Stark contrast in reactions to killings related to race/ethnicity: "Burn this B---- Down," vs. this Israeli daughter

Louis Head yelling "Burn This B---- down!" with Lesley McSpadden

Louis Head, who identifies as deceased Ferguson, Missouri 18-year-old Michael Brown's stepfather, climbed up on a pedestal wearing an "I am Michael Brown" t-shirt to comfort his partner, Lesley McSpadden, Brown's mother. The Grand Jury declined to prosecute police officer Darren Wilson, and the town was in flames before him, "Season's Greetings" spelled in lights over the street.

He becomes agitated, shouting "Burn this mother------ down!" and repeating "Burn this b---- down!" before violence erupts.

Soon thereafter, family attorney Benjamin Crump shared a podium with Rev. Al Sharpton, currently the subject of exposes in the New York Times alleging tax irregularities (at the least). The press conference was in response to viral posting of videos showing the inciteful screams by Ms. McSpadden and especially those of Mr. Head. Mr. Crump explained that the "burn this b----down" exhortation was "born out of desperation and frustration after watching the decision that the killer of an unarmed child would not be brought to justice." 

I beg to differ: Officer Wilson was 'brought to justice" by the evaluation of the Grand Jury, which determined that he should not be charged.

The reaction in Ferguson to the Grand Jury's decision was characterized this way by CNN: "A row of businesses on West Florissant Avenue, a major thoroughfare in the St. Louis suburb, was engulfed in flames Monday night. Police cars and vehicles at a nearby dealership were

Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown, reacts to Grand Jury

turned into fireballs. There were so many blazes that firefighters couldn't reach every one."

I live in Seattle, where protesters blocked the I-5 freeway, exploded a large firework in front of police, and threw cans and bottles. Roosevelt High School, ranked by US News as 351 among the nation's top high schools with a 9% black student body, experienced a student walk-out to a rally on the University of Washington campus.

In other cities, law enforcement had its hands full containing responses. The central, underlying issue is whether police target  blacks and treat them unfairly because of their race.

Halfway around the world, it is certain that Jews have been targeted and treated unfairly because of their "race." This week four worshipers in prayer at synagogue, and a policeman coming to their aid in the Har Nof suburb of Jerusalem were cruelly hacked and stabbed to death. Eight were wounded. The deceased left a total of 24 children fatherless. Thousands attended the funeral later that day of Rabbi Moshe Twersky; his eldest son said his only consolation was that his father died in prayer.

Posted by many of my friends on Facebook is a link to an ad-hoc video by Michal Levine, the daughter of slain Rabbi Kalman Zeev Levine, in which she reacts to losing her father just a few

Michal Levine, reflecting on the murder of her father

days ago. In calm, deliberate words, she explains that her father would want his death to bring greater unity, and inspire others to see the good in what they have. She concludes movingly:

“He died because he was a Jew, without harming anyone, and it’s painful, but yet, every person we still see as good. We leave his physical body with pain, but not with any anger with anyone. And that is the message we want to be known.”

I've heard some say the reaction to the Ferguson Grand Jury announcement is really not about that one case, but anger rooted in persecution since and including slavery. President Obama claims anger "is understandable" here, but shouldn't be cause for violence or destruction. To be fair, Michael Brown's father, quoted in Pres. Obama's remarks before the Grand Jury announcement last night, is measured: "“Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.”

Excellent, but then we see the footage of Lesley McSpadden and Louis Head actually reacting after the decision is delivered. Ms. McSpadden visually contradicts her former partner's admonition by wearing a knit cap displaying "#JFMS," for "justice for my son." (The fashionably inclined can select from five t-shirt offerings on the craft-site Etsy alone, most with a "hands up, Don't Shoot" logo.)

By contrast, the footage shown after the massacre in the Jerusalem synagogue featured

Reuters photo of Palestinians celebrating Har Nof massacre with sweets

Arabs in Gaza celebrating by sharing sweets, as well as blood-spattered Jewish ritual items. We can't judge much based on what the press chooses to show us, and I consider the Ferguson announcement an epic fail by our own government, who should have summoned media to discuss and thereby diffuse feelings about the Michael Brown case in the three months since it occurred. Perhaps if instead of a huge drum-roll in the several days before the announcement, we'd heard more about the info that led to the dismissal--to prepare everyone--there would have been less expectation of violence to fulfill.

Case in point: my local talk station yesterday at every commercial break used their most deep-voiced announcer (the one whose inflections imply gravity) to assure listeners that when the announcement comes, they'd suspend all programming to carry it live. The question arises: do news-sites cover or create a national climate?  Then again, do we expect news gatherers competing for ratings to hold back from exploiting an opportunity to enlarge a big story? Even in the interest of minimizing possible injury and destruction?

But you can't blame individuals' behavior choices on media. And you can't excuse Head and McSpadden's profanity-laced incitement by saying they were upset.

People can end up doing really destructive things when they're pumped up, like Becca Campbell, 26 of St. Louis, who brandished a pistol in the car while her boyfriend drove. "I'm ready for Ferguson," she said, waving the gun so wildly her boyfriend rear-ended another car. The gun went off, shooting her in the head and killing her.

Each person is responsible for his own actions, and the Grand Jury determined that was the case for Michael Brown, too. If he'd complied when Officer Wilson asked him to walk on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the street, he'd likely be alive, though probably prosecuted for the convenience store robbery.

Not so for the four slain worshipers in Jerusalem, whose behavior was not what caused their demise. And yet, the response from resident Jews surrounded by potential enemies is one of grief grounded in serenity, confidence in One grander and more just.

So here we have two stories of race-ethnicity with similar sad events but very different responses. "Burning the b---- down" solves nothing and salves little, while withholding anger in favor of communication and trust in God allows life to go on.

A Near-Miss Accident on the Freeway; and a Coincidental Psalm

This is NOT the crashed car from my story (just found it online)

I just heard my husband speak on his radio show  to his millions of listeners about a near-miss accident we experienced last night that left us quaking from shock and immediately grateful to God.

We were traveling on the freeway to meet out daughter for dinner at our local kosher Chinese restaurant when out of nowhere, a sports car speeds up from behind in the lane on our right, inserts itself in the space between us and the car ahead of us, keeps on veering left into the next lane over--that was occupied by a car that threw on its brakes. He swerves back in front of us and through to the right, and starts spinning just in front of a large semi-trailer truck that slammed on its brakes. The sports car kept on spinning, out of control, crossing a further-right exit lane and then into the concrete wall. Miraculously, he did not strike a car, nor did a car strike him, and though he'd crashed into the wall, the sports car stopped upright and appeared damaged on only one side at the rear.

This was a near-miss on at least five counts; about four seconds that felt like slow-motion eternity, watching the sports car place itself dangerously close to three fast-moving vehicles (ourselves twice) and twirl around so many times to the squeal of tires and brakes.

The first thought is to thank God for sparing us--and the others who might have had impacts. It was dark and impossible to see, but if the offending driver wore a seat belt, it was likely even he was safe. Then again, would someone taking such reckless chances wear a seat belt? We were on the freeway and could not know the outcome.

The incident has entered my thoughts often today--and even more given a most peculiar coincidence. I happen to subscribe to a Psalm-a-day group of 200 women who hope to uplift ourselves and our families. Today in my email in-box was Psalm 107, "describing people rescued from a life-threatening situation." The commentary lays out the types of situations that require special thanks to God for His providence, and concludes with the following:
 

"The refrain that repeats itself numerous times throughout this chapter admonishes people who have experienced salvation, 'They shall give thanks to God for His kindness, and speak of His wonders to people.' ...One who has been rescued from trouble is thus obliged to not only express his gratitude, but to do so in a public fashion, thereby helping to glorify God throughout the world."

 

A meaningful coincidence after my husband's on-air story, the way I see it. By the way, the Psalm begins with a phrase common in Jewish liturgy. Phonetically in Hebrew, it's  "Hodu Adonoy, ki tov, ki l'olam chasdo," a sentiment appropriate as we approach Thanksgiving: "Give thanks to God who is good, for His kindness endures forever."

Eeww--A bug bites while you sleep, and its poop gives you parasites

 You may know that recently I wrote about a debilitating mosquito-borne disease sweeping the Americas that leaves a fifth of its victims with ongoing joint dysfunction. Chikingunya has affected 500,000 Dominicans and thousands of others in the Caribbean, and made it to Florida this summer. The virus swept through my handy-man's family and friends in El Salvador, and seeing his distress has caused us all pain.

I got a response to my post from my new daughter-in-law who's in nursing school: "Did you hear about the other disease that's spreading around the US, caused by insects that bite your face while you sleep??"

Bite your face while you sleep? Get ready: "Chagas" is even worse than chikingunya (though easier to pronounce).

Blood-suckers called "kissing [or 'assassin'] bugs" (triatomine) take their snack and leave their parasite-infested poop as a souvenir. Unknowingly, you touch it and spread it into your own system by nudging a bit into the puncture, or touching your eye or mouth. 

Then, you've got it for life--and maybe death.

There are two phases of infection. In the first, "acute" phase, you might get symptoms that could be identified as something else: "fever, fatigue, body aches, headache, rash, loss of appetite, diarrhea, and vomiting," says RT news. Swelling around the eye near the infection site ("Romana's sign)  is another clue to chagas. The Centers for Disease Control adds, "Rarely, acute infection may result in severe inflammation of the heart muscle or the brain and lining around the brain." Or, this first phase could produce no symptoms at all.

"Megacolon" caused by Chagas

It's the second phase that can be especially deadly, and it can happen over a period of years or decades. According to Baylor College of Medicine researcher Melissa Nolan Garcia, 41% of Texas blood donors who tested positive for the parasite (and that was 1 per 6,500 blood donors) had "cardiomyopathy," which includes a host of heart problems that can lead to death. Also common are gastrointestinal problems (megadisease) that can make esophagus, stomach or colon--enormous.

 As if that's not bad enough, no treatments eliminate the parasites. A couple of drugs (benznidazole [Rochagan, Ragonil] and nifurtimox [Lampit]) are often used, but their effectiveness is hit-or-miss and the only place you can get them in the US is from the Centers for Disease Control. I've seen comments that baking soda on the bite, and consumed in water, is helpful, but anecdotal reports won't cut it. Unfortunately, a pregnant woman can pass the parasite to her baby. Most people living with T. cruzi don't even know it--or what it's doing to them. And yet world-wide, ten million people are living with it!

So far, the CDC says "kissing bugs" inhabit only the southern United States, and those suffering with chagas further north contracted it through travel from infected regions.

 Given its designation as a "silent killer" because victims can be asymptomatic until their conditions are dire, I certainly hope this scourge receives more attention. It's the opposite of Sleeping Beauty, whose princely kiss revives her from a deathly rest--a bug that brings ultimate death by its night-time kiss while you sleep. People are getting so scared that Snopes took it on and reported it's true--there's indeed something to fear. Sweet dreams!

Positive Thinking--a fraud or a solution?

I'm a psychologist who loves positive thinking. I was raised with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking." I'm a fan of Martin Seligman's "learned optimism" approach, that uses cognitive therapy to turn around negative thinking that can inhibit performance and well-being. Dr. Seligman's "Positive Psychology" modality expanded the focus of psychology from pathology and pain, to the complete spectrum of emotions, from ecstatic to inconsolable.

So the article in the NY Times last week by psychologist Gabriele Oettingen headlined "The Problem with Positive Thinking," grabbed my interest. Over two decades, the writer conducted scads of studies showing that focusing on happy outcomes doesn't help them happen. She instead advocates "mental contrasting," by which individuals employ her "WOOP" technique to transform a Wish to a concrete Outcome, consider Obstacles in the way, and Plan means to overcome them.

Basically, she came up with a structure, a crutch, for deciding what to pursue, and to find the best way to achieve it. Very nice.

I haven't yet read Dr. Oettingen's new book, "Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation," so I'm really just going on what she wrote in her Times article and website, but it seems that she's confirmed the obvious: the more you do to make your desires practical and attainable, the more likely you are to actually attain them. (And the reverse--the more you realize what's unattainable, the more you'll eschew it.)

Does this negate the usefulness of Positive Thinking? Only if you define it as wishful dreaming, not as, well, confidence in a worked-out plan. Also, you've got to look at the goal--WOOP can help people reach tangible or measurable benchmarks. But it may be less helpful toward a goal of increasing well-being and becoming a happier person. Or enjoying life.

As an example, I'm going to present the case of someone I know; someone who was my close friend in high school. I was often frustrated when around her, and finally realized it was because of a personality trait I called "contrary-ness." Jen was not just a pessimist, but one who contradicted anyone else's optimism. If I said something upbeat, she'd tell me why I was wrong--subtly and cleverly. For Jen, in every silver lining, she'd see a cloud. It took me a long time to understand why, after a few hours with her, I always felt deflated, but with analysis that uncannily portended my future profession, I dissected our interchanges.

"What a gorgeous, sunshine-y day!" I'd exclaim upon emerging from class with Jen.
"The forecast is for rain tomorrow," she'd respond.

"You look great in that color," I'd chirp.
"Good, because when I weighed myself this morning, I'd gained five pounds."

"You got 98 on that test, and I only got 90," I'd remark.
"I should have gotten 100," she'd retort.

Some people don't even realize they're contrary. They're just raised to think that way. Or maybe it's their innate temperament, instilled genetically. I'll not forget the studies by Thomas, Chess and Birch on babies' innate temperaments, something researchers have now found are stable through childhood.

I'm not sure how Jen became contrary, but given who she was, how might she employ WOOT to overcome it?

Wish: "I wish I were happier."
Outcome desired: "For things to go my way." (Jen thought circumstances conspired against her.)
What are the obstacles to that? Given the examples above, Jen would say that the obstacles to what she preferred (rain, weighing less and perfect test score) were an unpredictable climate, a bad metabolism, and an overly-demanding teacher.
Jen's Plan: Stay inside, reading. Diet constantly. Complain to the teacher.

Do these three actions enhance Jen's goal of feeling happier?  YES. They increase her sense of control. Feeling in control improves her mood.

But is triumphing over the teacher, eschewing the outdoors and losing weight through dieting anything more than momentary success? Is a feeling of power in a situation happiness?

No, because there's a bigger obstacle to happiness for Jen and the many people I've observed who are generally negative: They want it that way. Remember, Jen is a contrarian.

Contrarians are most comfortable when they can be victims. Their underlying belief system dictates that they're NOT in control; that nefarious or just unfortunate circumstances are their lot in life, and that their lousy lot is what they deserve.

Now we come to the reason Dr. Spencer Johnson has earned millions of dollars and sold 26 million copies of "Who Moved My Cheese." This is a slim volume that tells the parable of two mice and two people in a maze, and the contrast between the Jen-types who remain stuck in the same place, and the natural WOOT-er, the "glass is half-full" personality who embraces what comes his way. The moral is to anticipate change and think about it positively. You've got to be the one who goes after new cheese, makes lemonade from lemons, or keeps digging to find the pony in the room full of poop.

Among personalities, there's a continuum of course, but with a bi-modal distribution. On the attitudinal graph of life, there are two bell curves, one hill for the positive thinkers, and another for the negatives. I hope you enjoy my hand-drawn representation, above.

When I was in graduate school at UCLA, a Public Health professor named Linda Beckman (who was on my doctoral dissertation committee) did a study comparing the happiness levels of older women who had no children with those who were mothers. I've been quoting this study for decades because it illustrates how crucial a positive attitude is in evaluating one's entire lifetime. The women surveyed all experienced adulthood before the women's movement, when motherhood largely defined women's identities. You'd think that parenthood or lack of children would determine those women's happiness with their lives, but another factor was much more important: attitude.

The women who had a positive attitude spoke glowingly about their children, or, if infertile, about the many opportunities they enjoyed and their fulfilling relationships with others' children. The contrarians blamed their children for their troubled lives, or, if infertile, blamed their lack of children for their unhappiness. Viewing the world through rose-colored glasses lets everything come up roses.

Positive thinking and Dr. Oettingen's WOOP process needn't be mutually exclusive, despite the title of her article. There's no "problem with positive thinking" unless the positive thinking has no basis. If seated in rationality and reality, positive thinking shapes your wishes, outcomes and plans to be bigger and better. With positive thinking, the obstacles may be there, but they become more surmountable.  Positive thinkers are the mice who move and adapt when the cheese moves, because they don't put their own obstacles in their paths and they're looking forward rather than backward.

Fantasizing on happy outcomes alone, as Dr. Oettingen asserts, won't motivate. As she notes, "positive thinking fools our minds into perceiving that we've already attained our goal, slackening our readiness to pursue it." But combined with WOOP-like analysis, positive thinking is motivating.

 I submit that two people with the same goals, same obstacles and same plans to overcome them are likely to have different outcomes if one's a contrarian or pessimist, and the other a confident optimist. Even if they seem to achieve the same thing on paper, one will end up happier about both the accomplishment and the process achieving it.

But there's another aspect to positive thinking that Dr. Oettingen seems to miss. And that is the moment. If you're an upbeat person, the moment is more often a pleasure, because you're seeing the good in it, the upside. Enjoying the present has its own worth. Maybe savoring the omelet you've made, talking on the phone to a loved one, or reminiscing over a photo album don't help you accomplish a specific goal or wish, but they can still enhance the quality of life, and weave positive feelings into the daily fabric. WOOP is helpful for accomplishing goals, I'm sure, but must every behavior advance a goal? Can an unplanned pleasure be productive?

Positive thinking as the overlay on life makes the classically productive parts--setting objectives, analyzing obstacles, making and executing a plan toward goals--as well as the less-defined parts pleasurable. Happiness, I maintain, is far broader than concrete achievements, and relates more to over-arching attitude than to the goal-driven motivational structure of "mental contrasting" that seems to fuel Dr. Oettingen's definition of success.

Feeling guilty surfing the web? Or is it okay to waste time?

You may not have noticed, but I haven't been posting much. Not that my brain has stopped, but there's a distance between coming up with a great idea and taking the time to write it. Especially when you feel that blogging is wasting time.

When I was a kid, my stay-at-home mom was very busy. Our house was always clean; she prepared a fresh dinner, complete with some kind of meat, vegetables, fruit and salad, every night, and we ate together as a family. My mom was painfully shy, so she didn't involve herself in many social organizations or spend time out with friends. My dad was her best (and almost only) friend, and we three kids her life, and so I  thought cruelly she "wasn't doing anything." In other words, wasting time.

When Los Angeles property taxes soared through the roof, our family was in danger of losing ours, since my dad's salary working in the state unemployment office just didn't cover it. This was before Prop 13, which rolled back taxes to 1975 levels and only allowed 2% increases if you stayed in the same home. Once enacted, property tax rates dropped 57%. Until 1978, though, my parents thought there were only two alternatives: sell the house we'd lived in since 1952, or my mom should get a job.

Working as a secretary for a wealthy businessman suddenly meant she was "doing something," bringing in money. I don't think she really liked dictation, filing and typing for the elderly gentleman, though she'd certainly worked as a secretary for many years before her children came along. But the real question arising from this story is: What activities constitute "doing something" with your time? Is vacuuming when next week it's just as dirty worthwhile?

If you don't "monetize" time to its potential, are you wasting time? Or is time enjoyed and savored a good enough outcome? Should pleasure be a byproduct rather than pursued?
 

All such conflicts boil down to an underlying tension in our culture between two opposing definitions of "right" and "good:" "Do your duty" versus "follow your heart."

Doing one's duty usually means first honoring principles, a set of rules you've accepted, or a contract you've made, all intangibles. You don't want to leave your cozy bed to go to class; so you choose somnolence or honor your matriculation. You don't want to face the project at work today, but it's your job, your commitment. You don't want to loan money to your destitute sister, but your moral code dictates that you help your family.

Conversely, "following your heart" means first honoring emotions or physical desires. You're comfy sleeping, so skip your early meeting. That co-worker is alluring, so you ignore that she's married. You think you'll be rejected, so pass up the job you could plausibly win if you'd just jump through the hoops. You hate paying the bills, so go eat a bag of Cheetos.

It's possible to simultaneously do your duty and follow your heart. When I observe my religious commandments hosting a Shabbat lunch, my heart thrills to gather interesting people enjoying my food. My two daughters are teachers, defined as chronically fatigued individuals with an indefatigable desire to improve the minds and lives of their charges.

 Most jobs and activities fit somewhere on the continuum between the opposing "doing your duty" and "following your heart." My husband loves hosting his radio show. But reading 5 newspapers every day hangs over him like an avalanche poised to bury him. He loves speaking to audiences who ponder arguments. But he hates traveling to get there.

The Jewish term for "following your heart" is to succumb to the "negative inclination, (yatzer ha ra)" the desire to eschew religious precepts for one's desires. It's the classic conflict between heaven and earth, spiritual and physical. "Do what you ought, not what you want." Why can't you "want" what you "ought"? The answer lies in setting priorities. When "ought" and "want" collide, the mature person forgoes pleasure for duty. When they can harmonize, both are lovely and shouldn't cause guilt.

Must get back to my project. Time's a wasting...(aarrgggghh!)
 

"Food Stampers are Fat and Ignorant, So They Need Another $31 Million Government Program."

Somebody said "Do something" about the 47,636,000 people receiving government food stamps. They're too fat because they buy sodas and junk food, and don't have the knowledge or access to fresh produce in order to change. Voila: another big government program.

The press release today from the US Department of Agriculture is basically a call for organizations to apply for their slice of a $31,500,000 pie--make that broccoli pie. The government wants to fund programs to lure these food stamp (now called SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients to veggies.

It seems the Feds keep trying to change poor peoples' SNAP decisions.

This comes after recent reports that Americans are already health-ifying their snacks--though Pop-Tarts remain their most beloved grab-n-go.
 
The implication is that SNAP-sters are fatter than other groups, and that they stay that way because they buy junk food instead of produce. It's not their faults--they're ignorant and can't find produce to buy in their "food desert" neighborhoods, now renamed "Promise Zones." All they need is "incentives" to buy lettuce and squash, and they'll slim down, get healthier and thereby save taxpayer money on healthcare in the end. This is speculation without research basis, of course.

Nevertheless, over the years, the government has spent millions and millions of dollars in hopes of saving...well, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack boldly asserts it's "billions." This round, the funds come via the 2014 Farm Bill: "The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers."

After the platitudinous self-congratulations, Secretary Vilsack laments, "Too many struggling families do not have adequate access to nutritious food. Helping families purchase more fresh produce is clearly good for families' health, helps contribute to lower health costs for the country, and increases local food sales for family farmers." Good for taxpayers? Not so much. SNAP cost them--us--nearly $80 billion (with a B) in 2013 alone. That doesn't count this new $31 million, of course.

While pushing produce, the government's proposal evokes anothe

r food: alphabet soup. The money's a carrot-on-a-stick for groups to start ever more bureaucratically-overseen programs (each one with an external evaluator and internal evaluation), under the auspices of FINI, the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program: "FINI is a joint effort between NIFA [National Institute of Food and Agriculture] and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees SNAP... Funding for the FINI program is authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Are you confused yet? If so, there's a webinar Oct. 2 to explain.


It's condescending to assume that SNAP-sters buy junk because they don't know better, and need an "incentive" to buy veggies. Good health, it seems, is not enough.

I doubt there's any American child or adult who attended school who escaped learning about nutrition. It's true that if consumers steep themselves in media, they may be bombarded by ads for sweets--as well as admonishing doctors and commercials for "healthy" and "nutritious" ingredients.

Even McDonald's touts fresh apple slices for kids. And this week, the chain cleverly provided lines of would-be purchasers of the new Apple iPhone 6 freebie fruit (or apple pies).

I think there's money to be made in a device grocers install near various types of products to "incentivize" purchases. When a shopper's hand reaches for soft drinks, cookies or sugary cereals, it's zapped with low-dose current. When his hand approaches zucchini, plums or avocados, he gets a puff of happy pheromones.

Hmm, maybe I ought to apply for a grant. After all, the USDA seeks programs that "Test innovative or promising strategies that would contribute to our understanding of how best to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by SNAP participants..." 

I realize my idea, while meeting the criterion, is a tough sell. Unfortunately, those eeevil grocers are in cahoots with the nefarious processed foods industry, and want you to buy items with the most profit for them--so while they say they support SNAPping up celery, they prefer carts filled with Mallomars and ice cream.


Ummmm, no. Could it be that SNAP recipients' higher rates of obesity and related diabetes have a more complex cause? Could faulty assumptions about the causes of obesity and poverty underlie this $31 million program to make produce appealing to the poor? There's a lot of money resting on those assumptions; perhaps they should be proven sound first.

The Pop-ularity of Pop-Tarts

Strawberry Pop-Tarts!

Much has been made of the drop in sales of unhealthy foods. We're a health-conscious nation now, eager for our chia seeds, kale and gluten-free bread. No longer do we super-size our sodas;  McDonalds serves kids apple slices (and now Go-Gurt Strawberry yogurt) instead of fries, and The Department of Agriculture is instituting Michelle Obama's pet mandate to increase whole-grains, fruits and veggies, and fat-free milk in school lunches.

So, with all this healthy food propaganda, why have sales of Pop-Tarts--the quintessentially sugary, processed snack food--increased every year for the last 32? Why are Pop-Tarts, available currently in 32 flavors (I counted), the best selling Kelloggs product ever? Do you know that flavor is Pop-Tarts' "Spookilicious"? (It's chocolate fudge. Buried in the ingredients is cocoa.) Have you tried the "Limited Edition Red Velvet" flavor yet?

Then there's the study that just came out saying eating fat is good for you, and eating carbs is not. At the same time, sugar arch-enemy Robert Lustig warns that sweets are the gateway to obesity and a myriad of ills--pushed literally down our throats by a nefarious food industry.

In the midst of this media food-guilt bombardment, Pop-Tarts rule. They have everything wrong with them, and everything right. First, the wrong: processed to perfection, the Frosted Cherry Pop-Tarts (random example) contain high fructose corn syrup, soy bean and palm oil (saturated), and sugar. To be accurate, the first ingredient listed is flour (for gluten fans), then corn syrup, then high-fructose corn syrup, then dextrose, then the oils, sugar and--who knew?--cracker meal. Down the list are dried cherries and, in another surprise, dried apples.

Now the "everything right" with Pop-Tarts: Easy, quick, nostalgic and taste good. These trump experts' warnings when you're in a morning rush. And your kids are.

Speaking of apples, I came across an interesting product that most people wouldn't realize coats the cut-up fruits and vegetables sold in schools and restaurants. It's called NatureSeal. This product is an undisclosed "generally recognized as safe" proprietary blend of "vitamins and minerals" that food sellers use to coat food slices and pieces so they won't discolor. This compound comes as a powder, gets made into a dip or spray and then, once the food is encased, allows it to look great for "up to 21 days." Your 21-day-old avocado slices won't turn brown and the skin won't curl. You might think the avocado on your sandwich is fresh; that's debatable.

NatureSeal has a formula for dried fruit used for processing, "especially beneficial on dried apple rings and pieces." You know--the ingredient in Frosted Cherry Pop-Tarts. I don't recall ever seeing NatureSeal listed as an ingredient in anything, including McDonalds' kids' meals with apple slices.

Mmmm! a healthy tray of NatureSeal, shown on its website.

When you buy that fruit platter or veggie-and-dip array for your party or meeting, you might be enjoying a hearty serving of NatureSeal, who cheerily tells grocers and food retailers, "Extending the shelf-life of your fresh-cut produce can significantly reduce your shrink.
Whether it's your salad bar or pre-made, grab & go items, NatureSeal has the solution." Indeed, a solution that saturates every bite of your oh-so-healthy, perfectly preserved ready-to-eat fruits and vegetables.

Back to Pop-Tarts. My parents never bought them, they look too cloyingly sweet to me, (and they contain beef gelatin--surprise!--so they're not kosher) but when you look at sales growth of food items, they're a never-dying phenomenon, racking up $187 million in sales last year.

The message? Americans will eat what they please, thank you. They may cave to know-it-all experts some of the time; they may buy some quinoa and kale, but by-golly, they're not Pop-Tart averse.

Second message: marketers will do what they have to in order to capitalize on food fads, like dousing easy-to-eat fresh fruits and veggies with a chemical mix. The "vitamins and minerals" that comprise NatureSeal are chemicals, too. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if organic produce when cut for sale also comes dunked in NatureSeal dip.

Is it a good thing that Americans eat veggies and fruits, no matter how they're sealed for presentation?  Is it a bad thing that Pop-Tarts are so pop-ular? Well, I always go back to the same basic truth: If people just tuned out all the noise and turned inward to listen only to their bodily requirements for what and how much to eat, maybe food could become the fuel for accomplishment rather than a distraction from important tasks and connections between people.

Evil Attacks our Sensitivities--and therefore America--one Internet Click at at Time

What's evil? Evil is tearing down instead of building, killing rather than nurturing, destroying rather than enhancing, and it's thrust in our faces online every day, in a clever strategy to destroy our nation's strength.

I'd never heard of Web Trolls before reading this article in the New York Times describing "agitators who pop up, often anonymously, sometimes in mobs, in comment threads and on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, apparently intent on wreaking havoc." The writer, Farhad Manjoo, notes "The term is vague precisely because trolls lurk in darkness; their aims are unclear, their intentions unknown, their affiliations mysterious."

They harass, insult, provide graphically horrific images and demean, in comments on all sorts of websites and social media. The article describes Zelda Williams, daughter of suicide-victim Robin Williams, quitting Twitter after trolls posted vile epithets and gruesomely-altered images of her father. Gawker subsidiary Jezebel played "whac-a-mole with a sociopathic Hydra" trying to clear their site of sickening graphics trolls emblazoned with the site logo.

People speculate about Internet Trolls. Some say these are lonely people, seeking the attention available to them under anonymous conditions, on a powerful platform. I don't think it's solely mean-spirited individuals, though certainly these people are out there. I scoff at conspiracies, but think it worthwhile to look at this phenomenon on a broader scale, considering trolls' cumulative damage. 

Everyone's heard of corporate espionage, undercover sabotage and political dirty tricks. But these personal assaults and visual affronts are deeper, and worse. Here's why:

Our nation's strength, the factor that sets us apart from all others, is America's founding based on religious ideals. God's Hand on America is consistently discernible, and in fact, my husband is completing a book that details the many awe-inspiring historical incidents that can only reveal God's intervention. Americans, the vast majority religiously connected, are civil, kind, idealistic, altruistic and eschew corruption. Our nation reveres our and others' freedoms to the point where detractors use the term "imperialistic" as an accusation. 

These biblically-mandated values are so central to American national identity that many credit our strength and power directly to our larger allegiance to God, and more specifically, our Judeo-Christian orientation.

Nations or movements that seek our harm or demise realize they can weaken us by undermining our values, morals and civility. Trolls make America vulnerable by disintegrating our standards.

Trolls place before our eyes images of gore, cruelty and torture to desensitize us, making us just like them. They take advantage of an open minded culture loathe to censor and restrict--so we end up absorbing and abetting these offensive and shocking images. In the name of free expression, insults, rudeness, crass terms and snarkiness mushroom on the web, and with each view tangibly damage America's spirit.

We are growing less shame-able and shock-able every day we confront trolls' postings, every time we allow these disgusting images and insults to appear unchallenged.

The goodness and decency that encourages God's continued protection and guidance are eroded by these real, though amorphous forces of evil. It's important to scrub them, talk about them, combat them vocally and stridently. If not, we just succumb to their clever scheme to bring down America, one click at a time.

Do We Need to End Inequality? For People? For Nations?

Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant wants to end inequality

The buzz word "inequality" has weirdly become a rallying cry for the far left in America.

Our nation embraces equality, as in "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Both political parties love that phrase. The issue is whether all men and women should remain equal, and further, whether it's within government's scope to assure such.

Minimum wage debates express the notion that free markets don't adequately offer fair compensation; that the government must therefore make laws requiring a floor salary for every and any type of work. Each state has its own minimum wage.

Now, we've extended that to make the floor salary a federal minimum, rather than a state issue that can respond to local circumstances. Somehow, Pres. Obama believes that $10.10 per hour provides a comparable "living wage" in both New York City and Memphis, Tennessee.

This is a huge debate, one we in Seattle endured en route to the newly voter-approved $15 minimum wage, successfully championed by socialist City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant.

The trendy term "inequality" assumes socialistic underpinnings--but rather than delve into them, I'd like you to think about inequality in the shockingly novel way it's now being internationally applied.

If we should strive for all citizens within our country to have financial "equality" or at least a comparable level of comfort in life, what about nations? Do all countries deserve equality, too? Given that the U.S. has so much, should people in another nation suffer just because it has a corrupt government and a culture of bribery and cruelty?

Apparently the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala don't think so. With 57,000 unaccompanied children since October sent to the U.S. with coyotes (smugglers) by their fearful and hopeful parents, leaders of their home countries say our plenty and opportunity are to blame.

Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that conniving coyotes “peddle a mistake…a totally wrong interpretation [of opportunity to stay in the U.S.] to the parents of these children saying 'You can get your kids into the U.S., we can do it for you.'”  The lure is our safety and economic opportunity--which we unfairly enjoy while they suffer.

Honduras Pres. Hernandez blames U.S. for child immigrant influx

"We will not be able to solve this problem unless we go to the root, and this requires an integral task, one that is based on the principle of shared responsibility," Hernandez declared. "The U.S.A. is responsible, and we are responsible, and we facing up to our responsibility.” The implication being that we, the United States, are not.

If only there were equality among nations, Central American parents fearful of violent gangs wouldn't have to send their offspring far away, alone. If only they could go to school, choose college, and have a chance for good jobs or to start businesses, their people would keep their progeny at home. We have all these things in the U.S., and they don't. We must therefore "share responsibility" for the influx of people who risk all, including their lives, for freedom.

Our nation has been blessed by God, but also blessed in the self-selecting populations who came across oceans because they had the courage to face even greater uncertainty and danger for the chance of a better life, spiritually or economically. The personality traits of such people, I believe, shaped our country's success. Our nation's founding populations rooted their entrepreneurial efforts in biblical values and ethics, which underpinned both law and behavior.

Are the governments and populations of Central American countries behaving in their own lands similarly to the builders and continued leaders of the United States?  If you believe in "shared responsibility" and want to stop inequality internationally, it doesn't matter. One nation is "as good as" another, and the successful owe the chaotic some of what they've built to "even the playing field" and "spread the wealth."

Does this relative morality sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? The problems for these countries are complex, but a deeply-rooted system of corruption, and citizens so adapted to it that they perpetrate it so as to at least reap some advantage from it, dominates the list. The proliferation of drug thugs and gangs' power apparently arose over the past two decades, but devastating civil wars with war lords intermittently assuming power, made survival the priority rather than adherence to standards of ethics. Whatever analysis you choose, not all countries are, or deserve to be equal.

Those individuals or nations who place honorable values above personal gain are the sources of freedom, order and opportunity that attract and deserve support. I would have liked to hear the Central American presidents address these underlying issues rather than insisting that the United States, object of desperate desire for so many immigrants, is at fault and owes them redress.

Gut-wrenching Headlines: Too Much Anguish

Life seems pretty OK til you read the newspaper.

NY Times photo of Gaza children escaping bombing. Note English on clothes, Adidas pants

Because my husband has to talk about current events and pop culture on the radio for three hours each weekday, we get four major newspapers every morning.

Trouble is, I read them.

Newspaper content has changed over the years, and now, sitting down with my mocha and the day's headlines has become a disheartening, depressing experience.

In more civilized days (say, 30 years ago), papers never showed dead bodies. They never invaded the most personal emotional moments of victims and loved ones and horrified passers-by. Journalists reported stories with "the five w's" in the lede, just the facts: what, when, who, where and why.

Now we see splayed bodies of children, twisted in the mud. We watch contorted faces of the truly horrified, mortally wounded, devastated and crumpled. Images that would be withheld from children a few decades ago are now strewn carelessly on the sofa.

Perhaps because I was one of those sheltered children, I now recoil in agony when I flip through the pages of the paper. "Planes Bearing Bodies Reach Netherlands," blares a Wall Street Journal headline stretching the width of the page--across six columns. Above that are photos: "Relatives of the victims of Flight 17 wait for hearses carrying remains..." reads the caption. Do I want to witness the soul-ripping pain these people feel? How do you get these images out of your brain, once they've penetrated?

Next page, same section: "Hospital Attack Catches Civilians in Crossfire," says the headline over a photo of a lifeless young man. The pictures show Gazans, including many children, either dead or terrified. Is this propaganda? If so, as a psychologist who understands that emotion trumps logic--and that visuals trigger emotions best--I am shocked at the message, as well as its frequency.

Is such astounding coverage required by "the public's need to know?" Words with less graphic images could as efficiently convey the facts. Are photos now mandatory because cameras are ubiquitous and intimate intrusions possible? Is it because an abundance of news outlets compete for our attention, and the most outrageous are most likely to win?

All these may be true, but it seems no one considers the impact of so much in-your-face anguish, mayhem and gore. It desensitizes all who see it, and especially everyone watching it repeatedly, every hour, on a variety of outlets, so that death becomes just inert forms, mourning is what far-away people do, and we perceive the world as a place of continual peril.

Those who would be violent are encouraged by the notion they're just another in the flow of anger and aggression visible everywhere. Or by the idea that a spectacular attack will gain them the fame they could never earn in normal life.

Yes, I could throw away the news sections of all my periodicals, but that's hardly shelter from awareness. As my husband and I wrote in our book Saving Childhood: asking someone to avoid media is like asking him to stop breathing.  Media messages are all around us, transported in the very air we consume.

The degeneration of standards of respect for suffering bothers me. Do these wailing widows want others observing their intensely nightmarish moments? Does being in a newsworthy setting automatically grant every journalist approval to distribute expressions of searing pain, penetrating loss and paralyzing fear around the world on instant video?

Too much information. Too much agony. I'm very sensitive; I refuse to go to movies with violence, suspense or slapstick, because I identify too much with what I see. I ache for the people portrayed in those news photos; I can't just put down the newspaper, take another swig of mocha and move on.

Yet I also can't repair the victims of genital mutilation in Iraq, or protect the Gaza "civilians used as shields" at Hamas weapons stashes. I can't fathom the horror of bodies and debris from Malaysian Flight 17, nor stop Boko Haram from taking Nigerian towns or schoolgirls. Each of these situations is appalling, and I am powerless. Am I somehow better off for knowing about them? My heart feels weighted by these realities. I can pray, but can't truly comprehend.

Nigerian mother holds photo of daughter, 17, kidnapped by Boko Haram (The Guardian)

My plea for greater sensitivity in journalism, I realize, is useless. The news business always relied on shock value, but having so many outlets requires ever-increasing extremes to produce reader/viewer response. So the prospect of uplifting the baseline of printed/broadcast decency is poor. Still, discussing standards reminds us that we can avert our eyes, and judge what ends up before them anyway.

So I savor the Science, Style, Cooking and Arts sections, and get most of my news from talk radio, where the host I prefer couches his descriptions in language my sensitive ears and tender heart can tolerate. My children see this, and learn it, and sometimes even protect me from encountering the gory and gruesome. That's probably the best any parent can do--prepare children to fend off and push back, so as to preserve personal compassion and gentleness in an increasingly frightening world.