Being in the heart of conservative America and spending the majority of my time at work, I find myself to be somewhat alone. While I was working at the factory for my first few years I found myself being unusually introverted in subjects I feel strongly about. It may be hard to believe, but I don't like causing problems with those I have to be around. A little while back we hired a couple of new employees. They were "warned" about me by others at the plant, despite so few people there really knowing anything about me, even after working with me closely for 5 years. These new guys were surprised to find me to be a very helpful and reasonable person when they came onto my shift and had to ask me tons of questions (nature of the business-training never stops). Anyway, one day they invited me to lunch in the far-away break room. I happily accepted and started eating lunch with them everyday. It was so good to have a place to vent my frustrations and share my views with coworkers, even if they didn't agree. We took things away from each other. They had personal experiences I had only heard anecdotes about and which I found valuable and insightful. I had knowledge and information they were previously oblivious to. It was good.
A few months back my job duties changed dramatically and I was put into an office environment, which is due to last upwards of a year+. In my naivety I thought in a white collar environment I would find more people open to my views. The more I talk to my coworkers here the more I realize how alone I am. I'm not talking about disagreements, either. I'm talking about the inability to even discuss rationally positions. The few times I have expressed views (political/religious/environmental/etc.) they were met with blank stares, a fundamental disagreement, "polite" changing of the subject, etc. Discussion doesn't ensue*. Views aren't expressed and supported in any meaningful way. Views that are expressed are done so as if they are self-evident truths, not rational opinions.
So here I am, surrounded by people and all alone, feeling slightly crazy once again.
*I am not referring to my current coworkers who are from other countries. Usually they find American systems to be odd, fascinating or simply backwards. They are fun to talk to, but I don't work closely with them most of the time.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Adventures in gardening.
It's been a fun year for gardening. Much was learned and a little bit of food was even grown! I will start with musing from this year and go into some plans for next year.
Let's start with something in nearly every garden: tomatoes. They are relatively easy to grow. I tried to start tomatoes from seeds, but quickly learned I started way too late and lacked the proper equipment to do this properly. I ended up buying four types of tomato seedlings, hoping to have successive crops. So far so good. They are so versatile and, as I said, very easy to maintain. I think they could be more productive with attentive pruning as well as a proper cage. I use cages but the tomatoes quickly overwhelm them, so I think something better is needed. So far I've made two jars of (delicious) pasta sauce and hopefully I'll have enough for several more. I've got dozens of green tomatoes waiting in the wings.
Moving on to cucumbers. This is another garden staple. These I did successfully start from seeds. This year I decided to go with two plants instead of three as I had tried last year with some success. I also wanted to train this years plants. Using 6 ft. cedar stakes, I ran the cucumbers up and across a (moderately) sturdy wire. What a difference this made! The leaves grew huge, providing a lot of shade for the base of the plants. This meant very little watering was required. I periodically added tea and coffee grounds as fertilizer, as I did with many of the plants. As some of you may have seen from my pickling pictures, it was a good crop. We gave away probably a dozen cukes (so far), as well as ate several and pickled many more. I'm not sure how the pickles will taste since they won't be ready for another six weeks. Anyway, they are winding down in production, though we'll probably get about a dozen more. All-in-all I would guess we will end up with about 30-40 cukes. Not too shabby.
Next we have green beans. Boy do we have a lot of them! These were started easily from seeds, as well. I made a 4 ft. high tepee (sort of) with thin bamboo poles and string. This proved to be effective, though it should have been taller with fewer plants (I planted 16 total). The vines grew wildly! We have a very large bag of beans frozen, which we will add plenty more to as the plants continue to produce. One important note: pick the beans before they get too big. The flavor changes quite dramatically, as well as the tenderness. Younger is better. Small is tasty.
We also tried corn. The corn plants I had bought while at the nursery without planning on it. I saw them and knew I had a little space available. I spread out five corn plants which grew relatively well. If you don't bunch them up, however, they will lean and fall over. I had to stake them up. While it was interesting to grow them, it turned out to be a waste. What little corn they produced was not very good. We will not be growing it next year. I look at it this way, we live in Ohio, one of the biggest corn producing states in America. When in season, fresh corn is everywhere for about a quarter an ear or less. I would rather try something else in my own garden.
Another veggie we tried was bell peppers (capsicums, as our British friends call them). Once again I attempted starting them from seeds, but, as with the tomatoes, this took more planning and effort than I offered. We purchased two plants, one red and one green. I left these to grow in medium sized pots instead of planting them in the ground. This was not very successful. They looked rather sad and one plant was on death's door, so I decided to plant them next to the cucumbers (another benefit of training cukes-it leaves the ground open for other things). They have bounced back somewhat, though we've seen little in the way of production. Hopefully as summer draws down we will see a decent crop.
While at the nursery I also spotted a grapevine. I hadn't really considered trying to grow grapes and I wasn't completely sure these could be successfully done in a garden. Well, I decided to buy it and do a little research for growing tips. So far the vine has grown up and across the support I rigged up, but we haven't seen any grapes. I believe they don't start producing until autumn, so we're at the wait-and-see stage right now. I hope we get grapes, but either way it's pretty neat having the possibility!
Lettuce took its place this year, too. We bought a pack of Romaine lettuce seeds and I sprinkled them on the ground as the first veggie of the spring since they prefer cooler weather. The lettuce grew quickly and we were immediately up to our necks in salad! In fact we had so much lettuce that we got incredibly bored with eating salads and just gave up. We ended up with way more lettuce than we could hope to eat, so a lot of it ended up in the compost bin (also new this year and quite successful). I may plant some more of a different variety in the fall.
Some other crops we tried were carrots, onions and potatoes. Carrots were quickly given up on, as the seeds struggled to sprout. They are cheap to buy in the grocery, and, had we been able to grow a few, may not have been worth the time and effort. The onions were good. The bulbs grew as big as the space they were in, which wasn't very big since I crammed them together! Fresh onions, in case you've never had the pleasure, are VERY powerful. They were tasty and fantastic in many dishes. Finally we had potatoes. I tried make clever use of some out-of-the-way yard space by planting some spuds. The good news is they took off quickly. The bad news is they should have been buried much deeper, since they require constant additions of dirt as they get taller. I ran out of dirt and was faced with the decision of either buying more soil or letting them die and consider it a lesson learned. I went with the latter, as I couldn't justify spending a lot of money on soil to produce potatoes that can be bought cheap.
So, what are the plans for next year? First we are working on an expansion. Our garden has been contained to the side of the house, with a few exceptions, for the past couple of years. In front we have a couple of decent little flower beds. I have already began expanding the flower beds in preparation for next spring. We should end up with about twice as much growing space. Part of the reason for this is to make better use of the land we have. The front yard is pretty typical. It is on a slight slope, fairly small, and mostly grass. Basically it is useless. Maintaining a grass-covered front yard is an exercise in futility. You mow, water, and fertilize (actually I stopped watering and fertilizing a while ago) so you can have a decent lawn that serves, essentially, no purpose. Granted some people have nice yards they can play with the kids and do other activities, but I consider those the exceptions. Unless you live on a farm, grass is completely useless. Thus we want to replace some of this grass with a larger space for growing flowers, fruits and vegetables. I would love to get rid of the entire yard and just have a huge garden, but we won't be in the house for more than a couple more years and that might limit the number of buyers.
Anyway, plans are in the works for what to do with the space. Certainly we will have flowers and shrubs, especially in the less sunny areas next to the house, but we also plan on mixing in fruit and vegetable plants. We're also kicking around ideas like decorative solar lights, bird feeders, etc. We've got a lot of time for planning, so no big deal if we don't know what we want yet. The things I would certainly want are strawberries, a fruit bush (blueberries?), more peppers, more tomatoes, more onions, a variety of lettuces and who knows what else. We will also have the garden on the side of the house again (and perhaps expand that a bit). I'd like to do cucumbers as well as tomatoes, beans, lettuce, and whatever else comes up. I'm also thinking about a clever way to grow potatoes in a small area with little maintenance (I'll provide details if we go forward with it). Using the lessons from last year I think next season will be even better than this, just as this year was more productive than last. I'll keep everyone posted and we've been getting pictures of the progress.
Let's start with something in nearly every garden: tomatoes. They are relatively easy to grow. I tried to start tomatoes from seeds, but quickly learned I started way too late and lacked the proper equipment to do this properly. I ended up buying four types of tomato seedlings, hoping to have successive crops. So far so good. They are so versatile and, as I said, very easy to maintain. I think they could be more productive with attentive pruning as well as a proper cage. I use cages but the tomatoes quickly overwhelm them, so I think something better is needed. So far I've made two jars of (delicious) pasta sauce and hopefully I'll have enough for several more. I've got dozens of green tomatoes waiting in the wings.
Moving on to cucumbers. This is another garden staple. These I did successfully start from seeds. This year I decided to go with two plants instead of three as I had tried last year with some success. I also wanted to train this years plants. Using 6 ft. cedar stakes, I ran the cucumbers up and across a (moderately) sturdy wire. What a difference this made! The leaves grew huge, providing a lot of shade for the base of the plants. This meant very little watering was required. I periodically added tea and coffee grounds as fertilizer, as I did with many of the plants. As some of you may have seen from my pickling pictures, it was a good crop. We gave away probably a dozen cukes (so far), as well as ate several and pickled many more. I'm not sure how the pickles will taste since they won't be ready for another six weeks. Anyway, they are winding down in production, though we'll probably get about a dozen more. All-in-all I would guess we will end up with about 30-40 cukes. Not too shabby.
Next we have green beans. Boy do we have a lot of them! These were started easily from seeds, as well. I made a 4 ft. high tepee (sort of) with thin bamboo poles and string. This proved to be effective, though it should have been taller with fewer plants (I planted 16 total). The vines grew wildly! We have a very large bag of beans frozen, which we will add plenty more to as the plants continue to produce. One important note: pick the beans before they get too big. The flavor changes quite dramatically, as well as the tenderness. Younger is better. Small is tasty.
We also tried corn. The corn plants I had bought while at the nursery without planning on it. I saw them and knew I had a little space available. I spread out five corn plants which grew relatively well. If you don't bunch them up, however, they will lean and fall over. I had to stake them up. While it was interesting to grow them, it turned out to be a waste. What little corn they produced was not very good. We will not be growing it next year. I look at it this way, we live in Ohio, one of the biggest corn producing states in America. When in season, fresh corn is everywhere for about a quarter an ear or less. I would rather try something else in my own garden.
Another veggie we tried was bell peppers (capsicums, as our British friends call them). Once again I attempted starting them from seeds, but, as with the tomatoes, this took more planning and effort than I offered. We purchased two plants, one red and one green. I left these to grow in medium sized pots instead of planting them in the ground. This was not very successful. They looked rather sad and one plant was on death's door, so I decided to plant them next to the cucumbers (another benefit of training cukes-it leaves the ground open for other things). They have bounced back somewhat, though we've seen little in the way of production. Hopefully as summer draws down we will see a decent crop.
While at the nursery I also spotted a grapevine. I hadn't really considered trying to grow grapes and I wasn't completely sure these could be successfully done in a garden. Well, I decided to buy it and do a little research for growing tips. So far the vine has grown up and across the support I rigged up, but we haven't seen any grapes. I believe they don't start producing until autumn, so we're at the wait-and-see stage right now. I hope we get grapes, but either way it's pretty neat having the possibility!
Lettuce took its place this year, too. We bought a pack of Romaine lettuce seeds and I sprinkled them on the ground as the first veggie of the spring since they prefer cooler weather. The lettuce grew quickly and we were immediately up to our necks in salad! In fact we had so much lettuce that we got incredibly bored with eating salads and just gave up. We ended up with way more lettuce than we could hope to eat, so a lot of it ended up in the compost bin (also new this year and quite successful). I may plant some more of a different variety in the fall.
Some other crops we tried were carrots, onions and potatoes. Carrots were quickly given up on, as the seeds struggled to sprout. They are cheap to buy in the grocery, and, had we been able to grow a few, may not have been worth the time and effort. The onions were good. The bulbs grew as big as the space they were in, which wasn't very big since I crammed them together! Fresh onions, in case you've never had the pleasure, are VERY powerful. They were tasty and fantastic in many dishes. Finally we had potatoes. I tried make clever use of some out-of-the-way yard space by planting some spuds. The good news is they took off quickly. The bad news is they should have been buried much deeper, since they require constant additions of dirt as they get taller. I ran out of dirt and was faced with the decision of either buying more soil or letting them die and consider it a lesson learned. I went with the latter, as I couldn't justify spending a lot of money on soil to produce potatoes that can be bought cheap.
So, what are the plans for next year? First we are working on an expansion. Our garden has been contained to the side of the house, with a few exceptions, for the past couple of years. In front we have a couple of decent little flower beds. I have already began expanding the flower beds in preparation for next spring. We should end up with about twice as much growing space. Part of the reason for this is to make better use of the land we have. The front yard is pretty typical. It is on a slight slope, fairly small, and mostly grass. Basically it is useless. Maintaining a grass-covered front yard is an exercise in futility. You mow, water, and fertilize (actually I stopped watering and fertilizing a while ago) so you can have a decent lawn that serves, essentially, no purpose. Granted some people have nice yards they can play with the kids and do other activities, but I consider those the exceptions. Unless you live on a farm, grass is completely useless. Thus we want to replace some of this grass with a larger space for growing flowers, fruits and vegetables. I would love to get rid of the entire yard and just have a huge garden, but we won't be in the house for more than a couple more years and that might limit the number of buyers.
Anyway, plans are in the works for what to do with the space. Certainly we will have flowers and shrubs, especially in the less sunny areas next to the house, but we also plan on mixing in fruit and vegetable plants. We're also kicking around ideas like decorative solar lights, bird feeders, etc. We've got a lot of time for planning, so no big deal if we don't know what we want yet. The things I would certainly want are strawberries, a fruit bush (blueberries?), more peppers, more tomatoes, more onions, a variety of lettuces and who knows what else. We will also have the garden on the side of the house again (and perhaps expand that a bit). I'd like to do cucumbers as well as tomatoes, beans, lettuce, and whatever else comes up. I'm also thinking about a clever way to grow potatoes in a small area with little maintenance (I'll provide details if we go forward with it). Using the lessons from last year I think next season will be even better than this, just as this year was more productive than last. I'll keep everyone posted and we've been getting pictures of the progress.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Playing Devil's Advocate
Copied sans user comments:
"After fifty years of growing government programs, health care costs continue to rise. The U.S. government now controls nearly half of all health care dollars, and the crisis is becoming acute. The plans we are seeing from Washington are not innovations, but rather extensions of the government interventions we have embraced for three generations.
But rather than assume that more government involvement is the answer, should we not at least consider that the source of the problem may be those very interventions? And, more deeply, should we not even consider that the reason for this decades-long pattern is not economic, but moral: the idea that people have a "right" to medical care?
Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s, when Medicare and other programs threw billions of dollars into the industry. Fiscally, Medicare is approaching monumental insolvency, with liabilities in the range of twenty-trillion dollars. To create another bureaucratic labyrinth now -- which advocates are proud to say will cost only a trillion dollars over ten years -- all but guarantees higher prices, and a greater crisis in the next decade.
But such economic arguments have not stopped the train to further government interventions, and we should ask why.
The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a "right" to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.
But the very idea that health care -- or any good provided by others -- is a "right" is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. "To secure these rights governments are instituted," which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.
By this understanding of rights, no one may force you to act in ways contrary to your own interests, as long as you do not demand that they act contrary to their own interests. There is no right to a good outcome -- no right to food, clothing, shelter, or economic security -- only a right to pursue that outcome, with the voluntary cooperation of others if they wish to offer it.
But consider what a right to a guaranteed outcome would mean. It would require an infringement upon the lives and liberty of those who are forced to provide it. If there is a right to food, there must be farmers to provide it -- or taxpayers forced to pay for it. Government medical plans with unique privileges, such as Medicare, institutionalize force against those who are to provide the claimed "right." And yet, neither the principle nor the consequences are changed if the force is spread out over millions of people in the form of a tax return.
These two concepts of rights -- rights as the right to liberty, versus rights as the rights to things -- cannot coexist in the same respect at the same time. If I claim that my right to life means my right to medicine, then I am demanding the right to force others to produce the values that I need. This ends up being a negation of personal sovereignty, and of individual rights.
To reform our health care industry we should challenge the premises that invited government intervention in the first place. The moral premise is that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no "right" to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. There is no "right" to anything that others must produce, because no one may claim a "right" to force others to provide it. Health care is a service, and we all depend upon thinking professionals for it. To place doctors under hamstringing bureaucratic control is to invite poor results.
The economic premise is that the government can create prosperity by redistributing the wealth of its citizens. This is the road to bankruptcy, not universal prosperity. The truth of this is playing out before our eyes, as medical prices balloon with every new intervention, and we face the largest deficits in human history.
If Congress wants to address health care issues, it can begin with three things: (1) tort reform, to free medical specialists from annual insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars; (2) Medicare reform, to face squarely the program's insolvency; and (3) regulatory reform, to roll-back the onerous rules that force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (who produce the care that others then demand as a "right") into satisfying bureaucratic dictates rather than bringing value to their patients."
-John David Lewis
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Duke University
"After fifty years of growing government programs, health care costs continue to rise. The U.S. government now controls nearly half of all health care dollars, and the crisis is becoming acute. The plans we are seeing from Washington are not innovations, but rather extensions of the government interventions we have embraced for three generations.
But rather than assume that more government involvement is the answer, should we not at least consider that the source of the problem may be those very interventions? And, more deeply, should we not even consider that the reason for this decades-long pattern is not economic, but moral: the idea that people have a "right" to medical care?
Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s, when Medicare and other programs threw billions of dollars into the industry. Fiscally, Medicare is approaching monumental insolvency, with liabilities in the range of twenty-trillion dollars. To create another bureaucratic labyrinth now -- which advocates are proud to say will cost only a trillion dollars over ten years -- all but guarantees higher prices, and a greater crisis in the next decade.
But such economic arguments have not stopped the train to further government interventions, and we should ask why.
The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a "right" to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.
But the very idea that health care -- or any good provided by others -- is a "right" is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. "To secure these rights governments are instituted," which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.
By this understanding of rights, no one may force you to act in ways contrary to your own interests, as long as you do not demand that they act contrary to their own interests. There is no right to a good outcome -- no right to food, clothing, shelter, or economic security -- only a right to pursue that outcome, with the voluntary cooperation of others if they wish to offer it.
But consider what a right to a guaranteed outcome would mean. It would require an infringement upon the lives and liberty of those who are forced to provide it. If there is a right to food, there must be farmers to provide it -- or taxpayers forced to pay for it. Government medical plans with unique privileges, such as Medicare, institutionalize force against those who are to provide the claimed "right." And yet, neither the principle nor the consequences are changed if the force is spread out over millions of people in the form of a tax return.
These two concepts of rights -- rights as the right to liberty, versus rights as the rights to things -- cannot coexist in the same respect at the same time. If I claim that my right to life means my right to medicine, then I am demanding the right to force others to produce the values that I need. This ends up being a negation of personal sovereignty, and of individual rights.
To reform our health care industry we should challenge the premises that invited government intervention in the first place. The moral premise is that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no "right" to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. There is no "right" to anything that others must produce, because no one may claim a "right" to force others to provide it. Health care is a service, and we all depend upon thinking professionals for it. To place doctors under hamstringing bureaucratic control is to invite poor results.
The economic premise is that the government can create prosperity by redistributing the wealth of its citizens. This is the road to bankruptcy, not universal prosperity. The truth of this is playing out before our eyes, as medical prices balloon with every new intervention, and we face the largest deficits in human history.
If Congress wants to address health care issues, it can begin with three things: (1) tort reform, to free medical specialists from annual insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars; (2) Medicare reform, to face squarely the program's insolvency; and (3) regulatory reform, to roll-back the onerous rules that force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (who produce the care that others then demand as a "right") into satisfying bureaucratic dictates rather than bringing value to their patients."
-John David Lewis
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Duke University
Monday, August 10, 2009
HEALTH care, not health care
"[I] Went to a doctor and had high cholesterol. That doc immediately wanted to put me on statins. I adamantly refused due to the side effects. So finally the doctor suggested niacin and high fiber such as Metamucil or oatmeal. So why couldn't the FIRST recommendation be for niacin (a vitamin) and oatmeal? Because it is cheap and there are no bucks in it for big pharma. I had to tell the doctor that I was going to change my diet and exercise. That was never recommended. It is all about getting those bucks out of your wallet for expensive drugs and treatment."
-Anonymous
Excluding the hyperbole and possibly exaggerated claims, the story above illustrates what many of us already know. We are trying to treat the symptoms with expensive, possibly unnecessary treatments and we are doing little to solve the problems. This is health care in a nutshell, to me. The focus for so many, and the debate lies here, is on lowering costs to make health care more affordable for everyone, perhaps to the point that we do achieve universal coverage. Dare to dream.
I'm sure you've been beat over the head about eating healthy and exercising regularly. We all have. The refrain is tired and seems useless, at this point. But what does it mean? How do you "eat healthy"? Can you make something healthy by using an artificial sweetener? How about adding the latest fad supplement like Omega-3? Perhaps reducing the calories? Does any of that actually translate into anything resembling healthy? Not to me. And not to most people around the world, excepting those on the Western Diet. To me, for something to be healthy it has to provide a positive benefit for my health. Limiting my Oreo's to a 100-cal pack or taking out the trans fats does not do anything for me. It's still an Oreo. I don' get full from it. I don't feel satisfied. No nutrition. No naturally occurring vitamins and minerals. Nothing. But it tastes good!
So what do we do? Is it as simple as eating quality foods, which would result in less disease and ailments, thus reducing health care costs to the point of affordable (universal) care? Well, yes and no. It sounds easy but there a few small obstacles in the way. You may know them as industries. Job providing industries. The food industry. The pharmaceutical industry. The health care industry. The diet industry. The nutrition industry. Something has got to give for us to succeed. That something is a Rubik's cube of moves. These industries don't have to be destroyed, mind you, but they will be forced to substantially shrink and fundamentally alter their actions.
Take the food industry. The annual population growth is around 3% (correct me if I'm wrong), which means the industry, all things being equal, will grow at roughly the same rate. This is unacceptable for any business. 3% will get you fired. The industry has a few options. They could accept and deal with limited growth. I think this is a silly notion to even discuss. They could grow their market shares. This avenue will continue to be taken as our mega corporations expand beyond the US. This has (and hopefully will continue) been met with some resistance as other countries/cultures resist changing their fundamental views of food. The last option, as I see it, is to grow their market where it already exists. How do they do this? Get us to eat more, of course. And the best way (it seems) to get us to eat more is to give us less. Not less in the amount of food, but less of what makes food food. We've evolved over millions of years to need and utilize much of what is present in food. It's the reason you experience cravings.
Now I'm not sure there is some diabolical plan by the food industry to get us to be unhealthy and eat empty food-like substances, knowing that we will need to eat more, but the mind does wonder. What I do know is that when profits are the measure of success people will do what they need to do. Advertising, research, etc are heavily invested in. Countless amounts of money are poured into researching the value and effects of vitamins and minerals in an effort to understand what makes people tick. I favor this research and hope that our understanding continues to improve. My wish, though, is that people were not so easily deceived by the tactics of the food industry which uses the results of this research to get you to eat their product, thinking it is somehow better because it has the newest wonder vitamin or no longer has whichever fat is evil this month. We spend money researching why the French are more heart healthy. Sounds good to me. We are told, via advertisers and groups called "Science Research Council for Heart Disease" (I made that up, but they are virtually all made up to sound nice but are simply advocacy groups), that the reason is because they drink wine, which will improve your heart. The substance in wine that showed the best lab results was resveratrol. In steps the food and pharmaceutical industries to immediately sell capsules of this wonder drug, telling you the capsule has 6,000 times the power of one glass of red wine. Imagine how good it must be! Resveratrol is added to your favorite energy drink, so along with the other "beneficial" nutrients now makes this the healthiest substance on the planet. Aside from water, that is. And a glass of OJ. And a cup of tea. And on and on.
Now let's take a step back. First, what did the research actually show. Anyone who has been involved with or taken a deep look at such research will quickly and easily realize that science is never so straightforward as you are led to believe. Correlations are found, likelihoods for the correlations are given and possible explanations for the correlation are put forward. Research moves forward in answering the many unknowns. We still know very little about the hows and whys of nutrition. The many thousands of chemical interactions that take place from consuming different foods together isn't exactly something you can easily replicate in a lab or control for in a study. I'll liken it to one of my favorite topics-global warming. In order for us to accurately and predict and completely measure the impacts of CO2 on temperatures we would literally need two earths. They would need to be identical in every single way and we could add CO2 to one, measure the impact, and all of our questions would be answered! Such is the way in nutrition.
Stepping back further, we can see things a little more clearly. So, regarding the question of why the French are more heart healthy, we can simply look at the way they view food in general. We won't get the details (I leave that for the scientists), but I can recognize that they don't act the way we do. I cannot imagine millions of French people in their local Le Sam's standing in the aisles looking at a box of Fruity Pebbles to examine the nutrition information. Just using a little common sense and inherited knowledge they will take one glance at the box, not recognize exactly what it is (it's not food) and immediately leave this insane place that deceitfully claims to be selling food, but in actually is selling consumable products disguised as food. More likely to happen is these people will WALK to a local store and buy a baked product which was made AT the store by the person taking their money. This person will, more than likely, be able to name all the ingredients and not stumble over 17-syllable words.
I could go on and on (literally) about this, but hopefully you get the point. Unless we change the way we view food and nutrition fundamentally it is not going to matter what health care plan we adopt. it doesn't matter how many people are covered and how good the coverage is. It won't matter which country we emulate. The results will NOT be the same as the country we copy. The result will be bad. Tremendously high costs. A focus on treating diseases which, outside of our country, are hardly a blip. Unless we are willing to upset the status quo, make a few seemingly difficult choices and take responsibility for all of our choices (by first understanding the impacts of such choices), we are all going to lose.
-Anonymous
Excluding the hyperbole and possibly exaggerated claims, the story above illustrates what many of us already know. We are trying to treat the symptoms with expensive, possibly unnecessary treatments and we are doing little to solve the problems. This is health care in a nutshell, to me. The focus for so many, and the debate lies here, is on lowering costs to make health care more affordable for everyone, perhaps to the point that we do achieve universal coverage. Dare to dream.
I'm sure you've been beat over the head about eating healthy and exercising regularly. We all have. The refrain is tired and seems useless, at this point. But what does it mean? How do you "eat healthy"? Can you make something healthy by using an artificial sweetener? How about adding the latest fad supplement like Omega-3? Perhaps reducing the calories? Does any of that actually translate into anything resembling healthy? Not to me. And not to most people around the world, excepting those on the Western Diet. To me, for something to be healthy it has to provide a positive benefit for my health. Limiting my Oreo's to a 100-cal pack or taking out the trans fats does not do anything for me. It's still an Oreo. I don' get full from it. I don't feel satisfied. No nutrition. No naturally occurring vitamins and minerals. Nothing. But it tastes good!
So what do we do? Is it as simple as eating quality foods, which would result in less disease and ailments, thus reducing health care costs to the point of affordable (universal) care? Well, yes and no. It sounds easy but there a few small obstacles in the way. You may know them as industries. Job providing industries. The food industry. The pharmaceutical industry. The health care industry. The diet industry. The nutrition industry. Something has got to give for us to succeed. That something is a Rubik's cube of moves. These industries don't have to be destroyed, mind you, but they will be forced to substantially shrink and fundamentally alter their actions.
Take the food industry. The annual population growth is around 3% (correct me if I'm wrong), which means the industry, all things being equal, will grow at roughly the same rate. This is unacceptable for any business. 3% will get you fired. The industry has a few options. They could accept and deal with limited growth. I think this is a silly notion to even discuss. They could grow their market shares. This avenue will continue to be taken as our mega corporations expand beyond the US. This has (and hopefully will continue) been met with some resistance as other countries/cultures resist changing their fundamental views of food. The last option, as I see it, is to grow their market where it already exists. How do they do this? Get us to eat more, of course. And the best way (it seems) to get us to eat more is to give us less. Not less in the amount of food, but less of what makes food food. We've evolved over millions of years to need and utilize much of what is present in food. It's the reason you experience cravings.
Now I'm not sure there is some diabolical plan by the food industry to get us to be unhealthy and eat empty food-like substances, knowing that we will need to eat more, but the mind does wonder. What I do know is that when profits are the measure of success people will do what they need to do. Advertising, research, etc are heavily invested in. Countless amounts of money are poured into researching the value and effects of vitamins and minerals in an effort to understand what makes people tick. I favor this research and hope that our understanding continues to improve. My wish, though, is that people were not so easily deceived by the tactics of the food industry which uses the results of this research to get you to eat their product, thinking it is somehow better because it has the newest wonder vitamin or no longer has whichever fat is evil this month. We spend money researching why the French are more heart healthy. Sounds good to me. We are told, via advertisers and groups called "Science Research Council for Heart Disease" (I made that up, but they are virtually all made up to sound nice but are simply advocacy groups), that the reason is because they drink wine, which will improve your heart. The substance in wine that showed the best lab results was resveratrol. In steps the food and pharmaceutical industries to immediately sell capsules of this wonder drug, telling you the capsule has 6,000 times the power of one glass of red wine. Imagine how good it must be! Resveratrol is added to your favorite energy drink, so along with the other "beneficial" nutrients now makes this the healthiest substance on the planet. Aside from water, that is. And a glass of OJ. And a cup of tea. And on and on.
Now let's take a step back. First, what did the research actually show. Anyone who has been involved with or taken a deep look at such research will quickly and easily realize that science is never so straightforward as you are led to believe. Correlations are found, likelihoods for the correlations are given and possible explanations for the correlation are put forward. Research moves forward in answering the many unknowns. We still know very little about the hows and whys of nutrition. The many thousands of chemical interactions that take place from consuming different foods together isn't exactly something you can easily replicate in a lab or control for in a study. I'll liken it to one of my favorite topics-global warming. In order for us to accurately and predict and completely measure the impacts of CO2 on temperatures we would literally need two earths. They would need to be identical in every single way and we could add CO2 to one, measure the impact, and all of our questions would be answered! Such is the way in nutrition.
Stepping back further, we can see things a little more clearly. So, regarding the question of why the French are more heart healthy, we can simply look at the way they view food in general. We won't get the details (I leave that for the scientists), but I can recognize that they don't act the way we do. I cannot imagine millions of French people in their local Le Sam's standing in the aisles looking at a box of Fruity Pebbles to examine the nutrition information. Just using a little common sense and inherited knowledge they will take one glance at the box, not recognize exactly what it is (it's not food) and immediately leave this insane place that deceitfully claims to be selling food, but in actually is selling consumable products disguised as food. More likely to happen is these people will WALK to a local store and buy a baked product which was made AT the store by the person taking their money. This person will, more than likely, be able to name all the ingredients and not stumble over 17-syllable words.
I could go on and on (literally) about this, but hopefully you get the point. Unless we change the way we view food and nutrition fundamentally it is not going to matter what health care plan we adopt. it doesn't matter how many people are covered and how good the coverage is. It won't matter which country we emulate. The results will NOT be the same as the country we copy. The result will be bad. Tremendously high costs. A focus on treating diseases which, outside of our country, are hardly a blip. Unless we are willing to upset the status quo, make a few seemingly difficult choices and take responsibility for all of our choices (by first understanding the impacts of such choices), we are all going to lose.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Lacking perspective
I think, too often, I don't take into account that what is obvious to me is unknown to others. I can sometimes convince myself that some things are common knowledge (whatever that means) and that I am not responsible for the ignorance of others. This can lead to contempt, disgust, and a wide range of (typically) negative connotations in my words and actions towards those I engage. Chances are if you're reading this you have seen me behave in such a manner and have gotten a chuckle or two out of it as I reign my intelligence and wit upon those who apparently lack the same arms (irony duly noted).
An example includes a recent conversation about health care and the idea of a "free market" solution. I take many things for granted in this debate. I assume others are aware that one of the problems, as most people see it, is the lack of universal coverage. I don't understand why someone would think a free market approach would provide a commodity, as health care is viewed in such an scenario, to everyone. I would think that if you support a free market approach you would understand the basic concept is to make available a commodity to those who can afford it, not to provide a service to everyone because of a moral obligation to do so. Perhaps my initial assumption is completely off base and the person/people arguing for a free market approach don't view universal coverage as an issue.
Another issue is the idea of the free market itself. I assume, usually wrongly, that people know that the free market, as an economic model, does not exist in reality. It never has. It never will. I'm not sure anybody who has an ounce of compassion for their fellow humans or the environment would ever want it to exist.
I assume people know, as I do, that when talking heads rant about how the elderly will be euthanized under the plan in consideration, that this is complete and total nonsense. I can understand having a dislike/distrust of the government, but that shouldn't interfere with common sense.
I assume people know that being a liberal does not, in fact, automatically mean I support whatever notion comes out of Congress. I support the idea of universal health care, not any watered down, industry friendly bill that comes from the halls. On that same note, the simple fact that I don't fully support a bill that attempts to address one of my biggest concerns does not, in any way shape or form, mean that I will "vote the bums out" who created the bill in favor of those who offer NO solutions, only obstructionism. Just as I don't think the cap-and-trade bill under consideration will do much to help another big issue, that does not mean I will vote next time for someone who has their head up their ass and denies a problem even exists in the first place. Consider it as a bit of a litmus test I use when voting. If I want a solution and you deny a problem exist, don't count on my vote. Ever.
Back to the point at hand, I also take for granted that maybe people simply don't know that being ABLE to do something is not an excuse for doing it. This hearkens back to my days in elementary school when one student would taunt another, normally eliciting a response of "shut up" from the tauntee. The rebuttal and end-all argument from the original a**hole was always "it's a free country, I can do what I want". I often take for granted that many people did not grow out of these arguments as they rightly should have. They are still kicking, still using that same refrain. Ask them why they think the way they do and you'll likely get a response of "I'm allowed to have an opinion", which is ALWAYS beside the point. And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that those with opinions that they cannot support simply shut up. On the contrary, I encourage them to speak out. I want to be able to identify them.
*Please note that my comments about the free market should be taken in context. I would normally assume that all my comments would be taken in context, but obviously I would be wrong, as history dictates. I don't have a universally negative view of the free market and, in fact, think it is a decent economic model.
An example includes a recent conversation about health care and the idea of a "free market" solution. I take many things for granted in this debate. I assume others are aware that one of the problems, as most people see it, is the lack of universal coverage. I don't understand why someone would think a free market approach would provide a commodity, as health care is viewed in such an scenario, to everyone. I would think that if you support a free market approach you would understand the basic concept is to make available a commodity to those who can afford it, not to provide a service to everyone because of a moral obligation to do so. Perhaps my initial assumption is completely off base and the person/people arguing for a free market approach don't view universal coverage as an issue.
Another issue is the idea of the free market itself. I assume, usually wrongly, that people know that the free market, as an economic model, does not exist in reality. It never has. It never will. I'm not sure anybody who has an ounce of compassion for their fellow humans or the environment would ever want it to exist.
I assume people know, as I do, that when talking heads rant about how the elderly will be euthanized under the plan in consideration, that this is complete and total nonsense. I can understand having a dislike/distrust of the government, but that shouldn't interfere with common sense.
I assume people know that being a liberal does not, in fact, automatically mean I support whatever notion comes out of Congress. I support the idea of universal health care, not any watered down, industry friendly bill that comes from the halls. On that same note, the simple fact that I don't fully support a bill that attempts to address one of my biggest concerns does not, in any way shape or form, mean that I will "vote the bums out" who created the bill in favor of those who offer NO solutions, only obstructionism. Just as I don't think the cap-and-trade bill under consideration will do much to help another big issue, that does not mean I will vote next time for someone who has their head up their ass and denies a problem even exists in the first place. Consider it as a bit of a litmus test I use when voting. If I want a solution and you deny a problem exist, don't count on my vote. Ever.
Back to the point at hand, I also take for granted that maybe people simply don't know that being ABLE to do something is not an excuse for doing it. This hearkens back to my days in elementary school when one student would taunt another, normally eliciting a response of "shut up" from the tauntee. The rebuttal and end-all argument from the original a**hole was always "it's a free country, I can do what I want". I often take for granted that many people did not grow out of these arguments as they rightly should have. They are still kicking, still using that same refrain. Ask them why they think the way they do and you'll likely get a response of "I'm allowed to have an opinion", which is ALWAYS beside the point. And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that those with opinions that they cannot support simply shut up. On the contrary, I encourage them to speak out. I want to be able to identify them.
*Please note that my comments about the free market should be taken in context. I would normally assume that all my comments would be taken in context, but obviously I would be wrong, as history dictates. I don't have a universally negative view of the free market and, in fact, think it is a decent economic model.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Coffee and microcosms
Most offices have coffee. It's cheap and it perks up the employees. The trend (at least from what I am experienced with) is to have single-cup machines. No messy pots to clean. No stale coffee. Every person for themselves. Seems simple enough. The coffee where I work is delivered weekly, along with sweeteners, teas, etc. The coffee comes in a box, which holds several other boxes, which holds the individual plastic containers of coffee grounds. So you take the coffee pod, put it in the machine, put your free paper cup (standard in our office) under the dispenser and push the button. Out comes one piping hot, perfectly measured, standard cup of coffee. Time to sweeten. You take one or two packets of your favorite sweetener out of the box, tear them open, pour them in, and toss the empty paper packets into the trash. Toss in some "creamer" (I use quotes because powdered corn is not, in fact, cream), grab a plastic stir stick out of the stir stick box, give it good swirling, and toss the stir stick. Enjoy your coffee, maybe get a second cup, then toss that paper cup out. Repeat each day.
This whole process does create jobs. That's a good thing, right? The delivery guy, the box manufacturer, the coffee company, the cup, stir stick, and pod manufacturers, etc. Would bringing your own cup cost someone a job? How about using an old-fashioned coffee pot that doesn't use pods? What will happen to the plastic company that relies on the coffee pod business? Dare I suggest that someone use a spoon? If so, what will become of the stir stick maker?
Can sustainability really happen in our wasteful, uber-consumer driven lifestyles? Can happiness be achieved from all the time supposedly saved by using so many items one time and then discarding them, thus saving us the hassle of cleaning anything?
This whole process does create jobs. That's a good thing, right? The delivery guy, the box manufacturer, the coffee company, the cup, stir stick, and pod manufacturers, etc. Would bringing your own cup cost someone a job? How about using an old-fashioned coffee pot that doesn't use pods? What will happen to the plastic company that relies on the coffee pod business? Dare I suggest that someone use a spoon? If so, what will become of the stir stick maker?
Can sustainability really happen in our wasteful, uber-consumer driven lifestyles? Can happiness be achieved from all the time supposedly saved by using so many items one time and then discarding them, thus saving us the hassle of cleaning anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
