TOXIC WASTE

Note: this is not a healthy food, nor does it look good to eat, but it tastes good--appropriate for humor at parties for children, at haunted houses, or to "celebrate" Earth Day.

2 12 oz. pkgs. white chocolate chips
4 cups mixture of any of the following (or similar items): Cheerios, and other shaped cereals, broken melba toast, small pretzel sticks,...
food coloring
sprinkles

• Wrap a cookie sheet in aluminum foil
• melt white chocolate in microwave safe bowl for 1-2 minutes (careful not to burn)
• mix with non-flakey cereals, melba toast, and/or small pretzels
• mix until all is well coated
• sprinkle with small drops of various food coloring
• mix until just beginning to look disgusting
• spread on cookie sheet
• sprinkle with various colored sprinkles
• let dry; remove the foil and break the mixture up into small pieces
• store in plastic container.

Balance: Food and Exercise

Has anyone seen Food Inc.?

I love to cook.  In fact, even though I'm overweight, I have to say, it is NOT because I nibble and eat what I cook.  I cook mostly healthy food. Granted, there are moments when I really desire a something chocolately, but when a doctor (or my mother) accuses me of eating too many sweets, it is usually ungrounded.  Usually.   I have  learned not to stress-eat, as I'm told it's called: to eat to calm the nerves.  If I do stress-eat, it is either cheese or chocolate.  I don't see a large problem with this because it doesn't happen often (usually at the end of the semester, when I'm grading like a crazy person, or else when I have to start a new project, such as a book chapter or journal article, but not always).  It's a problem, I admit, but not a big one, and not one I am not able to fix.

I believe in balance: so much "bad" food along with the "good" food, so much exercise, so much relaxation, so much work, so much money saved, so much money spent,....  Balance is the key, and that includes a balance of stresses in one's life. 

However, attaining such balance is difficult, as it is difficult to attain any other type of illusion of control over anything.  Sometimes I have it; sometimes I don't.  I keep trying.  It's all I can do. 

Respect for Belief

I try to respect all beliefs--as long as that belief does not endorse abusiveness, violence or some other sort of deconstructive force against mankind and/or nature.  So, for example, I respect Christianity, but I do not respect those factions of Christianity that oppress women, gays, or other groups of people,  nor do I respect those factions that protect individuals who abuse children.  I believe that there is a little good in every religious institution, as well as a little bad--and I respect that fact as well.

There is a difference, of course, between belief and religion.  Many denominations of Christianity see homosexuality as a sin, yet many homosexuals hold Christian beliefs.  One may be a Christian, a good Christian, and not be considered a sinner for also being a homosexual.  And that is just the Christian world.  To put it another way, as Karen Armstrong observes, "There are some forms of religion that are bad, just as there's bad cooking or bad art or bad sex, you have bad religion too."  Just because the Catholic Church has been protecting leaders within its institution who have broken sacred vows of trust (molesting children, for example), does not mean that pedophilia is a part of the Catholic faith.  Likewise, what one believes within a particular religion does not speak for the religious institution as a whole. 

Religious institutions seem to inspire both the worst and the best parts of humankind.  Armstrong thinks that "one of the reasons why religion developed in the way that it did over the centuries was precisely to curb this murderous bent that we have as human beings."  I think that is possible, but I also think the opposite, that religion developed to channel that same murderous bent: from crusades for Christ in the Middle Ages to Jihad terrorist acts today.

What I believe or don't believe--what you believe or don't believe--is personal and therefore sacred.   Don't tell me what I should believe, and I won't tell you that your beliefs are wrong (with exceptions as stated above).

Recipe: Lentil Tofu Storm

Okay, I haven't tried this one--I just made it up, so I'll comment on the made product later on.

2 cups lentils
3 cups water
1 cup finely chopped onions
1 cup parmesan cheese
1 package chopped firm tofu
1 bottle dark beer

• Mix the tofu and the dark beer in a glass baking dish.
• Tightly cover with plastic wrap and store in the refrigerator over night (24 hours).
• In a large pot, cook the lentils in the water on the stove, over medium heat, until just tender (about 20 minutes).
• Drain the Lentils.
• Push the tofu to one side of the baking dish.
• Pour the lentils and beer into the baking dish, beside the tofu.
• Pour the chopped onions and cheese into the other side of the baking dish.
• Thus, you will have three rows of lentils, tofu and cheese & onions.  With a spoon, stir from the outside edges in a circle, moving toward the center, so that you have a swirl.
• Coat lightly with more parmesan and freshly ground black pepper.
• Bake 400 degrees (Farenheit) for 20-30 minutes.
• Serve with Naan bread, crackers and/or tortillia chips.

Sweet Teeth

Is the use of artificial sweeteners a healthy thing?  "The role of sweeteners on cancer risk has been widely debated over the last few decades," observes an article  in  Annals of Oncology (Oct. 16,2006, 2007; 18.1: 40-44).  According to the Mayo Clinic, artificial sweeteners are safe--with the exception of aspartame for those who have the rare, hereditary disease, phenylketonuria--they don't cause cancer, and they don't affect the metabolism ("Artificial Sweeteners: A Safe Alternative to Sugar?").  Indeed, it has even been most recently (again) argued, "Ways to promote the use of fat-modified foods and artificial sweeteners merits further research in both prevention--and treatment--controlled trials" (International Journal of Obesity, July 28, 2009; 33: 1183-1190).  And yet...

"Psychologists at Purdue University's Ingestive Behavior Research Center report that nine rats given yogurt sweetened with no-cal saccharin ended up eating more and gaining more weight and body fat than eight fellow rodents given yogurt containing plain old glucose (a simple sugar with about 15 calories per teaspoon, the same as table sugar)" (Scientific American, Feb. 11, 2008).  And Marcelle Pick (OB/BYN, NP) goes into great detail on the "potential danger" of sweeteners in her article, "Sugar Substitutes and the Poetential Danger of Splenda" --though this article is connected to a Women to Women cite that promotes its Core Balance Diet.   According to ABC News' Good Morning America's medical contributor, Dr. Marie Savard, who I think was commenting upon the same Purdue University study (mentioned above), "There's something about diet foods that changes your metabolic limit, your brain chemistry," (Feb. 11, 2008).

I think that moderation is the key--along with a constant reminder that substitution of sugar is not the same as permission to go crazy with ingestion of other kinds of sugars (carbohydrates in general).  For more information:

• "Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe?" (Denise Mann, WebMD)
• "Artificial Sweeteners" (MedicineNet.com)

Stress, Doctors, Sex, & Death

I have developed a significant distrust of most doctors.  (I once had a doctor tell me that I could live on a potato-a-day.  That was the start of my many years of bulimarexia.)  That distrust continues to grow.

Recently, I met with a doctor who I was considering switching to for a primary care physician (this doctor's specialty is internal medicine).  However, before I could fully discuss my concerns and explain my issues, he jumped down my throat, shouting, "C'mon, you're a smart girl!  Sugar levels in the blood stream mean that you are over-eating."  It was clear, from that moment on, that he had decided that I'm a liar.  Why would I lie?  I want to regain my former health!  After I told him off, explaining that he was passing judgment about me and my illnesses without nearly all of the facts, explaining that I am a smart WOMAN.  He backed off, saying, over and over, "You're the boss." Clearly, however, he was patronizing me.  He took in all data I could share, but his face showed that he did not believe me.  He even said that the only way he could work with me is if I accepted that I was in denial. I gave him several opportunities to change his attitude, but in the end I knew that this sexist, irrational bigot was not going to be my doctor.  

I was visiting this doctor, for the first time, because my current physician told me to go on the South Beach Diet.  I informed this doctor that I was done with diets, that I was trying other approaches, a combination of approaches, that would take me a long time to balance.  This doctor was very upset with my sassy reply (how dare I question the doctor!?) and told me that if I didn't lose weight quickly, then I would have to explore having my stomach stapled.  After explaining that I had researched this idea and, in consultation with my diabetes specialist, concluded that this was not a reasonable path, I told her that she needed to listen to me, to work with me.  She threw her hands up in the air in frustration, saying, "Well, we need to come to an agreement on SOMETHING because what you're doing or not doing right now isn't working."  I agreed, and I explained to her, again, my desire to strike a balance between foods, exercise, insulin and work.  And then she said, as if she hadn't heard a word I had just said, "So, South Beach or Atkins--which diet is it going to be?" 

To each doctor, recently, I've said that the major factor affecting me right now is stress.  I've been saying that a lot, lately: I'm stressed.  Or I've been saying that I'm tired.  Hell, I'm both!  What really stresses me out is prejudice. 


I just read an interesting essay in The New York Times today: "For Obese People, Prejudice in Plain Sight. (Harriet Brown).  "Stigma and prejudice are intensely stressful," explains Dr. Peter A. Muennig in this piece.  No shit?!  But what this Columbia professor next says is very ineresting: "Stress puts the body on full alert, which gets the blood pressure up, the sugar up, everything you need to fight or flee the predator."  Prejudice, in other words, can cause stress, which can then cause illness.  "Over time," explains Harriet Brown, "such chronic stress can lead to high blood pressure, diabetes and other medical ills, many of them (surprise!) associated with obesity."

No person can get rid of all stress in his/her life; in fact, a person needs a little stress.  "Because of the overabundance of stress in our modern lives, we usually think of stress as a negative experience, but from a biological point of view, stress can be a neutral, negative, or positive experience." (http://www.medicinenet.com/stress/article.htm#what)  

Therefore, we (those of us ill and/or otherwise overweight) might all need more positive stress in our lives.  For example, sex is a positive stress that can also cause other (negative) stresses to be released.  Have sex, or die?

Diets & Metabolism

A few months ago, my doctor and I were fighting about ways to control my metabolism.  I think that metabolism is one of the key factors in controlling obesity, Type II Diabetes, and other related health issues (such as blood pressure, liver diseases, heart diseases and perhaps even cancer).  Going on a diet, particularly a fad diet, however,  is not the answer.

A person's metabolism--my metabolism, your metabolism--has a rate and is affected by many factors.  Our metabolism can be fast/high and slow/low.  Some people burn fat and other calories at a higher rate, faster than others.  Some people burn fat and other calories more slowly, at a lower rate than others; they store it for later. Heredity is one of many factors to do with the rate of one's metabolism, but there are many, many other factors, too.  Writes Colette Bouchez of WebMD, "Your metabolism is influenced by your age (metabolism naturally slows about 5% per decade after age 40); your sex (men generally burn more calories at rest than women); and proportion of lean body mass (the more muscle you have, the higher your metabolic rate tends to be)."1   Stress is also a factor.  According to G. Seematter, C. Binnert and L. Tappy, "In obese patients, mental stress elicits responses which differ widely from those of healthy individuals. While mental stress enhances catecholamine-mediated energy expenditure in obese patients to the same extent as in lean subjects, it fails to decrease systemic vascular resistance due to endothelial dysfunction. This leads to enhanced blood pressure responses and the absence of stimulation of glucose disposal in obese subjects during mental stress."2 

However, obesity does not equate slow/low metabolism.  According to Molly Kimball, RD, "The simple fact is that the extra weight causes your body to work harder just to sustain itself at rest, so in most instances, the metabolism is always running a bit faster....When you are very overweight your metabolism is already running so high that any small cut in calories will result in an immediate loss."3 Thus, for a quick fix of losing just a few pounds, dieting is the answer.  But, in truth, you are starving yourself, and your body will eventually respond by slowing down  your metabolic rate, storing more fat (energy) and, ultimately, causing you to regain that weight lost, perhaps even gain additional weight (for the next time you starve yourself).

There is even a danger, I suspect, in the meal plans some companies put out for diabetes. (See the nutrition pages produced by the American Diabetes Association for quality advice on balancing carbohydrates with other foods.) Diets too low in carbohydrates can be very dangerous.  You need sugar, particularly glucose.  Your brain needs it.  (You acquire this glucose from carbohydrates contained in dairy products, a variety of grains, any legumes, as well as other vegetables, and fruits.) "Glucose is the only fuel normally used by brain cells. Because neurons cannot store glucose, they depend on the bloodstream to deliver a constant supply of this precious fuel."4 Your body needs glucose, too, particularly complex carbohydrates.


Just as there  slow/low and fast/high metabolisms, there are also complex (slowly metabolized) and simple (quickly metabolized) carbohydrates.  Simple carbohydrates include: most syrups, fruit juices, milk, and processed (table) sugar.  They are found in most processed/refined foods.  The body absorbs these very, very quickly, "as if delivered by a syringe."5  Complex carbohydrates include: bread, rice, pasta, cereals (which may also have simple carbohydrates), potatoes, fruits, legumes, carrots and corn.  To a lesser degree, complex carbohydrates may be found in green vegetables, such as green beans, broccoli, and spinach.  It is better to digest complex carbohydrates than simple carbohydrates.  "A sugary snack or soft drink that quickly raises your blood sugar level gives you a boost (and any caffeine adds to the lift), but it's short-lived. When you eat something with a high sugar content your pancreas starts to secrete insulin, responding to a kind of temporary hyperglycemia. Insulin triggers cells throughout your body to pull the excess glucose out of your bloodstream and store it for later use."6  Sometimes the insulin pulls too much out, and you suffer from a temporary glucose deficiency: your thinking slows down, you feel nervous/edgy, and your body feels weak (a kind of temporary form of hypoclycemia).


I believe that people with slow/low metabolisms might feel a drive to get "quick fixes" of simple sugars.  I'll research this for another entry.  Meanwhile, I think it is important to note that having a slow/low metabolism is not a curse, not a disability.


There are advantages and disadvantages to each extreme. Someone who is able to burn calories quickly is able to function in "sprints" and to use energy in daily activities at an intense rate.  Someone who is able to burn calories slowly is able to function at "marathon" levels and to use energy in daily activities at a steady, moderate rate.  This does not at all mean, however, that you need less food!   What it does mean, I think, is that the balance between exercise (both aerobic and muscle development) and eating is different than for those with high/fast metabolic rates.  According to Robert Yanagisawa, MD,"If two people both weigh 250 pounds, and one got there by dieting down from 350 and the other one was always at 250, the one who got there by cutting calories is going to have a slower metabolism.  That means they will require fewer calories to maintain their weight than the person who never went beyond 250 pounds." 7

Imagine that!  Dieting slows your metabolism.  I'll end this entry on that thought.....

Metabolism Working for You?

Let's start with a general understanding of how metabolism works.  According to Charles E. Ophardt (Elmhurst College), in "Overview of Carbohydrate Metabolism,"  glucose (blood sugar, which comes from other sugars and other carbohydrate foods) is "controlled by three hormones: insulin, glucagon, and epinephrine."  The first hormone, insuline, serves to transfer the sugar from the blood stream into cells, particularly liver and muscle, where it is converted into glycogen for storage.  When sugar levels are low, then the body secretes the other two hormones, equinephrine and glucogon, to convert the glycogen back into glucose.  Ophardt provides a lovely diagram for how this energy is then either used or put back into storage (for later use).

 

For a larger image, see: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/590metabolism.gif

It is (apparently) important for a constant and steady provision of glucose to various parts of the body (including the brain, which does not itself store glycogen); I suppose that this is somewhat  like gas to an automobile engine: you have to keep the pedal steady to maintain a particular speed.  For more details on this process, see "Introductory Metabolism Module" (Histology and Physiology 101; University of South Australia) and/or "Carbohydrate Metabolism" (General, Organic and Biochemistry, James K. Hardy, University of Akron).

We all need sugars to survive.  The trouble for those with type 2 diabetes is the regulation of that sugar.

Personal Opinion Based on Experience--Anecdotal

This topic is a touchy one for me, a topic closely tied to years of confusion, frustration, and ultimately, anger.  I read somewhere that my generation of women, the generation of yo-yo dieters, has suffered tremendously from poor dieting advice and the pressures of advertising and news media to conform to a particular size in an particular way.  Since I was 12, when my doctor found that I was "two pounds over the normal weight" for my size and age, I have been placed on or placed myself on diets.  Two pounds.  More recently, I had a doctor suggest that I go on the South Beach Diet (the latest fad) or else consider stapling my stomach (another recent trend in medicine).  There will be other blog entries on how fatness is a social (feminist, masculinist, experimentalist, whatever) issue; however, my point here is that many members of the medical profession (not all, but many) have misled both themselves and their patients.  The general impression that I have gotten from doctors over the years is that I should simply reduce either the amount of sugar (from chocolates to breads, dairy products, fruits, and starchy vegetables) and/or the amount of calories.   But I firmly believe that this is the central reason that I have become increasingly heavier and heavier.  My latest nutritionist and diabetes doctor (both of whom are excellent), when she found out how few calories I was ingesting each day (about 1300-1500, the latter on days of exercise), she exclaimed, "You're starving yourself!"  I knew it was true: my stomach kept me up at night with grumblings, and I was having a hard time thinking in my work--but I had been told to ignore these symptoms!

So, back to the topic: we all need sugars (and calories) to survive.  This is not the debate, I believe.  I believe the debate is quality of sugars, as well as a balance of types of sugars.  For example, according to Janet Jankowiak, MD, if you have diabetes (the inability to regulate sugars at a constant level), you "are more likely to have a heart attack or stroke at a younger age" and you may also "be at a greater risk for a decline in mental function--brain decay--or dementia" ("Too Much Sugar May Cause 'Brain Decay', Neurology, 2004).    According to Dr. Nicholas Bello, reporting on a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine animal research project:

Dr. Bello and colleagues report that either continuous eating or binge eating a high fat, high sugar diet alters opioid receptor levels in an area of the brain that controls food intake. Opioids are a family of chemicals with actions similar to those of morphine; however, opioids exist naturally in the brain and have been linked to feelings of pleasure and euphoria. “These results are interesting because we saw changes in opioid receptor gene expression in a brain area that controls how much we eat during a meal”, said Bello. (ScienceDaily, Aug. 6, 2009)

So, the questions seem to be:

1. How much is too much?
2. How much is enough?
3. What kind(s) of sugars should be digested (and how much)?

Okay, so this is where the illusion of control becomes a vital issue. I don't want to tell you what to do, for several reasons.  I'm not a medical doctor, and I suspect that we all have damaged metabolisms of various degrees: what I find works for my body may not work for yours.  You are in charge!  Take charge!  You should find the answers for yourself--though not by yourself.  Consult a good diabetes specialist and nutritionist.  Do research of your own.  For example, I suggest you take a look at International Journal of Diabetes & Metabolism.

The Good v. Evil of Chocolate

Mocha (Hot or Iced)

1 cup non-fat milk

water

1 tsp. cocoa

1 Tbls. instant coffee

Equal packets (to taste)

For Hot Mocha

Pour water and milk into a mug and microwave until hot. Add instant coffee, cocoa and sugar substitute and stir. Enjoy.

For Iced Mocha

Run the tap water until hot and put about 1/4 cup into a glass. Add cocoa and coffee.  Stir until dissolved. Add ice. Stir until cold. Add sugar substitute. Add milk and water until the glass is full. Stir completely.

Cocoa Cream Cheese Frosting

2 sticks (1 cup) unsalted butter

16 oz. cream cheese

1 cup powdered sugar

1 Tbls. vanilla

1/4 cup cocoa

In a mixer, cream butter and cream cheese together until smooth.  Slowly add the powdered sugar.  (You may add more or less to your sugar tolerance and/or taste.)  Add the vanilla. Add the cocoa. Blend until creamy/smooth.

Chocolate Fudge or Sauce

1 stick unsalted butter

1/4 cup milk (nonfat is okay)

1 cup powdered sugar, or fine grain sugar--use as little of this as possible (to taste)

6 Tbls. cocoa powder

Place the butter, milk, and sugar together a deep bowl and put into the microwave for 2 minutes. Stir. Put it back into the microwave for another 2 minutes, stopping and stirring as the mixture bubbles to the top rim of the bowl. Stir in chocolate or powder.Microwave 30 seconds.  Stir until well blended. Pour into greased pan. Cool in the refridgerator for an hour before serving.

Being the Boss of My Health

In a few weeks, I have all sorts of doctors appointments--I like to do my medical work all at once, at about the same time, or at least as close to the same time as is possible: annual physical, dentist, eye-check,....  However, I like to keep myself informed all the time, so I read up on my various illnesses on the internet as often as possible.  When I see a doctor, they have to know that they are dealing with someone who not only will question orders, but might even give orders.  This is right.  This is good.  As one young doctor once told my bewildered mother, who was struggling with heart issues at the time and getting all sorts of conflicting messages from various doctors, "It's your body.  You're the boss."

That's right: doctors work for me; the insurance company works for me.  They work for you.

So, when a doctor tells me that I have to do this or will be ingesting that, I always interrupt him or her and ask why.  If it is a new doctor, this questioning becomes an initial test.  If the doctor shrugs me off, perhaps not even bothering to try to answer my question ("You don't need to worry about that."), then I leave the room.  I pay my bill, but that doctor, as far as I'm concerned, is fired. If the doctor gives me dramatic, exaggerated declarations ("You could DIE if you don't start taking this medicine!"), then I press onward, continuing to ask, like a three-year-old, "Why?"  Usually that doctor will either resort to the first kind of doctor, shrugging my concerns off as inconsequential (and so then is now to be fired), or else moves toward answering my question.   If, in answering my question, I find that the doctor is condiscending in any way, however ("This is going to be very hard for you to understand because I'm better educated than you..."), then that doctor goes into a probationary period.  On the other hand, if the doctor responds with an intelligent, well-informed reply, then he or she will be promoted toward a more permanent status. 

This is my approach to doctors; it may not work for you.  I have a Ph.D. in English, which counts for something in terms of experience in researching and understanding difficult texts.  I have no fear.

However, anyone can develop a no-fear approach that will works.  For example, much medical literature out there is well written and leveled for any non-doctor to understand.  Web MD, for example, is a great source of information.  Most government-funded and/or non-profit organizations (such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, or the American Diabetes Association) tend to provide reliable information.    There are a lot of alternative medicine sites and other corporate-sponsored sites that provide good information, too.  But all doctors and other scientists must be constantly questioned, as they should (like good scientists) question themselves--changing approaches to treatment or improving upon treatments as often as possible.  Especially, in this country, one must question the money angle.

The experience made me think of why I am now about to see a new regular doctor.  A while back,  I discussed my obesity problems with my old doctor.  I had researched everything, from fad diets, to the concept of fats and fatty livers, to issues of metabolism and hormones that affect weight gain and loss.  I regretted the discussion of this topic with the doctor almost the moment it started.  Why?  Because she said, "So, which are we going to get you started on, The South Beach Diet or Atkins?"  "Neither," I said, "I'm not interested in doing a fad-diet, and neither is my diabetes specialist."  She didn't seem to hear me, started talking about how I'm going to have to have stomach by-pass surgery.  I responded with a loud, "Absolutely not!" Again, I had discussed this and other "quick-fix" options with my diabetes specialist, and I had come to the conclusion that not enough research has been done on this latest fad in surgeries.  "Well, you have to do something." My doctor said in a scolding voice--as if I were a naughty child.  I told her of my plans: now that my job situation and home situation are each less stressful, I have more time to exercise, something I wasn't doing hardly at all; I told her I needed time to de-stress, that I was exhausted.  She dismissed my plans, said that they would never work, that I would not be able to make permanent changes to my health. Again, she pushed the surgery; it seemed that, in her mind, it was time for me to do it, tomorrow.   A good employee would make sure that I understand the whys and whats before I made a decisions; a good employee would know his/her place and not expect me to be a puppet-leader over my own health-care.  This doctor, instead, switched to saying, "You don't need to worry about that.  You need to trust me to know what is best for you."

Yeah, sure!  I fired her.

The money angle, in the United States, is a huge factor in medicine.  Illness is profitable.

Recently, I went to a free all-day Women's Health Expo.  I was expecting it to be a lot of booths with various types of useful information on women's health, some samples of health-promoting products, and maybe even some quick forms of check-ups (blood pressure, ....).  "Take advantage of free health screenings and enjoy a lelicious, complimentary lunch," it said on the post-card.  It was held at this very ritzy private medical center, but it was free and open to the public--though reservations were required (because of limited space).  I registered both myself and my step-daughter, thinking this was a feminist, woman-empowering type of experience, a healthy thing.

I should have known better.

There were booths with information, oh yes: all the standard diseases were there, as well as pregnancy and menopause.  But the only health screening I saw was at one table, where they were doing small blood tests.  There were some health promoting products--every-fifth-woman got a free pedometer at one booth, and at another booth, samples of skin creams were being handed ou intended to help with weight loss.  I kid you not.  The only thing I didn't see there was something like a magic all-purpose medicine like what used to be sold in the late 1800s: Dr. Schnigonfotter's Magic Medicine.  They gave us a very unhealthy breakfast: fattening, sugar-loaded muffins or sugar-coated croissants.  There was a wide assortment of soda-pops (oh yes, very healthy indeed), along with a small selection of juices.  We sat in a large seminar room, a couple hundred of us, and listened to speakers make various presentations (but if there were any deaf or hard-of-hearing women in the audience, they wouldn't have gotten much out of the presentation--no captioning or interpreters were provided).  Topics included, "The Heart of the Matter: Women & Heart Disease," "Urologic Advancements in Female Pelvic Helath," "Thyroid Disease," "Women, Migraine & Hormones: An Interesting Combination" -- each of which sounded potentially very informative.  However, beyond showing some interesting pictures and diagrams, most of the information was hyped-up, intended to make one not only worry about becoming ill, but what sorts of tests one should do to prevent such illnesses (most of them expensive tests, by the way).   I looked around me: most of the women were my age or older (no one below their 40s, I'm sure); most of the women were dressed in middle-to-upper class clothing (no sweat pants, flannel shirts or anything else costing less than $30.00).

It dawned on me: this was an event for older women with money, for hyporchodriacs with money!

I looked at the rest of the program: "Cosmetic Laser Eyelid Surgery & Cataract Surgery," "Women's Health 101," "Is Weight Loss Surgery Right for Me?" "Breast Health: Are You at Risk for Breast Cancer?"  This wasn't about preventative medicine or developing and maintaining a healthy life-style!  This wasn't empowering!  This was intended to make women paranoid about breast cancer, heart disease, bladder control, and the shape of their eyelids!  These doctors were not doing their jobs--they were not promoting healthy lifestyles and preventative medicine--they were trying to sell their wares: tests, examinations, scans, surgeries and magic medicines.

I'm all for tests, examinations and even surgery--when they are truly needed.  I support the medical professionals in general, on principle.  However, when scientific principles are sold out for profit, I have to step back.  If you want to be my doctor: you have to prove that you are a good doctor; you have to earn my trust by holding intelligent conversations about my health with me; you have to treat me like an adult human being (not some silly child), and you have to strive to do what's right, not what's profitable.  Otherwise, you're fired.

The Pursuit of Happiness Via Positive, Constructive, Tolerant Thinking

Recently (actually, over the past several years), I have heard so many arguments  that lacked any sort of truly logical thought, much less demonstrated any sort of reflection upon the nature of the matter, that it has begun to drive me insane.  I don't have actual quotes; I don't want to directly attack anyone.  But here is a small sample of the nature of some of these arguments:

• Obama being elected to the presidency has made the issue of racism in the United States obsolete.
• We need to help the normal people, first.  Then we can help the ___[other "not normal"]___ people. Providing elevators, interpreters, note-takers, enlarged print documents, ramps, hearing aids, glasses, ... should not be a requirement of society, much less of insurance companies.  If you need such items: that's your own fault/problem (not mine), and you (not I) should have to pay for it.
• If I, as a Christian, were living in the Islamic parts of the Middle East, I'd be dead by now.
• A leader of a small group of individuals should be trusted to speak on the group's behalf, without each of the members of that group providing permission.  To require such permission is a violation of that leader's freedoms of speech and/or expression.  The members should trust the leader represent them without their consent, to say the "right" things for each of them.
• There are more women than men attending college now: sexism is no longer an issue for women.  In fact, now it's an issue for men!
•  If you don't believe in my beliefs, then I can't be your friend because your beliefs threaten the foundation of mine.

All of these "rationalities" seem to have at least one thing in common: a fear of some sort.  It might be a fear of having to work harder.  It might be a fear of the unknown.  It might be a fear of losing power, money, community standing, or a sense of self. Another thing they may all have in common is an insensitivity towards -- perhaps even an intolerance of -- others.  I'm not really thinking of the ideal human behavior.  Furthermore, I know and accept that we all have fears, some quite justified, and we all have needs to preserve our sense of self (and/or our community standing, money, power, known parameters, or work load limitations).  However, I'm thinking how this kind of thinking, the actual entertainment of such ideas, is so negative and destructive. In other words, I'm not saying that such thinking is wrong:  I am saying that I feel it moves each of us in a direction away from general happiness.

 In response to some of the above, for example:

• We should try to help all of the people all of the time, knowing that we are doing the most we can for most everyone (and forgiving ourselves if we can't help everyone), regardless of who and what each person may be.  The only limitations should be time and energy.  Everyone needs something some time.  We are all disabled; we are all abled.  Recognition of this fact allows for a grace to providing for others.  (Providing for others is providing, ultimately, for ourselves. There is no person who is "normal" in some way, who isn't also "abnormal" in some other way.)
  
• If I, as a Christian, were living in the Islamic parts of the Middle East, I'd learn to survive and thrive among my fellow believers and to both tolerate and be tolerated by my fellow non-believers.  (I could die any time, anywhere, for any reason-- I have no real control over this fact.) (By the way, I am NOT Christian.)
  
• A true leader works hard to make sure he/she understands and fully represents the views of the collective body of the group and has each member's consent to be represented as a part of a group action (such as by a vote).  (Trust is built and maintained in this manner, isn't it?)

Judgements and actions based upon difference (race, gender, sexuality, beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, abilities,...) are almost never justified, and racism, sexism, intolerance of others' beliefs and other forms of intolerance still exist, and may always exist.  Perhaps to believe that one can eradicate such intolerance--as if it were polio or some biological disease-- is a set-up for failure, deconstructive and ultimately negative?  However, to accept that intolerances of these kinds exist and thus reason that they can be ignored is also deconstructive and ultimately negative.

Striving for high amounts of positive and constructive thinking is a difficult challenge.  I like to compare such efforts to striving to jog or walk 20 (okay, even 5) miles in a day, to save $100,000.00 in a year,  to make an original scientific discovery, or to create an artistic masterpiece.  For me,  the journey is worth the efforts.

Everyone is different; the similarities between individuals, much less groups, are the wonderful things that should be focused upon and celebrated--not the awful things that "should" keep us apart.

I don't believe in pushing my ideas upon others, but I suppose that I can't help but represent them.  I understand and respect that we each have a right to think, believe and feel as we do, but I also think, believe and feel that negative energy (negative thoughts, negative feelings, negative beliefs) begets destructive behavior.  For me, by the way, thinking supersedes belief and feelings, almost always.  

Individuals can focus upon the intolerance each has for others, work on the self, in positive and constructive ways, including healing ways: sooth hurt feelings, make statements that rebuild self-confidence, donate money,....  I think, believe, and feel that, ultimately, to practice general tolerance, constructive behavior, and positive thinking-believing-feeling is to strive toward happiness. 

So, I write this, thinking (and thus believing and feeling) that I am making a positive statement that is somehow constructive.  What am I building?  I'll let you know as soon as I know. 

Starting with a Recipe

I'm planning to generate entries on all sorts of topics in this blog--ranging in focus from politics and love to food and exercise. I think I'll start with food, so here are some recipes for a mildly healthy meal. I just created and tried these this past weekend, and they seemed pretty good to me. I have to warn you: I use a lot of seasonings and spices! (Yes, I mean Tablespoon, not teaspoon in the below recipes.)

Parmesan Paprika Chicken (or Tofu)*
--use 1-2 pkgs. of chicken breasts: remove all fat, skin and bones
--cut each breast into palm-size chunks (cut into thirds or halves)
--pound each piece until flattened to an even level
--dip each piece into wet mixture (see below)
--dip each piece into dry mixture (see below)
--place pieces onto a cookie pan or rectangular baking dish that has been lightly greased with Olivio margarine
--bake (with the Zucchnini Splash, below) at 375 degrees F for 30-40 minutes, until lightly golden & cooked completely
Wet Mixture
--for every 2 lbs. chicken, beat together:
1/4 cup dry wine (white or red)
1 egg
Dry Mixture
--for every 2 lbs. chicken, mix together:
1/2 cup unbleached white flour
1/2 cup parmesan cheese
2 Tablespoons of paprika
* I believe that if you replaced the cut and pounded chicken with slices of tofu (take one package and slice it into 8 pieces--and don't pound them), this recipe would work just as well.

Zucchini Splash
1 medium zucchini squash
1 medium yellow squash
1 large vidalea or other sweet onion
1/4 stick unsalted butter
3 Tablespoons garlic powder
black pepper, to taste
salt, to taste
--melt the butter in a microwave-safe dish
--slice the zucchini and yellow squashes into very, very thin "coins" (as thin as possible)
--cut the "coins" in into half-"coins"
--place into glass or ceramic round baking dish (such as a casserole dish)
--cut onion in half, and then thinly slice each half (long strings of onion)
--place into dish with squash
--sprinkle with garlic powder
--salt and pepper to taste
--pour melted butter on top
--stir until all is well coated
--bake (with the chicken) at 375 degrees F for 30-40 minutes


I served the above with a box of StoveTop chicken stuffing (made with a cup of celery--including leaves--and a cup of onion, all sauted together in light olive oil).  Let me know what you think!