarian regimes."

Finally

Is it perfect? No. Is it even that good? Eh, I think it's ok. History was definitely made last night with the passage of the healthcare reform bill, but the bill doesn't do anywhere what needs to be done like ban basic healthcare insurance for profit, like every other developed country has.

The pluses are that discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and other nasty insurance practices will be done away with; thirty some million people in the next four years will have coverage; and healthcare insurance will be mandated. With the first and third items in effect, hopefully we can get some of the people with poorer health off medicaid and medicare and onto private plans. Oh and this plan actually seeks to pay for itself and not add to the deficit. Something that can't be said about Medicare part D which was passed under Bush.

As for the "American people's" feelings. I honestly could give a crap. I don't really care what the polls say. There's been so much disinformation put out there by the fear factory known as Fox News that I don't think most people have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Also most people have insurance that they are happy with, and it seems that unless one has personally been screwed by the current healthcare system one is less likely to be for changing it.

I thought Chuck Todd made a valid point yesterday on Meet the Press. A Democrat and Republican leader were on earlier in the show stating that they could maybe find some agreement on energy and immigration. Todd pointed out that those issues were regional, so we should expect some agreement, as where healthcare is philosophical, so we should expect the intense partisanship we have seen. My feeling is that next year this will be all history, and Americans will be as happy with this legislation as they are with another piece of legislation the Right said would take our freedom away-- Medicare.

Lastly, out of this whole mess also comes proof that pro-lifers do have a real voice in the Democratic party. So much for the Obama is the most hardcore pro-abortionist ever crap.

The Healthcare Summit

I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.

But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.

REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!!... later?

I used to support Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that it would be just weird and gross to shower with openly gay men. I argued that since we don't put men and women in the same bunks and have them shower together, then we shouldn't allow gay men and women to shower with other men and women. Later, however, I changed my mind. For one, I argued that the policy was dumb because gay men and women already serve in the military. The situation already was a reality and there hasn't been any huge incidents that I'm aware of. Two, we have fired many valuable soldiers who just wanted to serve their country like their hetro counterparts, and this is especially troubling since our troops are spread thin. And three, because we wouldn't expect any hetro soldier not to talk openly about his wife or girlfriend, so why should we force gay soldiers to stay silent on the subject of their loved ones. But as of late, I have kind of been on the fence about this issue.

I was listening to NPR today, and they did a story where they interviewed several marines concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of the soldiers preferred not to talk about it, one said he was for repealing it, but another said he thought we needed to leave it alone... at least for now. His argument was that soldiers are increasingly becoming more and more stressed. And indeed, suicide among soldiers is up, and many are suffering from PTSD and other psycho-social problems. This soldier believed that if DADT is repealed right now, then we could possibly see another Matthew Shepherd incident. Repealing DADT right now, he said, could be bad for the military, the country, and the gay community.

Yet often times doing the right thing comes with a price. Should we have kept slavery legal because a lot of people died making it illegal? Still, we've lived with this policy for well over a decade, gay people technically can serve in the military, and I have to heed the warning of an individual who has been a marine for a long time and knows what that life is like. So while I'm for repealing it, maybe it won't hurt to wait.

Negro Please!

This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.

And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.

How About Now?

Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...

Holy Crap!

The ground doesn't feel too cold, but it seems that hell may have frozen over, because Sean Hannity and Michael Moore recently debated on Sean's show and it was.... a really good discussion. If this sort of exchange was the norm for these type of shows this country might just be in better shape. I'm just stunned. And I also couldn't agree more with Moore on this. The borrowers, the average joe's, are to blame for the whole economic collapse?? Really? And the people who have all the wealth, power and smarts in this are only partially responsible? Anyways I found this to be a good, reasoned but passionate discussion, and wish there were more of this on cable news.

Health Care Around the World

T.R. Reid is a journalist who recently traveled the world learning about other country's health care systems. He wrote a book about it, but his findings are also distilled in this article. Reading it just makes me crazy, because it shows that we have no excuse for having our crappy system.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Culture and Social Change)

The last part of the social organism is not a social institution, yet I think it might be the most important part; it is culture. Culture can be seen as the soul, the DNA or the genes of the social organism. Culture saturates and envelopes the SO, affecting it in every way. It is what the SO looks like; how it behaves; what it values and believes in etc... It is who the SO is at its core. This is why changing the morals, values and ethics of a culture-- because morals, values and ethics are cultural-- is the key to social change.

We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.

So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.

Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.

The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.

Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (The Family and Religion)

If people are like cells in the SO, then family is the substance that holds the cells together. However, for this analogy to work, family needs a broader definition that I'll call family-quality relationships. What I mean by this is that we tend to compare some relationships (co-workers, friends etc.) in our lives family. "My work place is like one big family" we might say. So the better the quality of the relationship, the more we compare it to "family." Good relationships then, the more family like the better, holds the social organism together. Bad, chaotic relationships tend to tear the social organism apart.

Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.

So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.

A Quick Comment on the Whacko Right...

For whatever twisted, demented reason, I have been torturing myself by listening to Glenn Beck. His show always happens to be on when I'm in the car and, like staring at the proverbial car crash, I just have to listen.

I honestly feel sorry for conservatives in this country that he is one of their major spokes people. His show is nothing but tin-hatted rants laced with shameless religious rhetoric. I really find it hard to believe that GB actually even believes what he's saying. I can't believe that he's stupid, because he's just not. The guy made it into Yale. And I would believe he's just bat-shit insane, but I can't believe Fox and CNN would let a complete loon have a prime-time show. So I have no choice but to believe he's just being paid to stir up the most ignorant of the right (which unfortunately there seems to be a lot of), and scare people, who wouldn't otherwise care about politics, into thinking Obama is trying to create a fascist dictatorship. Which is sad.

Conservatism in this country is becoming synonymous with nut-jobs and morons. Granted, the left has their nuts, but they're not hosting prime time news shows. Rather than simply trying to present better ideas conservatives are putting forth absurdities like: Obama is forming a secret police with the Peace Corps and Americorps; Obama is going to brainwash the country's children on the first day of school; Obama's creating a shadow government of Czar's; and Obama's gonna pull the plug on grandma.

What's that? This nutjobery is part of the right-wing fringe you say? Witness the resignation of Van Jones, and schools not carrying the president's address because of angry parents. Conservatives have gone to crazytown, and good ones like Joe Scarborough, George Will, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan need to call this idiocy what it is and elevate the discourse before something tragic occurs.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Government, Economy, Education)

The government functions as the brain and/or the nervous system of the social organism. Just like our brain regulates and organizes the other systems in order to maintain homeostasis, the government regulates, passes laws, creates programs and budgets in order to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. It's the government's job to organize society, similarly to how our brain orders our other systems.

The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.

While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.

Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.

To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.

These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Intro)

For the past few years I have struggled to formulate a way to explain how I see the world. What I have had are chunks and pieces of things I believe, but not a way to put them all together into one complete picture or worldview. I was envious of people whom, even though I believed it was a mistake, bought into and ideological system, because at the very least they could explain their view of the world in an orderly and systemized way. I, on the other hand, believed in a theory here and a theory there, but overall felt all over the map. However, now, I am hoping that this has finally changed.

Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.

I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?

If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.

However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.

The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.

Stupid Is...

I just have to comment on the Henry Louis Gates incident. I got to check out the Sunday morning political shows, and listen to George Will and others discuss how Obama's comments had racial overtones. Really? The police arresting a man in his own home after he showed identification proving he lived there wasn't acting stupidly? Really? I don't care if Gates went off on them, called them racists and pigs blah, blah, blah. After he showed some ID, the cops should have been on their way. Now I'm not saying the cop involved is a racist, or that Gates shouldn't have kept a cooler head, all I'm saying is that the president was right for calling said actions stupid. For conservatives-- and I didn't read the Thomas Sowell piece where he weighed in on this but I can imagine what he said-- to imply the president was making accusations of racial profiling is absurd.

In other news, a study has been published declaring that obesity costs the U.S. 147 billion annually. It goes on to say that medical bill are much higher for obese people. I think this is pretty convincing evidence that we need a junk food tax in our health care reform. It's a common argument that obese people die earlier and are thus less expensive than healthy people in the long run. However, much of our health care expenses go towards interventions to keep people alive longer who are suffering from obesity, i.e. people now live longer with heart disease than they did in the past. All that to say, if we're looking to cut costs and pay for health care reform, taxing the crap that increases the costs might not be a bad idea.

The Missing Piece in the Healthcare Reform Puzzle

Massive healthcare reform is currently in the works, and hopefully some good changes will be made. There are at least two unchangable certainties that will continue to increase the cost of healthcare, and while I'm in favor of a government option to compete with private companies, and the various other ideas to reduce costs, I believe one of the root causes of the rising cost of healthare are not being addressed. This is because, even though it directly affects the rise in healthcare, it is beyond the scope of healthcare policy. Yet, I believe, it is imperative that changes in this area need to happen in order to balance out the two certainties that will contintue to make costs rise.

Two things that are unchangable that affect cost:

-The baby-boomers are aging, which means that more and more people are going to need more and more care. Demand raises the cost, thus the price of healthcare is destined to increase and there is nothing we can do to change this. For more on this go here.

-New technology is always incredibly expensive when it comes out. I can buy an older cheaper Ipod and still listen to music; I don't need the latest version of it. But getting the newest and best healthcare could mean life or death, so the constantly developing technology in healthcare also means it will invariably become more expensive.

Some ways to decrease cost:

I think we need a national program to compete with private plans. I believe this because A. competition is good for consumers and B. as Paul Krugman recently argued, a national plan would keep private plans honest. Having a national plan would also ensure that everyone could have healthcare, and access to cost reducing preventative care. But here's the problem. I have good health insurance, yet I don't get a yearly check-up even though I know I should. The reality is that a lot of other people might not as well. Outside of forcing people to get check-ups, there is just no easy solution to this problem except for providers to create huge incentives for people who participate in preventative care. I know that if my premium would go way up if I didn't get my check-ups or screenings, I would start seeing a doctor regularly. Another problem is that people just might not get insurance even if they can afford it, which is why mandating healthcare is important. I understand the concern with "forcing" people to get healthcare, but realistically, everyone participating in this is important not only for the health of individuals, but for the economic well-being of the country.

But even with univeral coverage and prevention, there is still remains a missing component. Other countries aren't healthier than us because they have universal healthcare. They are healthier because they eat and live differently.

The cost-reducing issue in the healthcare debate that no one is talking about is the atrocious American diet. To deal with this, I would argue that taxes should be raised on junk food and foods that contribute to poor health, and we should stop subsidizing corn and soy beans and begin subsidizing crops that promote healthy diets. Part of the reason people are obese is because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is more expensive. Most fast food items, for example, are made from corn or soy products so they are cheap. And high-fructose corn syrup, a contributor to obesity, is in everything because corn is cheaper than sugar or natural sweeteners. Reducing subsidies on these crops and increasing subsidies on crops that promote a healthy diet; taxing unhealthy food; and educating the public more on a healthy diet might, by hitting Americans in their pocketbook, cause people to eat better and live healthier.

To cope with the large swath of our population getting older, we all need to live healthier lives. Eating healthier and preventative care will drive down costs making universal coverage affordable. If we tax junk food, that would generate additional revenue for the purpose of healthcare as well. The bottom line is whether it's the insurance companies or the masses, everyone needs to change their ways, but unfortunately I don't see much coming out of Washington on getting Americans to put down their Big Mac and pick up some veggies and whole grains.

Thoughts On Who Joe the Plumber's Been Checkin Out Lately...

This morning I came into work to Fox Noise Channel's ongoing coverage of the beauty queen homophobe's supposed persecution by the evil liberal media, and now apparently Donald Trump. Great way to start off a Monday! I hate to rant, but really, are Conservative Evangelicals really this hypocritical to make this chick their gay-marriage martyr after pornographic photos she apparently lied about taking have come to light?? And yes, I think they are pornographic, not "tasteful" as the moron on Fox described them as.

This whole shit storm beautifully illustrates how warped the Christian right's views on gay marriage really are. Gay marriage will supposedly destroy the sanctity and institution of marriage they argue, yet the type of "modeling" Miss Prejean has been involved in has done more to tarnish and destroy traditional marriage in this country than the gay rights lobbies could ever dream of. It just goes to show how dogmatic the issue of gay marriage has become with some Christian conservatives.

Conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this, and they need to just back out before they continue to look even more foolish. Marriage is not going anywhere, unless you believe something instituted by God can be destroyed by humans. We live in a pluralistic, secular, democracy. So gay couples should have the same rights heterosexual couples have, and if this country wants to call it marriage then so be it. I personally would disagree that the term "marriage" accurately describes the union of two homosexuals, but I also would disagree it accurately describes whatever that two day fling was that Brittany Spears had as well. The bottom line is that family will not be strengthened when we have a marriage amendment to the constitution, as conservative evangelicals so fervently believe. The family will begin to be strengthened when we start treating each other as human beings and not sex objects. And it will be strengthened when we actually see marriage as a covenant rather than a contract we can tear up when things get tough. Until these Christians recognize that, they're going to continue turning Americans off to their brand of Christianity. Not that that's a bad thing.

Obama. Abortion. Reduction?

It looks as if Obama is making good on one of his campaign promises-- to find common ground in the abortion debate and work to reduce abortions in a number of ways. This, I believe, is the only real solution to the problem, at least in this period of American history. Abortion is going to be legal and people are going to have sex, thus we need policies that will reduce abortions and make an abortion-free country seem possible.

Obama said recently: "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion." The Administration has brought together pro and anti abortion advocates to discuss ideas and goals in reducing the number of abortions and to get people talking rather than arguing. The White House will then consider ideas and recommendations that come from these talks. Ideas that are being discussed are: "improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption." The Administration is especially interested in: "sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption."

This is encouraging for me and others who voted for Obama despite the protests of friends and family that Obama was a hard-core pro-abortion guy not really concerned about reducing abortions. Most frustrating for me is to read about pro-life people poo-pooing contraception. A global study of abortion conducted by the WHO found the lowest rates were in Western Europe due to its widespread availability of contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions-- go figure!

I'm hopeful that this effort will produce some creative policy that the majority of pro-life and pro-choice people can get behind, and that the militants on both sides will continue to decrease.
Source

You Are What You Eat- Part 5

From what I know about him, Polan is a secular Jew, but I found the final portion of his book very spiritual and moving. He quotes the Christian writer, Wendall Berry, numerous times and even discusses why it is good to say a blessing.

Eating is a tremendously spiritual, sacred practice. Jesus knew this-- one of Christianity's main practices centers on eating. What we eat exemplifies our stewardship of creation. And not only of the created world around us, but the creation God has imparted us to care for-- our own bodies. Our skyrocketing health care costs are a direct consequence of our horrendous failure as stewards of creation. I would argue that if we ate differently, our health care crisis would go away.

Secondly, eating is spiritual because eating is relational. Creation depends on us to steward it well, and we depend on creation for sustenance. All of us depend on the same planet. In that way, we are all interconnected. Polan talks about the importance of going to farmer's markets, not just to get good food, but to meet the person feeding you. He argues that there is something important about the farmer looking the consumer in the eye when he sells him some produce. It's a lot harder to sell salmonella-infected vegetables to someone when you have to meet and greet the buyer.

Anne and I have come to the conclusion that eating well is something worth spending the extra cash on. Why wouldn't you spend a little more on something you put into your body on a constant basis? People research their new T.V. much more than they research what they eat. That is incredible to me. What's more incredible though is how much of our health problems-- and I would argue social problems-- are rooted in or linked to the ways greed and selfishness have affected our diet and food production. The good news is that the solutions are simple: eat food as God intended it to be, and develop eating practices that have been around since the dawn of civilization. The bad news is that our culture and economy want to create food products that are cheap and quick to make. So just like living a life that is, morally, how things were intended to be goes against the ways of the world around us, it seems that eating how we were intended to does as well.

You Are What You Eat- Part 4

I'm just skimming the surface of what Polan has to say about the reductionist science of nutritionism, processing, and the Western diet and all of the diseases that come with it. I found his research to be eye-opening, logical and clear-headed. But this book isn't just about how screwed up the American diet is, it's about changing one's eating habits as well. So what does Polan suggest? Polan's solution isn't focused on teaching the reader to eat foods containing only certain nutrients, or to only eat organic or become vegan. Instead he offers a simple mantra: Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not too Much.

Eating food means eating whole foods, or foods made with a minimum amount of easily recognizable ingredients. "Mostly plants" is obvious. People should eat mainly fruits, grains and vegetables. This is the one I struggle most with because while I like vegetables, I generally tend to eat them the least. Concerning meat, Polan argues that meat should be more of a condiment than a main dish. He also points out that commercially produced animals are pumped full of hormones and pharmaceuticals, and eat horrible diets. On top of the dreadful conditions these animals live in (which is reason enough not to consume them), and all the crap they are given, the person who eats them is eating what they have eaten. In other words, all of the horrible things put into these animals is put into you when you eat them. Thus, Polan argues that it is best to buy meat that has been "grass finished," or better yet, to hunt and kill your own meat. It is true that animals who have been raised in cruelty-free environments and have been fed healthy food produce much more expensive meat, but if one is eating much less meat, then the price shouldn't be a huge issue.

The last part of the mantra, "Not too much" is also obvious. Americans are notoriously "big eaters," and-- go figure-- Americans are notoriously obese. Polan suggests that Americans should take up eating practices of other (healthier!) cultures, eat smaller portions and take more time to eat. Taking more time allows the body to digest the food and let the eater know he is full. When we shovel food into our mouth our body doesn't have the time to let us know we are full before it's too late. Polan also says that we need to not eat alone. He says that food should be a communal experience where relationships are strengthened and bonds are made. It's interesting to point out that a gateway into a culture is its diet. Food is often a great starting point for people of different countries or cultures to begin learning about one another. It is something we all have in common.

You Are What You Eat- Part 3

The book I read where this information comes from is called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Polan. It was a great and informative read. Polan argues that the Western diet has made us more unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are obsessed more about the nutrients they take in than ever before. The problem with focusing on nutrients, Polan argues, is that nutrients have a food context, food comes from a cuisine, and a cuisine comes from cultures that have existed for a long periods of time living in the same place and eating the same things. So people have adapted to their diets for thousands of years. But more importantly, these cuisines usually consist of whole foods with little processing.

Processing makes foods last longer and makes them cheaper, but also strips them of their nutrients. Polan uses the example of a Twinkie, and how it never goes bad. Why doesn't it go bad? Because it has no nutritional value. We are in competition with micro-organisms for the nutrition found in food. If it will rot then that means it's good for you; micro-organisms want to eat it for the same reasons we do. Yet instead of eating foods that will spoil, we have a culture that lives off food which will last forever-- hamburger helper, macaroni and cheese, canned soup and pasta-- and much of this food amounts to a lot of empty calories and carbohydrates. In other words, we might have a crap ton of food in this country, but much of it is poor quality, and has to be fortified with vitamins because of the ways it is preserved. And while fortified food is better than non-fortified food, it's just not that same as "real food"-- that is, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat that comes from animals that had healthy diets themselves. Take whole grain.

For years we've been eating white bread made from refined flour. Refined flour-- or the plain white flour in your pantry-- is made by stripping the grain of most of it's nutritional value (the germ) leaving the starch and protein. Why strip it of the germ? Because removing the germ causes the flour to last much longer. Before this discovery, flour would rot rather quickly. When people first began living off of bread made from refined flour they began developing deficiency diseases. It wasn't until the thirties, with the discovery of vitamins, that this problem was solved. And in 1996 folic acid began to be added to flour as well, because people were deficient in folic acid. It hasn't been till recently that we've seen food companies and the media encouraging to us eat "whole grains."