Coddling the Rich
— By Kevin Drum
| Fri Oct. 29, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
A couple of weeks ago I sort of vaguely intended to write a bit about the extreme sensitivity of the American business community. I had just read someone (I forget who) saying that he had been out in the world chatting with business folks and had fully expected their anger with Barack Obama to rate about an 8 out of 10. But no! It was 10 out of 10. They were in an absolute frenzy of combined rage (over what he was doing to them) and fear (over what he might say about them if they dared to criticize him publicly).
Needless to say, this seemed crazy to me. On a substantive front, after he took office Obama continued George Bush's rescue of the banking system, boosted the economy by passing a stimulus bill, and saved untold thousands of businesses by rescuing GM and Chrysler. His healthcare reform bill was so business friendly it's a wonder the industry didn't keel over in hypoglycemic shock after it was passed. On the rhetorical front, he's taken a few modest shots at the financial industry, but not much more. So what were they all so apoplectic about?
But then I stopped and decided there was no point. If I asked, business folks would say they were afraid to invest because of Obama's blizzard of new regulations. They'd say they were afraid he was going to raise their taxes. They'd say he had somehow screwed up the banking sector so that they could no longer get loans the way they used to. They'd say they were afraid of cap-and-trade and card check, which Obama supported even though they both went nowhere. Looking at the big picture, they'd claim the administration is squeezing them on all sides because its actions have resulted in slow hiring, higher taxes, impaired lending, and further limits to individuals' ability to deploy capital in business ventures (whether their own or other people's).
Or, as Jake Gapper put it earlier this week, quoting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Obama has "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations." Gapper himself says there's some truth to this: "Mr Obama has failed to understand or communicate the role big business plays in remoulding the economy and creating highly skilled and highly-paid jobs. Unlike Bill Clinton, the previous Democratic president, he sounds as if he thinks multinationals do little but suck work out of the US."
And Gapper's evidence? As Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias point out, precisely one thing: Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it. Something that's virtually a staple of American politics. Obama is following in the footsteps of thousands when he complains about this, including plenty of Republicans when they're in a tight election campaign.
What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.
And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a ten. Merely refusing to coddle the business community endlessly is all it takes these days.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Bullying
Bullying in America: Time to Confront National Crisis Experts Say
Caroline Cassels
October 27, 2010 — The shocking rash of 4 recent suicides involving young, allegedly gay, males where bullying was cited as a major factor in their deaths has refocused attention on what experts say is a national public health crisis that must be confronted.
The New York Times reports 15-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself September 9 after reportedly being told by students at his high school to commit suicide. Asher Brown and Seth Welsh, both 13 years old, also took their lives in September after being bullied for being gay.
Vigil for Tyler Clementi. Reena Rose Sibayan/AP
In the same month Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge after 2 of his fellow students allegedly videotaped a sexual encounter of Clementi and another man then posted it online.
A recent national survey, also released in September, and conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), shows 90% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth experience harassment at school.
"It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools," Joseph Kosciw, PhD, GLSEN senior director of research and strategic initiatives, told Medscape Medical News.
Jack Drescher, MD, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and a past chair of the APA's committee on GLB issues, says based on his clinical experience working with LGBT patients, he is not surprised by the GLSEN findings.
One perennial idea that needs to be challenged is that being bullied toughens kids up...as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down.
"I have treated many gay patients who, as adults, tell of stories of being publicly bullied and harassed, not only by other kids but by family members. The kids who are most at risk are those who are unable to hide gender atypical behavior — they are considered either too effeminate as boys or too masculine as girls," Dr. Drescher told Medscape Medical News.
"Not only do they experience verbal harassment, threats of violence, and actual violence, the way these kids are treated serves as a warning to other kids who may be LGBT but not so easily spotted," Dr. Drescher added.
Dr. Drescher went on to note that while much has been done in recent years to get schools and parents to take greater control of environments that permit bullying, more needs to be done.
"One perennial idea that needs to be challenged, for example, is that being bullied toughens kids up. However, this often serves as a pretext or rationalization for not exerting adult control over the antisocial behavior of some children. And as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down," he said.
The Problem Persists
It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools.
Dr. Kosciw noted that although there is a growing awareness of the damaging effects of LGBT bullying, and bullying in general, the problem persists.
"We have been monitoring the experience of school students — LGBT as well as students in the general population — for the past 10 years, and sadly we haven't seen enormous changes in school climates for LGBT students.
"There has been some reduction in homophobic remarks and some changes since 2007 in victimization, but when you look at the whole picture there haven't been too many increases in school safety, particularly for this population, and there's much more work to be done," he said.
The survey also revealed that 61.1% of LGBT students felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation and 39.9% felt unsafe because of their gender expression.
National statistics show that in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both.
At the University of Houston, researcher Allison Dempsey, PhD, assistant professor, educational psychology, agreed and said that although subgroups such as LGBT youth have higher victimization rates, in the general population estimates of bullying among middle and high school students are also unacceptably high and run at about 30%.
"National statistics show in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both," she told Medscape Medical News. In fact, she added, the United States has a higher rate of youth bullying than many countries.
International rates of student victimization range from a low of 4.1% in Sweden to a staggering 41% in Lithuania, said Dr. Dempsey.
Cyberbullying
What constitutes bullying? "There is overt bullying which includes physical assaults, such as kicking and punching, as well as verbal assaults, such as name-calling.
"Then there is relational bullying, which can involve excluding people, spreading rumors about them, so essentially attacking their social status, and more recently we've seen the emergence of cyberbullying, where children are harassed via the Internet," said Dr. Dempsey.
Although cyberbullying accounts for about 10% of youth victimization, Dr. Dempsey added, it has the potential to be even more pernicious than "traditional" bullying settings.
"The most disturbing aspect of cyberbullying is that kids can't get away from it by leaving the school grounds or leaving the social situation. Nowadays kids have their phones with them almost all the time and have their computers in their bedrooms, so no matter where they are the bullies can get to them," she said.
"Cyberbullying is also a less noticeable form of bullying, so there is even less opportunity for bystanders to intervene. We know that only 1 in 10 kids that are bullied online actually tell somebody about it," she added.
Weighing in on this issue, APA President Carol Bernstein, MD, agreed there is an "ease" to cyberbullying that is unsettling. "The anonymity of it and the fact that you can taunt someone without having to face them is disturbing. It makes bullying easier," she said.
On the other hand, said Dr. Dempsey, it is worth noting that youth who use the Internet to victimize others are often unaware that they are leaving an "electronic trail" that can be used by the victim to prove bullying occurred and in potential legal proceedings.
"We are hearing a lot about cyberbullying, and while it is important, it only accounts for about 10% of [bullying] incidents. We definitely need to pay attention to it, but we should not neglect the issue of bullying in traditional settings because these account for the majority [of incidents]," she added.
The Damage
There's no doubt, say the experts, that bullying can have serious negative consequences — in the short term and over time.
Bullying has been associated with increased school dropout rates, as well as higher rates of depression, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and academic problems.
However, Dr. Dempsey noted, that longitudinal research also suggests that beyond an association, there is a causal effect, and victims can experience serious, long-term negative outcomes.
A study...showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
A study published in May 2009 in Archives of General Psychiatry and reported by Medscape Medical News at that time showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
Dr. Dempsey noted that recent work by her group, which is currently under review, shows a positive correlation between bullying and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts over time.
In addition to LGBT youth, there are other subgroups of young people who experience higher than average rates of victimization, including those with psychiatric and chronic medical conditions.
According to Dr. Dempsey, up to one-third of children with diabetes experience "disease-related" bullying, which can have a negative impact on their physical, as well as psychological, health.
"If kids are called 'junkies' for taking insulin shots, they may reduce the amount of insulin they inject. We also know that kids with asthma experience increased rates of victimization," she said.
In May, research published in the journal Pediatrics and also reported by Medscape Medical News showed obese and overweight children had up to a 2-fold increased risk of being bullied than their peers who were not obese.
"Kids who are overweight and obese are more often bullied, causing increased stress, which then leads to binge eating and ultimately increases their weight," said Dr. Dempsey.
Antibullying Legislation
So how can youth bullying be curbed if not eliminated? GLSEN's research shows schools with so-called Gay-Straight Alliances, clubs that offer an opportunity to address issues relevant to LGBT students, result in a more positive school experience.
Dr. Kosciw added that the presence of supportive staff and firm antibullying policies in schools contribute to more positive outcomes for all kids. This is a key priority for GLSEN, which, among other initiatives, recently relaunched its Safe Space Kit designed to help educators create a safe space for LGBT youth in schools.
If passed, federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct.
GLSEN research also shows students who live in states with enumerated antibullying legislation —that is, laws that specifically list factors such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion — report more positive school climates and experiences compared with their counterparts who live in states without such laws.
At the national level, Dr. Kosciw notes that, GLSEN is a staunch supporter of the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which was introduced in the US Senate earlier this year.
If passed, this federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt antibullying policies and codes of conduct that prohibit bullying or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and perceived or gender identity.
Warning Signs
At the individual level, Dr. Dempsey said, it is important that educators, parents, and clinicians screen for bullying and directly ask children and youth about the issue.
It is also important that family physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, who may have patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, be aware that these patients are at increased risk for victimization and screen for it.
She noted that children who are bullied often experience changes in behavior, such as aggression, loss of appetite, insomnia, or a reluctance to go to school, among others, and that these should be treated as warning signs that bullying may be occurring.
"We need to educate people to look for this and understand all the different behaviors that are parts of bullying. It is not just hitting or punching, but it is also spreading rumors about somebody or trying to cause embarrassment to that person, and so people need to recognize and take it very seriously when they see it happening," said Dr. Dempsey.
"I personally wonder that if there's something about the culture [in the United States] that makes bullying more acceptable than in other countries. There are a lot of people out there that have the attitude that bullying is a part of growing up, and until we shift those attitudes we're not going to see change," she added.
Caroline Cassels
October 27, 2010 — The shocking rash of 4 recent suicides involving young, allegedly gay, males where bullying was cited as a major factor in their deaths has refocused attention on what experts say is a national public health crisis that must be confronted.
The New York Times reports 15-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself September 9 after reportedly being told by students at his high school to commit suicide. Asher Brown and Seth Welsh, both 13 years old, also took their lives in September after being bullied for being gay.
Vigil for Tyler Clementi. Reena Rose Sibayan/AP
In the same month Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge after 2 of his fellow students allegedly videotaped a sexual encounter of Clementi and another man then posted it online.
A recent national survey, also released in September, and conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), shows 90% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth experience harassment at school.
"It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools," Joseph Kosciw, PhD, GLSEN senior director of research and strategic initiatives, told Medscape Medical News.
Jack Drescher, MD, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and a past chair of the APA's committee on GLB issues, says based on his clinical experience working with LGBT patients, he is not surprised by the GLSEN findings.
One perennial idea that needs to be challenged is that being bullied toughens kids up...as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down.
"I have treated many gay patients who, as adults, tell of stories of being publicly bullied and harassed, not only by other kids but by family members. The kids who are most at risk are those who are unable to hide gender atypical behavior — they are considered either too effeminate as boys or too masculine as girls," Dr. Drescher told Medscape Medical News.
"Not only do they experience verbal harassment, threats of violence, and actual violence, the way these kids are treated serves as a warning to other kids who may be LGBT but not so easily spotted," Dr. Drescher added.
Dr. Drescher went on to note that while much has been done in recent years to get schools and parents to take greater control of environments that permit bullying, more needs to be done.
"One perennial idea that needs to be challenged, for example, is that being bullied toughens kids up. However, this often serves as a pretext or rationalization for not exerting adult control over the antisocial behavior of some children. And as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down," he said.
The Problem Persists
It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools.
Dr. Kosciw noted that although there is a growing awareness of the damaging effects of LGBT bullying, and bullying in general, the problem persists.
"We have been monitoring the experience of school students — LGBT as well as students in the general population — for the past 10 years, and sadly we haven't seen enormous changes in school climates for LGBT students.
"There has been some reduction in homophobic remarks and some changes since 2007 in victimization, but when you look at the whole picture there haven't been too many increases in school safety, particularly for this population, and there's much more work to be done," he said.
The survey also revealed that 61.1% of LGBT students felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation and 39.9% felt unsafe because of their gender expression.
National statistics show that in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both.
At the University of Houston, researcher Allison Dempsey, PhD, assistant professor, educational psychology, agreed and said that although subgroups such as LGBT youth have higher victimization rates, in the general population estimates of bullying among middle and high school students are also unacceptably high and run at about 30%.
"National statistics show in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both," she told Medscape Medical News. In fact, she added, the United States has a higher rate of youth bullying than many countries.
International rates of student victimization range from a low of 4.1% in Sweden to a staggering 41% in Lithuania, said Dr. Dempsey.
Cyberbullying
What constitutes bullying? "There is overt bullying which includes physical assaults, such as kicking and punching, as well as verbal assaults, such as name-calling.
"Then there is relational bullying, which can involve excluding people, spreading rumors about them, so essentially attacking their social status, and more recently we've seen the emergence of cyberbullying, where children are harassed via the Internet," said Dr. Dempsey.
Although cyberbullying accounts for about 10% of youth victimization, Dr. Dempsey added, it has the potential to be even more pernicious than "traditional" bullying settings.
"The most disturbing aspect of cyberbullying is that kids can't get away from it by leaving the school grounds or leaving the social situation. Nowadays kids have their phones with them almost all the time and have their computers in their bedrooms, so no matter where they are the bullies can get to them," she said.
"Cyberbullying is also a less noticeable form of bullying, so there is even less opportunity for bystanders to intervene. We know that only 1 in 10 kids that are bullied online actually tell somebody about it," she added.
Weighing in on this issue, APA President Carol Bernstein, MD, agreed there is an "ease" to cyberbullying that is unsettling. "The anonymity of it and the fact that you can taunt someone without having to face them is disturbing. It makes bullying easier," she said.
On the other hand, said Dr. Dempsey, it is worth noting that youth who use the Internet to victimize others are often unaware that they are leaving an "electronic trail" that can be used by the victim to prove bullying occurred and in potential legal proceedings.
"We are hearing a lot about cyberbullying, and while it is important, it only accounts for about 10% of [bullying] incidents. We definitely need to pay attention to it, but we should not neglect the issue of bullying in traditional settings because these account for the majority [of incidents]," she added.
The Damage
There's no doubt, say the experts, that bullying can have serious negative consequences — in the short term and over time.
Bullying has been associated with increased school dropout rates, as well as higher rates of depression, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and academic problems.
However, Dr. Dempsey noted, that longitudinal research also suggests that beyond an association, there is a causal effect, and victims can experience serious, long-term negative outcomes.
A study...showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
A study published in May 2009 in Archives of General Psychiatry and reported by Medscape Medical News at that time showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
Dr. Dempsey noted that recent work by her group, which is currently under review, shows a positive correlation between bullying and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts over time.
In addition to LGBT youth, there are other subgroups of young people who experience higher than average rates of victimization, including those with psychiatric and chronic medical conditions.
According to Dr. Dempsey, up to one-third of children with diabetes experience "disease-related" bullying, which can have a negative impact on their physical, as well as psychological, health.
"If kids are called 'junkies' for taking insulin shots, they may reduce the amount of insulin they inject. We also know that kids with asthma experience increased rates of victimization," she said.
In May, research published in the journal Pediatrics and also reported by Medscape Medical News showed obese and overweight children had up to a 2-fold increased risk of being bullied than their peers who were not obese.
"Kids who are overweight and obese are more often bullied, causing increased stress, which then leads to binge eating and ultimately increases their weight," said Dr. Dempsey.
Antibullying Legislation
So how can youth bullying be curbed if not eliminated? GLSEN's research shows schools with so-called Gay-Straight Alliances, clubs that offer an opportunity to address issues relevant to LGBT students, result in a more positive school experience.
Dr. Kosciw added that the presence of supportive staff and firm antibullying policies in schools contribute to more positive outcomes for all kids. This is a key priority for GLSEN, which, among other initiatives, recently relaunched its Safe Space Kit designed to help educators create a safe space for LGBT youth in schools.
If passed, federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct.
GLSEN research also shows students who live in states with enumerated antibullying legislation —that is, laws that specifically list factors such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion — report more positive school climates and experiences compared with their counterparts who live in states without such laws.
At the national level, Dr. Kosciw notes that, GLSEN is a staunch supporter of the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which was introduced in the US Senate earlier this year.
If passed, this federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt antibullying policies and codes of conduct that prohibit bullying or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and perceived or gender identity.
Warning Signs
At the individual level, Dr. Dempsey said, it is important that educators, parents, and clinicians screen for bullying and directly ask children and youth about the issue.
It is also important that family physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, who may have patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, be aware that these patients are at increased risk for victimization and screen for it.
She noted that children who are bullied often experience changes in behavior, such as aggression, loss of appetite, insomnia, or a reluctance to go to school, among others, and that these should be treated as warning signs that bullying may be occurring.
"We need to educate people to look for this and understand all the different behaviors that are parts of bullying. It is not just hitting or punching, but it is also spreading rumors about somebody or trying to cause embarrassment to that person, and so people need to recognize and take it very seriously when they see it happening," said Dr. Dempsey.
"I personally wonder that if there's something about the culture [in the United States] that makes bullying more acceptable than in other countries. There are a lot of people out there that have the attitude that bullying is a part of growing up, and until we shift those attitudes we're not going to see change," she added.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Does the Way We Eat Affect Our Humanity?
Think about it. Our modern society is rife with ugliness, anger and bitterness. From pundits to stand up comics, everyone seems to have an axe to grind and they do it violently and loudly.
I am not naïve. I grew up as a child of the sixties with a liberal mother and a conservative father. Let's just say there were lively conversations at the dinner table. But in the end, they agreed to disagree. Most of the people I knew behaved in the same manner. Yes, there were riots in the streets, but all with one purpose: to end what was considered an illegal war. The two sides were polar opposites and there was violence and rage, but nothing like we see today, where every little thing sparks outrage and violent reaction.
I have been politically active for most of my life, but I have never seen an uglier climate than in the last eight or nine years. It used to be that conservatives and liberals disagreed on principle, on platform issues, but there was a civility to the way political discourse was handled.
One of the most popular television shows today is "Mad Men." I was talking to my 20-year-old niece and her friends who are wild for this program. When I asked them what was so appealing to them, they said, with surprising enthusiasm, that they loved how the men dressed for dinner and the women were feminine and glamorous. They loved how civil people were to each other and found the time period elegant and refined.
Their naïve natures showed because anyone who lived during those years knows that women were second-class in business (and many other areas of life) and much of the 'civility' they loved was simply repression. But it was, in fact, a time when people behaved differently.
Fox News, CNN and other media loudmouths could not exist in a civil world. In a civil world, the flagrant disregard that exists in that kind of inflammatory and sensationalistic media would be shut down as damaging to the fabric of life as we know it.
And what has this to do with food? Everything.
Before we became a culture of dinner in a bucket, we sat down together and ate meals that were prepared at home from fresh food. My grandmother and mother knew nothing about nutrition, but they knew if the food was fresh and they cooked it right, it would taste great and their families would be well-nourished. And so they squeezed fruit, smelled vegetables, examined the eggs, sniffed the milk and cooked dinner from scratch.
Junk food, drive-through and processed foods have been major factors in the degeneration of our modern society.
Big business has made it a mission to undermine conventional wisdom and replace it with fear and confusion. Confusion about food choices, about our political leaders, global warming ... all designed to create a knee-jerk reaction and spread fear and hatred so that the status quo will stay, well, status quo.
But what allows this to thrive? How can they continually pull the wool over our collective eyes?
We are weak, fat and sick ... and easily frightened and controlled as a result.
On this very website, an article ran about President Clinton changing his diet to be plant-based, nearly vegan. The video showed the former president, looking slender, clear-eyed and healthy talking about why he made the change. It's inspiring. But scroll down to the comments and the ugliness of human nature rears its head. Nasty, personal comments from people who do not personally know Mr. Clinton, but feel they have the right to judge his choice of food -- all of them extolling the virtues of their meat, dairy and junk food. Was it because Mr. Clinton was on a soapbox asking all of America to join him in his newfound lifestyle? Nope. It was because their humanity has been affected by the foods they themselves choose.
In traditional Chinese medicine, the belief is held that the foods we choose affect our reactions to life. You may roll your eyes (or post an ugly comment), but think about it for a minute. In more traditional times, food was chosen based on the needs of the people. Warriors ate more animal food to create aggression. Plant foods were eaten when people needed to feel calm, more centered. Specific foods were chosen for their medicinal effects on health. Children were fed different foods than adults; men ate differently than women. All these traditions were designed to create harmony among people.
Food and eating are sexy. Mother Nature was smart. She made eating fun so we would do it. And boy, do we do it now. But I don't think a seven-pound meat burrito, a bacon-wrapped meat loaf, a two-foot hot dog or a hot beef sundae was what she had in mind for us.
Everything we have done to food in modern times is against the very nature of natural. In the name of business, food has been compromised, bastardized, abused, altered and deconstructed to become something that tastes great, but has far-reaching affects on the collective health of humanity and the planet.
Marketers told us to eat junk food to our hearts' content and we are only too happy to oblige. Trouble is, our hearts aren't content at all. All that sugar, fat and salt in those manufactured foods that are the cornerstone of our diets are wearing out our poor, overworked veins, arteries and hearts.
We hear all the warnings. We even worry a little bit. But man, that stuff is yummy. Our little taste buds are so worked up all the time that we have lost our taste for real food. Who can resist potato chips that taste like cheddar cheese, bacon or pizza? Why eat real food with real flavor when chemistry-made flavors are so much more delightful to the palate? How do apples compete with cream-filled Oreos? How can we expect our children to eat oatmeal when their little bodies are fueled by more than 50 grams of sugar in one breakfast of Lucky Charms? It might be easier to get a crack addict off the pipe.
But we're American, descendants of chest-thumping cowboys. We're made of cheeseburgers and steaks! We need our meat! We need it more than Neolithic hunters, more than lions and tigers. If we can't have meat, well, what will happen to civilization as we know it? Would we all become vegan hippie peace-loving terrorists?
The result is that we have become ill and weak; our judgment clouded by saturated fat, sugar and chemicals. We hang on to our childish behaviors long after we know the fact: the way we eat is killing us. We hang on and lash out at those around us who threaten change, who want to shake things up and make life on this planet a better place.
In our clouded view of the world, we take pot shots at people about whom we know nothing, except what the media tells us. We post ugly comments about celebrities on websites so we feel better about our lives. We yell and scream and demand our country back ... from who, we are not sure, but someone scared us and told us we should be angry. Trapped in the fog of junk food, we feel enraged and helpless.
But we don't have to be.
We can change. We can begin to eat food that is fit for human consumption, real food, grown and produced by nature, not manufactured by some multinational corporation. We can grow strong and clearheaded. We can see the truth if we look for it and have the strength to face it.
At the dinner table, eating fresh food, we experience and discover so many truths, from social justice to communication to sharing and community ... the very essence of human life.
Times are changing. People other than the usual experts have been coaxing real food out of the closet, so to speak. People have been making movies, writing books, speaking out, telling the truth about our food. Learning to cook is becoming popular again. People are learning how to respect food, how to treat it, how to use it to create health and make a lighter footprint.
Life is precious. Humanity is wonderful. And in the end, whether we are healthy or sick, fat or fit, we will all die. The question we must ask is: do we want to create misery in the process of living? I say we value the gift of life we have been given and enjoy the ride in a healthy body on a healthy planet. Life is a gift, not to be squandered.
A healthy population can make a difference. A healthy population has a firm hold on their humanity and in that, hatred, cruelty and violence can not thrive. It's worth a try. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Written by
Christina Pirello
I am not naïve. I grew up as a child of the sixties with a liberal mother and a conservative father. Let's just say there were lively conversations at the dinner table. But in the end, they agreed to disagree. Most of the people I knew behaved in the same manner. Yes, there were riots in the streets, but all with one purpose: to end what was considered an illegal war. The two sides were polar opposites and there was violence and rage, but nothing like we see today, where every little thing sparks outrage and violent reaction.
I have been politically active for most of my life, but I have never seen an uglier climate than in the last eight or nine years. It used to be that conservatives and liberals disagreed on principle, on platform issues, but there was a civility to the way political discourse was handled.
One of the most popular television shows today is "Mad Men." I was talking to my 20-year-old niece and her friends who are wild for this program. When I asked them what was so appealing to them, they said, with surprising enthusiasm, that they loved how the men dressed for dinner and the women were feminine and glamorous. They loved how civil people were to each other and found the time period elegant and refined.
Their naïve natures showed because anyone who lived during those years knows that women were second-class in business (and many other areas of life) and much of the 'civility' they loved was simply repression. But it was, in fact, a time when people behaved differently.
Fox News, CNN and other media loudmouths could not exist in a civil world. In a civil world, the flagrant disregard that exists in that kind of inflammatory and sensationalistic media would be shut down as damaging to the fabric of life as we know it.
And what has this to do with food? Everything.
Before we became a culture of dinner in a bucket, we sat down together and ate meals that were prepared at home from fresh food. My grandmother and mother knew nothing about nutrition, but they knew if the food was fresh and they cooked it right, it would taste great and their families would be well-nourished. And so they squeezed fruit, smelled vegetables, examined the eggs, sniffed the milk and cooked dinner from scratch.
Junk food, drive-through and processed foods have been major factors in the degeneration of our modern society.
Big business has made it a mission to undermine conventional wisdom and replace it with fear and confusion. Confusion about food choices, about our political leaders, global warming ... all designed to create a knee-jerk reaction and spread fear and hatred so that the status quo will stay, well, status quo.
But what allows this to thrive? How can they continually pull the wool over our collective eyes?
We are weak, fat and sick ... and easily frightened and controlled as a result.
On this very website, an article ran about President Clinton changing his diet to be plant-based, nearly vegan. The video showed the former president, looking slender, clear-eyed and healthy talking about why he made the change. It's inspiring. But scroll down to the comments and the ugliness of human nature rears its head. Nasty, personal comments from people who do not personally know Mr. Clinton, but feel they have the right to judge his choice of food -- all of them extolling the virtues of their meat, dairy and junk food. Was it because Mr. Clinton was on a soapbox asking all of America to join him in his newfound lifestyle? Nope. It was because their humanity has been affected by the foods they themselves choose.
In traditional Chinese medicine, the belief is held that the foods we choose affect our reactions to life. You may roll your eyes (or post an ugly comment), but think about it for a minute. In more traditional times, food was chosen based on the needs of the people. Warriors ate more animal food to create aggression. Plant foods were eaten when people needed to feel calm, more centered. Specific foods were chosen for their medicinal effects on health. Children were fed different foods than adults; men ate differently than women. All these traditions were designed to create harmony among people.
Food and eating are sexy. Mother Nature was smart. She made eating fun so we would do it. And boy, do we do it now. But I don't think a seven-pound meat burrito, a bacon-wrapped meat loaf, a two-foot hot dog or a hot beef sundae was what she had in mind for us.
Everything we have done to food in modern times is against the very nature of natural. In the name of business, food has been compromised, bastardized, abused, altered and deconstructed to become something that tastes great, but has far-reaching affects on the collective health of humanity and the planet.
Marketers told us to eat junk food to our hearts' content and we are only too happy to oblige. Trouble is, our hearts aren't content at all. All that sugar, fat and salt in those manufactured foods that are the cornerstone of our diets are wearing out our poor, overworked veins, arteries and hearts.
We hear all the warnings. We even worry a little bit. But man, that stuff is yummy. Our little taste buds are so worked up all the time that we have lost our taste for real food. Who can resist potato chips that taste like cheddar cheese, bacon or pizza? Why eat real food with real flavor when chemistry-made flavors are so much more delightful to the palate? How do apples compete with cream-filled Oreos? How can we expect our children to eat oatmeal when their little bodies are fueled by more than 50 grams of sugar in one breakfast of Lucky Charms? It might be easier to get a crack addict off the pipe.
But we're American, descendants of chest-thumping cowboys. We're made of cheeseburgers and steaks! We need our meat! We need it more than Neolithic hunters, more than lions and tigers. If we can't have meat, well, what will happen to civilization as we know it? Would we all become vegan hippie peace-loving terrorists?
The result is that we have become ill and weak; our judgment clouded by saturated fat, sugar and chemicals. We hang on to our childish behaviors long after we know the fact: the way we eat is killing us. We hang on and lash out at those around us who threaten change, who want to shake things up and make life on this planet a better place.
In our clouded view of the world, we take pot shots at people about whom we know nothing, except what the media tells us. We post ugly comments about celebrities on websites so we feel better about our lives. We yell and scream and demand our country back ... from who, we are not sure, but someone scared us and told us we should be angry. Trapped in the fog of junk food, we feel enraged and helpless.
But we don't have to be.
We can change. We can begin to eat food that is fit for human consumption, real food, grown and produced by nature, not manufactured by some multinational corporation. We can grow strong and clearheaded. We can see the truth if we look for it and have the strength to face it.
At the dinner table, eating fresh food, we experience and discover so many truths, from social justice to communication to sharing and community ... the very essence of human life.
Times are changing. People other than the usual experts have been coaxing real food out of the closet, so to speak. People have been making movies, writing books, speaking out, telling the truth about our food. Learning to cook is becoming popular again. People are learning how to respect food, how to treat it, how to use it to create health and make a lighter footprint.
Life is precious. Humanity is wonderful. And in the end, whether we are healthy or sick, fat or fit, we will all die. The question we must ask is: do we want to create misery in the process of living? I say we value the gift of life we have been given and enjoy the ride in a healthy body on a healthy planet. Life is a gift, not to be squandered.
A healthy population can make a difference. A healthy population has a firm hold on their humanity and in that, hatred, cruelty and violence can not thrive. It's worth a try. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Written by
Christina Pirello
CONFRONTING NEGATIVE BIAS
By Dr. Rick Hanson
My previous post used the example of Stephen Colbert's satirical "March to Keep Fear Alive" as a timely illustration of a larger point: humans evolved to be fearful -- since that helped keep our ancestors alive -- so we are very vulnerable to being frightened and even intimidated by threats, both real ones and "paper tigers." With this march, Colbert is obviously mocking those who play on fear, since we certainly don't need any new reminders to keep fear alive.
Some Background
This vulnerability to feeling threatened has effects at many levels, ranging from individuals, couples, and families, to schoolyards, organizations and nations. Whether it's an individual who worries about the consequences of speaking up at work or in a close relationship, a family cowed by a scary parent, a business fixated on threats instead of opportunities, or a country that's routinely told it's under "Threat Level Orange," it's the same human brain that reacts in all cases.
Therefore, understanding how your brain became so vigilant and wary, and so easily hijacked by alarm, is the first step toward gaining more control over that ancient circuitry. Then, by bringing mindful awareness to how your brain reacts to feeling threatened, you can stimulate and therefore build up the neural substrates of a mind that has more calm, wisdom and sense of inner strength. A mind that sees real threats more clearly, acts more effectively in dealing with them, and is less rattled or distracted by exaggerated, manageable, or false alarms.
Let's start with the brain's negativity bias. In this post, I'll focus on why it evolved and how it has been built up in your brain. The next post will explore its consequences. The post after that will zero in on one key consequence: threat reactivity, which has many bad effects, including "paper tiger paranoia." And then following posts will emphasize solutions to these problems, from activating the soothing and recharging parasympathetic nervous system to mobilizing more of your inner resources to address the real challenges our planet faces.
An Evolving Negativity Bias
The nervous system has been evolving for 600 million years, from ancient jellyfish to modern humans. Our ancestors had to make a critical decision many times a day: approach a reward or avoid a hazard -- pursue a carrot or duck a stick.
Both are important. Imagine being a hominid in Africa a million years ago, living in a small band. To pass on your genes, you've got to find food, have sex, and cooperate with others to help the band's children (particularly yours) to have children of their own: these are big carrots in the Serengeti. Additionally, you've got to hide from predators, steer clear of Alpha males and females looking for trouble, and not let other hunter-gatherer bands kill you: these are significant sticks.
But here's the key difference between carrots and sticks. If you miss out on a carrot today, you'll have a chance at more carrots tomorrow. But if you fail to avoid a stick today - WHAP! - no more carrots forever. Compared to carrots, sticks usually have more urgency and impact.
Body and Brain Going Negative
Consequently, your body generally reacts more intensely to negative stimuli than to equally strong positive ones. For example, intense pain can be produced all over the body, but intense pleasure comes only (for most people) from stimulating a few specific regions.
In your brain, there are separate (though interacting) systems for negative and positive stimuli. At a larger scale, the left hemisphere is somewhat specialized for positive experiences while the right hemisphere is more focused on negative ones (this makes sense since the right hemisphere is specialized for gestalt, visual-spatial processing, so it's advantaged for tracking threats coming from the surrounding environment).
Negative stimuli produce more neural activity than do equally intense (e.g., loud, bright) positive ones. They are also perceived more easily and quickly. For example, people in studies can identify angry faces faster than happy ones; even if they are shown these images so quickly (just a tenth of a second or so) that they cannot have any conscious recognition of them, the ancient fight-or-flight limbic system of the brain will still get activated by the angry faces.
The alarm bell of your brain -- the amygdala (you've got two of these little almond-shaped regions, one on either side of your head) -- uses about two-thirds of its neurons to look for bad news: it's primed to go negative. Once it sounds the alarm, negative events and experiences get quickly stored in memory -- in contrast to positive events and experiences, which usually need to be held in awareness for a dozen or more seconds to transfer from short-term memory buffers to long-term storage.
In effect, as I wrote in my last post, the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones. That's why researchers have found that animals, including humans, generally learn faster from pain (alas) than pleasure. (For more on the neuropsychology of the negativity bias, and references, see the slide sets at my website.)
That learning from your childhood and adulthood - both what you experienced yourself and saw others experiencing around you - is locked and loaded in your head today, ready for immediate activation, whether by a frown across a dinner table or by TV images of a car-bombing 10,000 miles away.
What to Do?
To keep our ancestors alive, Mother Nature evolved a brain that routinely tricked them into making three mistakes: overestimating threats, underestimating opportunities, and underestimating resources (for dealing with threats and fulfilling opportunities). This is a great way to pass on gene copies, but a lousy way to promote quality of life.
So for starters, be mindful of the degree to which your brain is wired to make you afraid, wired so that you walk around with an ongoing trickle of anxiety (a flood for some) to keep you on alert. And wired to zero in on any apparent bad news in a larger stream of information (e.g., fixing on a casual aside from a family member or co-worker), to tune out or de-emphasize reassuring good news, and to keep thinking about the one thing that was negative in a day in which a hundred small things happened, ninety-nine of which were neutral or positive. (And, to be sure, also be mindful of any tendency you might have toward rose-colored glasses or putting that ostrich head in the sand.)
Additionally, be mindful of the forces around you that beat the drum of alarm -- whether it's a family member who threatens emotional punishment, or in the well-known example, a National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) who warned in 2002 that the smoking gun of evidence for WMDs in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Consider for yourself whether their alarms are valid -- or whether they are exaggerated or empty, while downplaying or missing the larger context of opportunities and resources. Ask yourself what these forces could be getting out of beating that scary drum.
This mindfulness of both the inner workings of your brain and the outer mechanisms of fear-promotion can by itself make you less prone to needless fear.
Then you won't be so vulnerable to intimidation by apparent "tigers" that are in fact manageable, blown out of proportion, or made of paper-mache.
My previous post used the example of Stephen Colbert's satirical "March to Keep Fear Alive" as a timely illustration of a larger point: humans evolved to be fearful -- since that helped keep our ancestors alive -- so we are very vulnerable to being frightened and even intimidated by threats, both real ones and "paper tigers." With this march, Colbert is obviously mocking those who play on fear, since we certainly don't need any new reminders to keep fear alive.
Some Background
This vulnerability to feeling threatened has effects at many levels, ranging from individuals, couples, and families, to schoolyards, organizations and nations. Whether it's an individual who worries about the consequences of speaking up at work or in a close relationship, a family cowed by a scary parent, a business fixated on threats instead of opportunities, or a country that's routinely told it's under "Threat Level Orange," it's the same human brain that reacts in all cases.
Therefore, understanding how your brain became so vigilant and wary, and so easily hijacked by alarm, is the first step toward gaining more control over that ancient circuitry. Then, by bringing mindful awareness to how your brain reacts to feeling threatened, you can stimulate and therefore build up the neural substrates of a mind that has more calm, wisdom and sense of inner strength. A mind that sees real threats more clearly, acts more effectively in dealing with them, and is less rattled or distracted by exaggerated, manageable, or false alarms.
Let's start with the brain's negativity bias. In this post, I'll focus on why it evolved and how it has been built up in your brain. The next post will explore its consequences. The post after that will zero in on one key consequence: threat reactivity, which has many bad effects, including "paper tiger paranoia." And then following posts will emphasize solutions to these problems, from activating the soothing and recharging parasympathetic nervous system to mobilizing more of your inner resources to address the real challenges our planet faces.
An Evolving Negativity Bias
The nervous system has been evolving for 600 million years, from ancient jellyfish to modern humans. Our ancestors had to make a critical decision many times a day: approach a reward or avoid a hazard -- pursue a carrot or duck a stick.
Both are important. Imagine being a hominid in Africa a million years ago, living in a small band. To pass on your genes, you've got to find food, have sex, and cooperate with others to help the band's children (particularly yours) to have children of their own: these are big carrots in the Serengeti. Additionally, you've got to hide from predators, steer clear of Alpha males and females looking for trouble, and not let other hunter-gatherer bands kill you: these are significant sticks.
But here's the key difference between carrots and sticks. If you miss out on a carrot today, you'll have a chance at more carrots tomorrow. But if you fail to avoid a stick today - WHAP! - no more carrots forever. Compared to carrots, sticks usually have more urgency and impact.
Body and Brain Going Negative
Consequently, your body generally reacts more intensely to negative stimuli than to equally strong positive ones. For example, intense pain can be produced all over the body, but intense pleasure comes only (for most people) from stimulating a few specific regions.
In your brain, there are separate (though interacting) systems for negative and positive stimuli. At a larger scale, the left hemisphere is somewhat specialized for positive experiences while the right hemisphere is more focused on negative ones (this makes sense since the right hemisphere is specialized for gestalt, visual-spatial processing, so it's advantaged for tracking threats coming from the surrounding environment).
Negative stimuli produce more neural activity than do equally intense (e.g., loud, bright) positive ones. They are also perceived more easily and quickly. For example, people in studies can identify angry faces faster than happy ones; even if they are shown these images so quickly (just a tenth of a second or so) that they cannot have any conscious recognition of them, the ancient fight-or-flight limbic system of the brain will still get activated by the angry faces.
The alarm bell of your brain -- the amygdala (you've got two of these little almond-shaped regions, one on either side of your head) -- uses about two-thirds of its neurons to look for bad news: it's primed to go negative. Once it sounds the alarm, negative events and experiences get quickly stored in memory -- in contrast to positive events and experiences, which usually need to be held in awareness for a dozen or more seconds to transfer from short-term memory buffers to long-term storage.
In effect, as I wrote in my last post, the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones. That's why researchers have found that animals, including humans, generally learn faster from pain (alas) than pleasure. (For more on the neuropsychology of the negativity bias, and references, see the slide sets at my website.)
That learning from your childhood and adulthood - both what you experienced yourself and saw others experiencing around you - is locked and loaded in your head today, ready for immediate activation, whether by a frown across a dinner table or by TV images of a car-bombing 10,000 miles away.
What to Do?
To keep our ancestors alive, Mother Nature evolved a brain that routinely tricked them into making three mistakes: overestimating threats, underestimating opportunities, and underestimating resources (for dealing with threats and fulfilling opportunities). This is a great way to pass on gene copies, but a lousy way to promote quality of life.
So for starters, be mindful of the degree to which your brain is wired to make you afraid, wired so that you walk around with an ongoing trickle of anxiety (a flood for some) to keep you on alert. And wired to zero in on any apparent bad news in a larger stream of information (e.g., fixing on a casual aside from a family member or co-worker), to tune out or de-emphasize reassuring good news, and to keep thinking about the one thing that was negative in a day in which a hundred small things happened, ninety-nine of which were neutral or positive. (And, to be sure, also be mindful of any tendency you might have toward rose-colored glasses or putting that ostrich head in the sand.)
Additionally, be mindful of the forces around you that beat the drum of alarm -- whether it's a family member who threatens emotional punishment, or in the well-known example, a National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) who warned in 2002 that the smoking gun of evidence for WMDs in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Consider for yourself whether their alarms are valid -- or whether they are exaggerated or empty, while downplaying or missing the larger context of opportunities and resources. Ask yourself what these forces could be getting out of beating that scary drum.
This mindfulness of both the inner workings of your brain and the outer mechanisms of fear-promotion can by itself make you less prone to needless fear.
Then you won't be so vulnerable to intimidation by apparent "tigers" that are in fact manageable, blown out of proportion, or made of paper-mache.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
