Today on AOL there was a news item about an episode of the TV show "Law & Order: SVU," which I have never watched. The article was about the show's dealing with a taboo topic, male-to-male sexual violence. To put that even more bluntly, that would be a man raping another man. Yes, it can happen but it's rare. I think it's more the rarity than the taboo nature which is the reason you don't normally hear about it. (I believe I recall one news item that in fact was in our mainstream newspapers some years ago, about a man who got attacked in a downtown parking garage.)
Anyway, I knew--I just KNEW--that there would be a comment on the article that sought to tar all gay men with the (doubtless new to them) brush! The person wrote something like, "And this is why we need gays in the military?"
The online articles on AOL (which I confess to spending a lot of time reading, these days) normally allow the posting of comments, and replies to others' comments. In this instance I didn't see any provision for writing my rebuttal to that comment, so I'm using my blog as my forum.
As I hope nearly anyone would recognize, that's a ridiculous comment. Gay men do not typically go around raping other men. A large fraction of men raping men undoubtedly goes on in prisons; and it's well known that even that is not a result of the rapists' being gay. Sociologists (or whichever branch of scholarship studies such matters) call that "adventitious homosexuality," meaning that men will turn to other males when they don't have any other sexual outlet available. These men don't consider themselves gay, and once they are out of prison the resort to exclusively heterosexual behavior.
Religious Right and other homophobic types try to blame gay men for child sexual abuse, when statistics have shown, over and over, that the percentage of men abusing girls is much higher than for boys. But those people all too often don't care about facts and prefer to keep repeating the same misconceptions, distortions, and out-and-out lies.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Are You Dominated by Another Person?
It occurs to me, I've known several people who allow their thinking to be heavily influenced by someone else—that is, by a particular other person. In two cases it was a domestic partner, in one case a work colleague, and in one case the head or leader of a political movement.
This is apparent when the person's conversation is very heavily laced with "X. says. . . ." They make the person being quoted sound like an expert and someone qualified to expound on just about any and every subject, when you know they almost surely are not.
Why are the thoughts and opinions of that other person so important? You might think that Person B (the one doing the quoting) regards Person A as more intelligent or more knowledgeable. But I think that's too simple or too obvious an explanation.
I think it's a matter of strong or dominant personalities. Or at least of who is relatively more dominant. Some people seem to be naturally submissive or prone to assume a submissive posture. (We are talking thought here, not anything physical or sexual. There might be some correlation between the two, but I'm not including that within my scope here.) These submissive people might even seem to want to be told what to think. Or they have subordinated themselves out of any of several possible motives, such as trying to keep peace in the family (my father comes to mind: my mother was definitely a strong personality).
You just want to ask those people why the ideas of the other are so important. Why is he or she qualified to talk like and expert on that subject? Or, you want to ask, Why don't you think for yourself?
But—there is the dynamic going on which I'm trying to point out here, and you're not going to change anything—much as you might wish you could. Maybe you just get tired of hearing, "X. says. . . ."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
This is apparent when the person's conversation is very heavily laced with "X. says. . . ." They make the person being quoted sound like an expert and someone qualified to expound on just about any and every subject, when you know they almost surely are not.
Why are the thoughts and opinions of that other person so important? You might think that Person B (the one doing the quoting) regards Person A as more intelligent or more knowledgeable. But I think that's too simple or too obvious an explanation.
I think it's a matter of strong or dominant personalities. Or at least of who is relatively more dominant. Some people seem to be naturally submissive or prone to assume a submissive posture. (We are talking thought here, not anything physical or sexual. There might be some correlation between the two, but I'm not including that within my scope here.) These submissive people might even seem to want to be told what to think. Or they have subordinated themselves out of any of several possible motives, such as trying to keep peace in the family (my father comes to mind: my mother was definitely a strong personality).
You just want to ask those people why the ideas of the other are so important. Why is he or she qualified to talk like and expert on that subject? Or, you want to ask, Why don't you think for yourself?
But—there is the dynamic going on which I'm trying to point out here, and you're not going to change anything—much as you might wish you could. Maybe you just get tired of hearing, "X. says. . . ."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Let's Ban Air Shows
News reports coming in yesterday concern an air show. At an air show in Reno, a plane crashed into the stands and killed the pilot and two spectators and injured more than 50. (These numbers, I'm sure, will change with newer reports.)
This is only the latest air show where there has been an accident. I think air shows are totally indefensible. They're dangerous. This from the Wikipedia entry "Air shows": " Air shows present some risk to spectators and aviators. Accidents occur, sometimes with a large loss of life, such as the 1988 disaster at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and the 2002 air show crash at Lviv, Ukraine."
The Huffington Post says, in an article on this most recent crash, "The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that prior to Friday's crash, 17 people had been killed at the air races since their start 1964." This same article quotes a witness at the scene: "'I saw body parts and gore like you wouldn't believe it. I'm talking an arm, a leg,' Higgins said 'The alive people were missing body parts. I am not kidding you. It was gore. Unbelievable gore.'"
They certainly consume a lot of fuel and cause air pollution (and noise). But that's certainly a far, far smaller concern than loss of human life.
The military—Air Force, Navy—supplies many of the planes and pilots used in air shows. The Navy maintains stunt fliers who go around from air show to air show. So air shows actually are a big recruiting tool for the armed services, and that's why they foster them and enable them.
To make the shows thrilling to audiences, the planes perform dangerous manoeuvres. To quote Wikipedia again, "A skilled pilot will be able to climb vertically, perform very tight turns, tumble his aircraft end-over-end and perform manoeuvres during loops." And about the military aircraft used in air shows, Wikipedia says, "The display will usually demonstrate the aircraft's very short (and often very loud) takeoff rolls, fast speeds, slow approach speeds, as well as their ability to quickly make tight turns, to climb quickly, and their ability to be precisely controlled at a large range of speeds." That's why people like them (just as the audiences for car races may possibly actually hope to witness an accident).
Chicago, where I live, has an annual "Air and Water Show." It's very popular. People love air shows and maybe on the face of it that's sufficient raison d'etre. But I think it may be time to take a hard look at risk-versus-benefit.
Update, September 20, 2011
As of yesterday, 10 people had died in the Reno accident. The count of the injured now stands at "more than 60." And there's been another air show crash, in West Virginia.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
This is only the latest air show where there has been an accident. I think air shows are totally indefensible. They're dangerous. This from the Wikipedia entry "Air shows": " Air shows present some risk to spectators and aviators. Accidents occur, sometimes with a large loss of life, such as the 1988 disaster at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and the 2002 air show crash at Lviv, Ukraine."
The Huffington Post says, in an article on this most recent crash, "The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that prior to Friday's crash, 17 people had been killed at the air races since their start 1964." This same article quotes a witness at the scene: "'I saw body parts and gore like you wouldn't believe it. I'm talking an arm, a leg,' Higgins said 'The alive people were missing body parts. I am not kidding you. It was gore. Unbelievable gore.'"
They certainly consume a lot of fuel and cause air pollution (and noise). But that's certainly a far, far smaller concern than loss of human life.
The military—Air Force, Navy—supplies many of the planes and pilots used in air shows. The Navy maintains stunt fliers who go around from air show to air show. So air shows actually are a big recruiting tool for the armed services, and that's why they foster them and enable them.
To make the shows thrilling to audiences, the planes perform dangerous manoeuvres. To quote Wikipedia again, "A skilled pilot will be able to climb vertically, perform very tight turns, tumble his aircraft end-over-end and perform manoeuvres during loops." And about the military aircraft used in air shows, Wikipedia says, "The display will usually demonstrate the aircraft's very short (and often very loud) takeoff rolls, fast speeds, slow approach speeds, as well as their ability to quickly make tight turns, to climb quickly, and their ability to be precisely controlled at a large range of speeds." That's why people like them (just as the audiences for car races may possibly actually hope to witness an accident).
Chicago, where I live, has an annual "Air and Water Show." It's very popular. People love air shows and maybe on the face of it that's sufficient raison d'etre. But I think it may be time to take a hard look at risk-versus-benefit.
Update, September 20, 2011
As of yesterday, 10 people had died in the Reno accident. The count of the injured now stands at "more than 60." And there's been another air show crash, in West Virginia.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Friday, September 16, 2011
Is Ours a Different World from Dickens'?
I've been watching the dramatizations of Charles Dickens novels on PBS. There was Oliver Twist, in two installments; and more recently, The Old Curiosity Shop.
Dickens depicts a world—early 19th century London—with a lot of poverty and ruthless social conditions, like prisons and workhouses for the poor or for people who don't pay their debts.
In addition to this background, which anyone would find depressing, Dickens' characters are a great bunch of scoundrels--liars, cheats, robbers, even killers. So it's a sordid, vicious society full of vicious individuals with no scruples.
You want to say, Thank God I don't live in that world! At least on the surface our world seems to be more humane and less draconian. But human nature has not changed. If you look at the news, and see the dealings of politicians and bankers and Wall Street traders—there are still plenty of scoundrels in the world. It might be just as dismal to contemplate our world. After all, Dickens' world is fictional, and we may well let ourselves believe that Dickens' time and place was not as bad as he depicted it to be.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Dickens depicts a world—early 19th century London—with a lot of poverty and ruthless social conditions, like prisons and workhouses for the poor or for people who don't pay their debts.
In addition to this background, which anyone would find depressing, Dickens' characters are a great bunch of scoundrels--liars, cheats, robbers, even killers. So it's a sordid, vicious society full of vicious individuals with no scruples.
You want to say, Thank God I don't live in that world! At least on the surface our world seems to be more humane and less draconian. But human nature has not changed. If you look at the news, and see the dealings of politicians and bankers and Wall Street traders—there are still plenty of scoundrels in the world. It might be just as dismal to contemplate our world. After all, Dickens' world is fictional, and we may well let ourselves believe that Dickens' time and place was not as bad as he depicted it to be.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Good Argument Against Conservatives
Dr. David Katz, writing online, makes some points which I think put very well what I have long believed. He rebuts the conservative points about people needing to take "individual responsibility," rather than relying on help from the government:
He goes on to talk about the obesity epidemic, which is more his (medical) field. To read the full article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/the-economy-and-obesity_b_963823.html
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
. . . [D]espite the popular railing about bootstraps and personal responsibility, we are subject to forces larger than ourselves. We have millions more uninsured, unemployed neighbors, friends and relatives than we had a year or three or five ago. Do we think these people succumbed to a contagion that siphons off personal responsibility? Did a virus devour their determination? Has some new plague agent ravaged willpower, self-control or work ethic?
All nonsense, of course. Personal responsibility, willpower and work ethic are the same as they ever were. Human character has not undergone a wholesale metamorphosis in the past year, or three, or five (or, for that matter, 500). To reiterate: It's the economy, stupid. It is a force larger than any individual victim's control.
We all know that with great power comes great responsibility. There is an overlooked corollary: We can't expect people to take responsibility when they are disempowered.
Larger forces can disempower us. A dismal economy is one such larger force.
He goes on to talk about the obesity epidemic, which is more his (medical) field. To read the full article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/the-economy-and-obesity_b_963823.html
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Mississippi: Not Exactly Paradise
Mississippi is a very backward state. It ranks last among all US states in so many things, like educational levels, obesity, and percentage of people who smoke.
According to an article in 247wallstreet.com,
I'm always saying that people who think they should not pay taxes or who don't like government programs that help the poor should go live in Mississippi. It's the very opposite of a country like Norway, where the taxes are very high but the government provides nearly everything anyone wants or needs. (That all sounds good to me, but it's what conservative Americans call "socialism," and socialism is felt by these same people to be a very damning epithet.)
Mississippi also has been a state with poor racial equality and a lot of bigotry and intolerance in general. It's the state where three civil rights workers from the North—two white and one black—were murdered in 1963. It's also the state where a young black teenager from Chicago was brutally murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. (His killers were acquitted by an all-white jury, and later admitted their guilt but could not be retried because of the US legal protection against "double jeopardy.")
At about that time I visited Mississippi myself, and I said to myself at the time, "If ever there's a place that looks like it's been cursed by God, this is it." Driving from Mississippi into next-door Alabama, Alabama looks like paradise--but that's only by comparison.
All this was nearly 50 years ago. That's quite a while, and some things might have changed. Quite possibly you can no longer get away with killing black people there. Still, I think that Mississippi was always basically an agrarian state, with its economy based on slavery. It never recovered from the Civil War and the direct ravages of that war, and the emancipation of the slaves. When I was there, 100 years after the Civil War, it was still a very blighted-looking place. And we see that today, 150 years after the Civil War, it's still very poor.
Mississippi's very poor material and economic welfare and its poor education doubtless go hand-in-hand. The two are inextricably related. Poor education is a cause of poor prosperity, and lack of tax receipts to pay for education in turn will result in poor education, so the two mutually reinforce one another.
Also, people's attitudes have a lot to do with their level of education. Mississippi may very well continue to have backward racial and other attitudes due to its lack of education.
Another state that lately has been much in the news with things like wanting to teach Creationism in its schools instead of evolution and passing anti-gay laws, is Tennessee. In the same 247wallstreet.com article, Tennessee ranks as the third-poorest state. Other notably backward states like West Virginia and Kentucky also ranked among the 10 poorest.
Read more: America’s Poorest States - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/09/14/americas-poorest-states/#ixzz1Y3KNnMyJ
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
According to an article in 247wallstreet.com,
In nearly every metric associated with poverty, education, employment, health risk, and insurance coverage, Mississippi has been close to the bottom for years.
I'm always saying that people who think they should not pay taxes or who don't like government programs that help the poor should go live in Mississippi. It's the very opposite of a country like Norway, where the taxes are very high but the government provides nearly everything anyone wants or needs. (That all sounds good to me, but it's what conservative Americans call "socialism," and socialism is felt by these same people to be a very damning epithet.)
Mississippi also has been a state with poor racial equality and a lot of bigotry and intolerance in general. It's the state where three civil rights workers from the North—two white and one black—were murdered in 1963. It's also the state where a young black teenager from Chicago was brutally murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. (His killers were acquitted by an all-white jury, and later admitted their guilt but could not be retried because of the US legal protection against "double jeopardy.")
At about that time I visited Mississippi myself, and I said to myself at the time, "If ever there's a place that looks like it's been cursed by God, this is it." Driving from Mississippi into next-door Alabama, Alabama looks like paradise--but that's only by comparison.
All this was nearly 50 years ago. That's quite a while, and some things might have changed. Quite possibly you can no longer get away with killing black people there. Still, I think that Mississippi was always basically an agrarian state, with its economy based on slavery. It never recovered from the Civil War and the direct ravages of that war, and the emancipation of the slaves. When I was there, 100 years after the Civil War, it was still a very blighted-looking place. And we see that today, 150 years after the Civil War, it's still very poor.
Mississippi's very poor material and economic welfare and its poor education doubtless go hand-in-hand. The two are inextricably related. Poor education is a cause of poor prosperity, and lack of tax receipts to pay for education in turn will result in poor education, so the two mutually reinforce one another.
Also, people's attitudes have a lot to do with their level of education. Mississippi may very well continue to have backward racial and other attitudes due to its lack of education.
Another state that lately has been much in the news with things like wanting to teach Creationism in its schools instead of evolution and passing anti-gay laws, is Tennessee. In the same 247wallstreet.com article, Tennessee ranks as the third-poorest state. Other notably backward states like West Virginia and Kentucky also ranked among the 10 poorest.
Read more: America’s Poorest States - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/09/14/americas-poorest-states/#ixzz1Y3KNnMyJ
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ladies, Is Your Husband Gay?
Remember the movie Brokeback Mountain? In it, there were two guys who were married but who ended up having both a sexual and romantic relationship with one another. In one case, the wife caught on, but only after she happened to catch a glimpse of her hubby embracing the other guy.
I thought that, after that movie, a lot of women were going to begin to have anxieties about their own husbands and suspecting that they might be gay. If anyone ever thought that, because a man is married and maybe has children to boot, that he can't be gay—well, that idea has gone the way of the idea of a flat earth.
I once heard a saying, "Married at 20, gay at 30." An awful lot of gay men my age (late 60s and thereabouts) have been married, many formerly and undoubtedly some currently. I've heard it said that, "back then"—that is, when we were younger—they were pressured by family to get married, or they felt it was "the thing to do," or they themselves had not realized their homosexual leanings.
So it was not uncommon for gay men in, say, the 1960s to enter into heterosexual marriages, and certainly that hasn't stopped. A man may not yet recognize his attraction to men; or he may want to "pass" and/or he gets married for the sake of the myriad advantages of, shall we say, doing the majority thing--like even having a political career!
This blog even received a comment from a woman who said she suspected her husband was gay but needed to come out, and she wasn't sure what she could do to help him.
The online magazine Huffington Post has reprinted an article from Christwire.com titled "Nine Signs Your Husband Is Gay." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/signs-your-husband-is-gay_n_687160.html#s128442&title=He_Has_A Evidently Christwire is a satirical site, and thus, if taken literally, their "nine signs" would be ridiculous.
But, as with a lot of satire and stereotyping, there may be a germ of truth in those "nine signs." At any rate I think it's very interesting, and doubtless a sign of our post–Brokeback Mountain times, that many modern married women might at least be considering the possibility that they could be married to a man with gay leanings.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
I thought that, after that movie, a lot of women were going to begin to have anxieties about their own husbands and suspecting that they might be gay. If anyone ever thought that, because a man is married and maybe has children to boot, that he can't be gay—well, that idea has gone the way of the idea of a flat earth.
I once heard a saying, "Married at 20, gay at 30." An awful lot of gay men my age (late 60s and thereabouts) have been married, many formerly and undoubtedly some currently. I've heard it said that, "back then"—that is, when we were younger—they were pressured by family to get married, or they felt it was "the thing to do," or they themselves had not realized their homosexual leanings.
So it was not uncommon for gay men in, say, the 1960s to enter into heterosexual marriages, and certainly that hasn't stopped. A man may not yet recognize his attraction to men; or he may want to "pass" and/or he gets married for the sake of the myriad advantages of, shall we say, doing the majority thing--like even having a political career!
This blog even received a comment from a woman who said she suspected her husband was gay but needed to come out, and she wasn't sure what she could do to help him.
The online magazine Huffington Post has reprinted an article from Christwire.com titled "Nine Signs Your Husband Is Gay." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/signs-your-husband-is-gay_n_687160.html#s128442&title=He_Has_A Evidently Christwire is a satirical site, and thus, if taken literally, their "nine signs" would be ridiculous.
But, as with a lot of satire and stereotyping, there may be a germ of truth in those "nine signs." At any rate I think it's very interesting, and doubtless a sign of our post–Brokeback Mountain times, that many modern married women might at least be considering the possibility that they could be married to a man with gay leanings.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Monday, September 12, 2011
Giant Crabs Invading Antarctic
It's a function of global warming, and was predicted. The giant crabs are eating or driving out other animals.
It definitely sounds like a science-fiction scenario. Here are the last two paragraphs of the article:
It definitely sounds like a science-fiction scenario. Here are the last two paragraphs of the article:
Link to the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/giant-red-crab-invasion-climate-change_n_956090.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec3_lnk1|94967The invasion of the long-legged critters doesn't come as a surprise to scientists, given three years ago they predicted the King Crabs would invade within 100 years.
Last month, a study published in the journal Science showed that climate change is driving animals to the poles in search of their more normal natural habitats. The Guardian called it "one of the clearest examples of climate change in action." In fact, the leader of the research, Chris Thomas, professor of conservation biology, told The Guardian that for the past 40 years, animals and plants have been "shifting 20 cm per hour, for every hour of the day, for every day of the year."
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Was Religion to Blame for 9/11?
I don't want to just follow a trend; but today everyone is talking about the historic event now known simply as "9/11." So I will, as the saying goes, add my two cents' worth.
I remember the day well, and the officers of the company I was working for allowed employees to gather in a conference room and watch the TV coverage of the events of that day in New York. We saw footage of the planes hitting the towers and then footage of the towers collapsing. Both were beyond astonishing. It's been hard for everyone to get their minds around those events and all the consequences: both loss of life of a large number of innocent people; and peril to the health of the rescue personnel who were exposed to harmful smoke, ash, and so forth.
Of course America and, hopefully, most people elsewhere feel that this country and its civilians did not deserve anything of the sort. And we wonder, Why was this done?
There has been a lot of discussion about whether Islam in its prevalent forms tolerates or even preaches this kind of thing. From the limited amount I know about Islam, I tend to think it does not. But I also think that there has definitely been preaching, within some Muslim circles, of hatred of the West, hatred of "infidels" (which would not be a new idea), hatred of America, hatred of Christianity (and, while we're at it, Judaism).
But to take a larger perspective, every religion has tended to take a view of its challengers and opponents which is in various degrees intolerant. It can manifest itself in discrimination, in hostility, in persecution, in war and killing. So I hasten to point out, it's not just Islam. I even at times think that every religion contains within it, somehow intrinsically, a seed which can blossom into this kind of jihadist, holy war thing. If you want to look at it, Christianity is far from innocent. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe over the centuries and in more recent times in Ireland. The Crusades involved capturing, for Christian control, the Holy Land. Once they captured Jerusalem, they slaughtered all its Muslim defenders and inhabitants plus virtually all the Jews there as well. (Incidentally a few Jews were slaughtered along the way as well. The Crusaders, revved up to be zealous for Christianity and militant against its enemies, as they passed through towns in Europe on their way to the Middle East, would slaughter whatever Jews they happened to find along the way.)
Not to mention the Inquisition. Prior to the completion of the "Reconquest" of Spain by Christians, the Islamic kingdoms in Spain—at least generally, and at most times—were models of toleration. Jews and Christians were tolerated and lived peaceably beside Muslims. However, it's no coincidence that as soon as the Reconquest was completed, in 1492, the Jews and Muslims were driven out of Spain. Any members of those groups wishing to remain had to convert to Christianity. Any who remained but were suspected of not being sincere converts would be tortured—perhaps to death—by the Inquisition.
The Inquisition generally was not a pretty matter at all; it even put to death numerous Christians who were suspected of having Protestant leanings; or anyone else whom they viewed as heretical, like Giordano Bruno (who was a Dominican friar and thus Catholic, but who held cosmological and theological views that were considered not sufficiently orthodox, so he was burned at the stake in 1600).
Here I have attempted to point out just a few examples of intolerance that have had religion at their root. Whether they kill 3 or 30 or 3,000—or six million—the less noble sides and corners and crannies of religion have been responsible for a saddening—no, shocking—amount of Man's inhumanity to Man.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
I remember the day well, and the officers of the company I was working for allowed employees to gather in a conference room and watch the TV coverage of the events of that day in New York. We saw footage of the planes hitting the towers and then footage of the towers collapsing. Both were beyond astonishing. It's been hard for everyone to get their minds around those events and all the consequences: both loss of life of a large number of innocent people; and peril to the health of the rescue personnel who were exposed to harmful smoke, ash, and so forth.
Of course America and, hopefully, most people elsewhere feel that this country and its civilians did not deserve anything of the sort. And we wonder, Why was this done?
There has been a lot of discussion about whether Islam in its prevalent forms tolerates or even preaches this kind of thing. From the limited amount I know about Islam, I tend to think it does not. But I also think that there has definitely been preaching, within some Muslim circles, of hatred of the West, hatred of "infidels" (which would not be a new idea), hatred of America, hatred of Christianity (and, while we're at it, Judaism).
But to take a larger perspective, every religion has tended to take a view of its challengers and opponents which is in various degrees intolerant. It can manifest itself in discrimination, in hostility, in persecution, in war and killing. So I hasten to point out, it's not just Islam. I even at times think that every religion contains within it, somehow intrinsically, a seed which can blossom into this kind of jihadist, holy war thing. If you want to look at it, Christianity is far from innocent. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe over the centuries and in more recent times in Ireland. The Crusades involved capturing, for Christian control, the Holy Land. Once they captured Jerusalem, they slaughtered all its Muslim defenders and inhabitants plus virtually all the Jews there as well. (Incidentally a few Jews were slaughtered along the way as well. The Crusaders, revved up to be zealous for Christianity and militant against its enemies, as they passed through towns in Europe on their way to the Middle East, would slaughter whatever Jews they happened to find along the way.)
Not to mention the Inquisition. Prior to the completion of the "Reconquest" of Spain by Christians, the Islamic kingdoms in Spain—at least generally, and at most times—were models of toleration. Jews and Christians were tolerated and lived peaceably beside Muslims. However, it's no coincidence that as soon as the Reconquest was completed, in 1492, the Jews and Muslims were driven out of Spain. Any members of those groups wishing to remain had to convert to Christianity. Any who remained but were suspected of not being sincere converts would be tortured—perhaps to death—by the Inquisition.
The Inquisition generally was not a pretty matter at all; it even put to death numerous Christians who were suspected of having Protestant leanings; or anyone else whom they viewed as heretical, like Giordano Bruno (who was a Dominican friar and thus Catholic, but who held cosmological and theological views that were considered not sufficiently orthodox, so he was burned at the stake in 1600).
Here I have attempted to point out just a few examples of intolerance that have had religion at their root. Whether they kill 3 or 30 or 3,000—or six million—the less noble sides and corners and crannies of religion have been responsible for a saddening—no, shocking—amount of Man's inhumanity to Man.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Sunday, September 4, 2011
More on Deceptive Labeling and Marketing of Food
Many people have become aware that whole grains in our food have various health benefits. But you need to read labels: some foods that may claim "whole grain" on the label are only partly whole grain, and the whole grain may not be the majority of the grain in that product. You need to read the ingredients list on the label, keeping in mind that ingredients are listed in the order of their quantity (that is, the ingredient used in the biggest amount is listed first, etc.).
Also, keep in mind that "multi-grain" is not a benefit unless those grains are whole. Five or six or eight or ten grains, if none of them are whole, would be less beneficial than just wheat, if that wheat is whole.
A bread store that I know of was making and selling a rather tasty bread. The ingredients list included "HFCS." What is that? you might wonder. High fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup, possibly wrongly, has gotten a bad wrap. It looks like the bread store was deliberately attempting to conceal from customers what was in its bread, especially considering that high fructose corn syrup is not usually known as "HFCS" and thus customers might not immediately recognize that ingredient from the abbreviation.
Many health-conscious food buyers believe that sugar should be avoided. So I see, as an ingredient, "evaporated cane juice," or "evaporated cane juice crystals." Anyone who knows how ordinary cane sugar is made should understand that "evaporated cane juice" is simply cane sugar—no more and no less. Someone has just tried to call it by a name that won't raise the red flag for customers that the term "sugar" would.
Besides such attempts at less-than-honest labeling of ingredients, labels contain many misleading claims. Cheerios will lower your cholesterol—if you eat it three times a day for weeks on end. I personally don't like monotony in my food and would not be able to stand eating the same cereal even once a day, every day.
And there's a yogurt that is supposed to be beneficial to your digestive tract. Again, if you heed the fine print, you've got to eat it three times a day to reap the benefit.
And many foods, like energy bars, power bars, Vitamin Water, etc., are simply useless and will not deliver the claimed benefits. Many products fortified with vitamins don't have enough of some or all of the vitamins that are in them. If you are concerned about your vitamin intake, it's much wiser to take a multivitamin pill every day. Many of those will deliver the "daily value" of most of the vitamins that they contain. (If you take a multivitamin, you may want to avoid breakfast cereals that have added vitamins; there's such a thing as too much of some vitamins, and you may risk taking in too much.)
Just one more word of caution. Many of the products that tout their fiber content achieve the fiber numbers by adding substances like inulin, which are considered "isolated fiber." These substances are believed by many to not carry the benefits of natural fiber like that found in products like whole grains and unaltered fruits and vegetables. So-- get your fiber from grains and produce, not from yogurt. Oh, and don't fall for the term "natural" on labels. Natural is a term that's not regulated, so it's basically meaningless. And it certainly does not have to equal "beneficial" or even "harmless." Consider that snake venom and poison mushrooms are "natural."
Update, September 15, 2011
Here's an article on health claims for some food products that have been given various additives.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-and-nutrition-pictures/6-snack-foods-that-make-health-claims.aspx#/slide-1
Update, October 14, 2011
Here is another article which says that labeling (of cereals, in this case) as "natural" is meaningless. And it mentions Kashi being bought by Kellog, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/natural-cereal_n_1011113.html
There are two things in this article that I don't agree with. First, they like Frosted Flakes for having vitamins added. I, for one, don't want vitamins added to my cereal because (1) I take a multivitamin/mineral tablet and taking in vitamins added to my cereal might mean I'm getting too much of something; and (2) I prefer the supplement tablet to vitamins and minerals added to my cereal because I can better control what I'm taking in, and there are more vitamins and minerals in my supplement tablet.
Second, cereals becoming organic might be beneficial to the environment but I don't think it would make my breakfast cereal healthier. I advocate eating things like plain old oatmeal--which can be bought cheaply, is quick to cook (maybe 1.5 min), and is as simple and healthy as it gets. Note: NO added anything, unless I choose to add something (which I do, sometimes: raisins--definitely a plus from the taste standpoint and perfectly healthy--and maybe cinnamon).
Update, October 19, 2011
Here's a quote from a comment on food which is not as healthy as the consumer might be led to believe:
The latest issue of Nutrition Action HealthLetter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has (1) an evaluation of cold cereals; and (2) an article that discusses the mechanisms in our brain whereby gratifying foods--for example those with considerable sugar or fat content, that is, "manufactured" foods--actually are addictive very much like illicit drugs.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Also, keep in mind that "multi-grain" is not a benefit unless those grains are whole. Five or six or eight or ten grains, if none of them are whole, would be less beneficial than just wheat, if that wheat is whole.
A bread store that I know of was making and selling a rather tasty bread. The ingredients list included "HFCS." What is that? you might wonder. High fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup, possibly wrongly, has gotten a bad wrap. It looks like the bread store was deliberately attempting to conceal from customers what was in its bread, especially considering that high fructose corn syrup is not usually known as "HFCS" and thus customers might not immediately recognize that ingredient from the abbreviation.
Many health-conscious food buyers believe that sugar should be avoided. So I see, as an ingredient, "evaporated cane juice," or "evaporated cane juice crystals." Anyone who knows how ordinary cane sugar is made should understand that "evaporated cane juice" is simply cane sugar—no more and no less. Someone has just tried to call it by a name that won't raise the red flag for customers that the term "sugar" would.
Besides such attempts at less-than-honest labeling of ingredients, labels contain many misleading claims. Cheerios will lower your cholesterol—if you eat it three times a day for weeks on end. I personally don't like monotony in my food and would not be able to stand eating the same cereal even once a day, every day.
And there's a yogurt that is supposed to be beneficial to your digestive tract. Again, if you heed the fine print, you've got to eat it three times a day to reap the benefit.
And many foods, like energy bars, power bars, Vitamin Water, etc., are simply useless and will not deliver the claimed benefits. Many products fortified with vitamins don't have enough of some or all of the vitamins that are in them. If you are concerned about your vitamin intake, it's much wiser to take a multivitamin pill every day. Many of those will deliver the "daily value" of most of the vitamins that they contain. (If you take a multivitamin, you may want to avoid breakfast cereals that have added vitamins; there's such a thing as too much of some vitamins, and you may risk taking in too much.)
Just one more word of caution. Many of the products that tout their fiber content achieve the fiber numbers by adding substances like inulin, which are considered "isolated fiber." These substances are believed by many to not carry the benefits of natural fiber like that found in products like whole grains and unaltered fruits and vegetables. So-- get your fiber from grains and produce, not from yogurt. Oh, and don't fall for the term "natural" on labels. Natural is a term that's not regulated, so it's basically meaningless. And it certainly does not have to equal "beneficial" or even "harmless." Consider that snake venom and poison mushrooms are "natural."
Update, September 15, 2011
Here's an article on health claims for some food products that have been given various additives.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-and-nutrition-pictures/6-snack-foods-that-make-health-claims.aspx#/slide-1
Update, October 14, 2011
Here is another article which says that labeling (of cereals, in this case) as "natural" is meaningless. And it mentions Kashi being bought by Kellog, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/natural-cereal_n_1011113.html
There are two things in this article that I don't agree with. First, they like Frosted Flakes for having vitamins added. I, for one, don't want vitamins added to my cereal because (1) I take a multivitamin/mineral tablet and taking in vitamins added to my cereal might mean I'm getting too much of something; and (2) I prefer the supplement tablet to vitamins and minerals added to my cereal because I can better control what I'm taking in, and there are more vitamins and minerals in my supplement tablet.
Second, cereals becoming organic might be beneficial to the environment but I don't think it would make my breakfast cereal healthier. I advocate eating things like plain old oatmeal--which can be bought cheaply, is quick to cook (maybe 1.5 min), and is as simple and healthy as it gets. Note: NO added anything, unless I choose to add something (which I do, sometimes: raisins--definitely a plus from the taste standpoint and perfectly healthy--and maybe cinnamon).
Update, October 19, 2011
Here's a quote from a comment on food which is not as healthy as the consumer might be led to believe:
[W]hy do we need a website to track this kind of news [about sugar]? It goes way beyond sugar. Take blueberries, for example. Food Identity Theft inspected the labels of Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Blueberry Muffin Cereal, Kellogg's Special K Blueberry Cereal, General Mill's [sic] Total Blueberry Pomegranate Cereal, Betty Crocker Blueberry Muffin Mix and Smucker's Snack 'n Waffles Blueberry. Despite their names, the site found that the only blueberries in the mix are "blueberry flavored crunchelets" (sugar and blue #2 lake food dye) and "blueberry bits" (red #40 lake and blue #2 lake food dye), among other pseudo-berry flavors. ["Lake" is a term in dyeing.]Update, April 30, 2012
The latest issue of Nutrition Action HealthLetter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has (1) an evaluation of cold cereals; and (2) an article that discusses the mechanisms in our brain whereby gratifying foods--for example those with considerable sugar or fat content, that is, "manufactured" foods--actually are addictive very much like illicit drugs.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
