I just watched yet another documentary in a stream of documentaries that seem to say a lot of the same thing.
We are fat.
And it's the organizations fault.
That's just grand isn't it? Now that so many people know that the government and "Big Food" are out to kill their consumer base, everything should be quick and easy to fix right?
Yeah. No.
Here's the thing. I think pointing fingers does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The science is there. A lot of science actually. More science than a McDonald's filled with big macs. We know that convenient food in all it's form (not just fast food) is slowly killing us. I did enjoy the picturesque comparison that the documentary made of how soda is the new cigarette. That's pretty on the nose when you consider how quickly sugar is absorbed and consumed from a single can; not to mention the dissolving effect carbon has on bones.
This is not new knowledge though.
It hasn't been new for decades, if you're to believe the research of the documentary "Fed Up."
So why has nothing changed?
I have a few theories.
The first being that the arguments used today are exactly the same arguments people with interests made back in the early days of America when we wrote the Constitution. Back then, there were strong arguments for the abolishing of slavery in the new United States of America, but that obviously didn't happen until much later. Why? What people may not remember, is that a big argument used to keep slavery was that it would put too big a strain on the new economy that was still recovering from the Revolutionary War.
Similarly, the food industry is using the economy, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice to keep it's doors open. Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn't you be terrified if you were told that the cow that has given you milk to sell for decades was giving bad milk? You would do everything you could to argue for your livelihood and to keep the status quo of what you know has been working all along. Even if someone told you to trade for a new, healthier cow to save your consumers, you'd hesitate to do so wouldn't you? Especially if you hadn't tasted any success or seen any evidence of this new cows ability to support you.
Needless to say. I don't like painting businesses as bad guys. It's not the people so much as it is the nature of business itself. They do what they have to do in order to continue existing. That's it.
The government on the other hand has tried several times to fix the issue. The problem is people don't like given the government too many prerequisite laws they can exploit later. Banning stuff never seems to work anyway. Positive propaganda, on the other hand, does wonders for consumer opinion. Remember the meth commercials? I still have nightmares. What needs to change, is the people.
Which brings me to theory two. These businesses wouldn't exist at all in the form that they do if there weren't consumers to buy the products that they sell. You can argue all you like about long work hours and lack of cooking experience and other excuses, but at the end of it all, that's all anyone has, excuses. Long work hours? You have days off to prepare don't you? Why buy into the sedentary cultural norm of sleep, work, tv? Lack of cooking experience? If you're going to watch tv anyway, it wouldn't kill you to spend a few minutes on a show or a "how to" YouTube video, or you could send a teenager to work in a kitchen and bring back the knowledge he/she gains there. You have friends. Doesn't even just one of them know how to BBQ?
It's tough to change and it's tougher to ask these questions, but it is possible. It's all about the priorities.
Now finally, about sugar.
You all probably remember the cute polar bear ad of the family of polar bears drinking soda together, playing together, visiting the doctor together, getting insulin together, and finally together watching papa lose his leg. And I thought the meth commercials were scary. The end message was that sugar is deadly. It's the new tobacco.
So, all this got me thinking. What is the purpose of sugar in the diet anyway? What does it actually do for us? Is it anything positive?
A bit of research shows that other than turning into glucose for cell energy, which every starch and carb does anyway, all sugar uniquely does is provide taste and texture.
That's it.
Now, is it possible to change and combat this addictive substance?
It's probable.
I tried to be a vegan....well...98% vegan for three months. That experiment cleaned my pallet. Sugars while still appealing, weren't quite so demanding anymore. I now love vegetables and still find ways to eat mostly veggie based meals. I learned what it felt like to feel clean on the inside and I try to recapture that feeling with each meal.
So who knows. I think the key to solving our nations health crisis lies in the tiny choices on each plate, and inside each person, one bite at a time.
Now if they would only focus on the "how" of that in the documentaries.
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Sunday, December 6, 2015
My Biggest Struggle with Marie Kondo
Ok, I obviously love getting rid of stuff.
However, there are two deep, deep, subjects that I balk at dealing with...ever.
Most things, with years of practice and continued philosophical testing have started to come easy.
Money management, after years of practice that's easy.
Clothes, love to donate them.
Dust collectors (statues, odd n ends), VERY easy to get rid of (maybe a little too fun to smash or shoot in the desert.)
Cheap things that are easy to repurchase, why do I even own these?
As for my two worst subjects....
Books....I SWEAR, I WILL read them.
Papers....I'm pretty sure they reproduce. They are impossible to truly get rid of. Especially when I have a note of inspiration scribbled on an old receipt for a book idea that I've had.
The thing about books is I come from a book culture. My family is full of writers. My mom is a librarian. I grew up with two very tall book shelves set prominently in our living room. I've been writing since second grade. I'm an avid reader and like to quickly acquaint myself with whatever local library happens to be near by. I've always had a book shelf stuffed with books. I cry whenever I read about how the Nazi's burned books. Barnes and Noble is my happy place for spending money.
Granted, I'm not a stranger to donating books. It's just very, very, very difficult to convince myself that I will never read, re-read, or even reference a particular book. I try to think about it philosophically. Books are the absolute worst to move. They are heavy and awkward and if you're not reading them, they will collect dust. Once the knowledge or joy has been obtained, what use is it? I have a small collection currently with me and whole collection still waiting for me to sift through at my mothers house. Is it really worth it?
Yes.
Because I need them for professional reference both as a writer and as an aspiring body works expert.
What if I need reference materials when I retake certification exams?
What if this is the only reference I have to that particular inspiring myth?
It's a classic. I like to reread it.
Hello, it's The Hobbit.
I like books. I like having them. I like reading them. I like browsing my full shelf on rainy days and revisiting select passages. It makes my world complete. The only reason I'm not up to my eyeballs in books is because libraries exist.
I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I have the ability to donate books. It's just that more books than Marie Kondo would ever approve of still give me all kinds of joy. That's why, even though I love Barnes and Noble, I only visit once or twice a year.
As for papers. I do try, but I really do think they multiply. I try to revisit the subject on a regular basis for maintenance, but I'm pretty sure it's a losing battle.
We all have our struggles.
However, there are two deep, deep, subjects that I balk at dealing with...ever.
Most things, with years of practice and continued philosophical testing have started to come easy.
Money management, after years of practice that's easy.
Clothes, love to donate them.
Dust collectors (statues, odd n ends), VERY easy to get rid of (maybe a little too fun to smash or shoot in the desert.)
Cheap things that are easy to repurchase, why do I even own these?
As for my two worst subjects....
Books....I SWEAR, I WILL read them.
Papers....I'm pretty sure they reproduce. They are impossible to truly get rid of. Especially when I have a note of inspiration scribbled on an old receipt for a book idea that I've had.
The thing about books is I come from a book culture. My family is full of writers. My mom is a librarian. I grew up with two very tall book shelves set prominently in our living room. I've been writing since second grade. I'm an avid reader and like to quickly acquaint myself with whatever local library happens to be near by. I've always had a book shelf stuffed with books. I cry whenever I read about how the Nazi's burned books. Barnes and Noble is my happy place for spending money.
Granted, I'm not a stranger to donating books. It's just very, very, very difficult to convince myself that I will never read, re-read, or even reference a particular book. I try to think about it philosophically. Books are the absolute worst to move. They are heavy and awkward and if you're not reading them, they will collect dust. Once the knowledge or joy has been obtained, what use is it? I have a small collection currently with me and whole collection still waiting for me to sift through at my mothers house. Is it really worth it?
Yes.
Because I need them for professional reference both as a writer and as an aspiring body works expert.
What if I need reference materials when I retake certification exams?
What if this is the only reference I have to that particular inspiring myth?
It's a classic. I like to reread it.
Hello, it's The Hobbit.
I like books. I like having them. I like reading them. I like browsing my full shelf on rainy days and revisiting select passages. It makes my world complete. The only reason I'm not up to my eyeballs in books is because libraries exist.
I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I have the ability to donate books. It's just that more books than Marie Kondo would ever approve of still give me all kinds of joy. That's why, even though I love Barnes and Noble, I only visit once or twice a year.
As for papers. I do try, but I really do think they multiply. I try to revisit the subject on a regular basis for maintenance, but I'm pretty sure it's a losing battle.
We all have our struggles.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Junk Literature Addiction
Dime novel quality works have been around since the end of the 19th century. These stories are the loose and fanciful creations from people who don't care what story they put together so long as it is entertaining and profitable. Today, dime novel quality stories permeate our libraries, movies, and television shows.
This is what wikipedia has to say about them.
"In the modern age, "dime novel" has become a term to describe any quickly written, lurid potboiler and as such is generally used as a pejorative to describe a sensationalized yet superficial piece of written work."
Those are fighting words. So why do we ingest such terrible literature?
It would be easier to start with what makes good literature. In my humble opinion, good literature is about potential. Good literature is literature that has a voice to reveal truth. It says something about the condition of humanity and/or its place in the universe. It gives way to deeper thinking and possibly real world application or change. Change isn't a required component, but there definitely has to be some inspired reflection on the truths as they are revealed.
That said, not everyone is going to have brilliant "ah ha's!" when they read something touted as good literature. Still, the potential for depth has to be there to be considered literature.
Compare that to the dime novel.
The dime novel is like my experience with Twilight; it's a short lived enjoyment that inspires no depth or internal awareness. You don't feel compelled to re-read these because you already got all you could get on the first go around. You're welcome to still re-read them, but the second experience could never be as good as the first. It's a book that says absolutely nothing, but gives you a thrill anyway.
Most genres strive to have a mixture of the two and many succeed. Shows like Avatar, the Last Airbender, Doctor Who, and Sherlock give people something to think about while at the same time being highly entertaining. They are often modernly called, "smart shows."
So why are there so many stories in the world, but only a fraction of them are worth the time?
Quantity and Demand
The people demand a thousand channels with a thousand stories to spend all their spare time on at any given moment of the day. The newer, the more exciting, the better. The people also demand new books to be released almost as fast as they can read them. This puts a lot of pressure on the companies that produce the entertainment to churn out products almost as fast as they can come up with them. There is no time for the depth of literature to sink into the creative process before the lights are out and the presses have stopped running. Shows like Sherlock can bypass this problem by taking three years to hammer out fine details, but most stories don't have that luxury.
Addiction to "New"
New stories are exciting. Repeating old experiences in a new format is both comforting and entertaining. When the subject is superficial though, we have no reason to stay and many reasons to feel bored. We ingest dime novel quality novels so often that we've fallen into the habit of excited anticipation, consumption, rejection, and impatience for the next big story. We've followed this pattern as a society so much that we hardly even notice that the "new story" of today is the same crap story of yesterday.
Personal Test: Do you have a new favorite book or story that you experienced last year? What was it? Have you revisited it since you first found it? How do you feel about it today. Now that you're aware of the cycle, would you go back and enjoy what you once had, or is it not worth the time to re-experience?
Anti-Reflection
Our society is currently molded on the belief that if you don't think about it, its not your problem and nothing is wrong. The antithesis is saying if you don't constantly think about something you don't actually care, but that's a different social problem.
Literature has the nasty habit of bringing deep thinking and reflection to the foreground; which provides an environment where you see things that you'd rather not see or deal with. One of the nastiest truths literature likes to bring up is the myth of the happy ending. There's this modern myth that life has to be good. There's a finish line that if you reach it, it will mark the beginning of eternal happiness and contentment. If life isn't good, then something is wrong, you're not on track to the golden finish line. Therefore, if something is wrong, then we have a responsibility to "fix it" or suffer forever. Literature often teaches that life isn't always good and that its normal to experience bad things. Literature also teaches that some things just can't be fixed, life isn't perfect, and that's totally normal. It's very different from the "disney-fied" messages of our youth and very uncomfortable to us because we're not used to acknowledging that side of life.
Kinda sad when you think about it. Life and adulthood does eventually happen. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared for it? I'm not saying, cast out all hope, but at least have more realistic expectations for what life is like. It is better to live with meaning, than to live for the happy ending.
If you've ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, then you probably couldn't help but notice how many today are like the character of the wife. The fact that's she's introduced as a suicide risk is telling on how living without meaning takes a tole on the human spirit. She was willing to go into debt to increase her experience in fantasy and perceived happiness. She would rather continue living in her meaningless make believe world with her "family" of entertaining tv personalities than deal with the internal problems of emptiness she knows is there, but doesn't acknowledge. Whenever her husband tried to get her to engage in any kind of conversation that had depth, she avoided and rejected him.
Conclusion
Personally, as a writer, I've always wanted to be someone who said something. I grew up on dime novels and better. I enjoyed the stories about dragons and fairy queens, but the stories I enjoyed the most had dragons and inspired self-reflection. My goal is to be the kind of writer to who can trick dime novel addicts into a state of reflection and reveal truth among the spoils of entertainment. If my name is going to be on the cover, I want it to be a work I can be proud of. Something that will be loved and will last at least a few decades. That's why I refuse to publish until I am absolutely ready. My expectations are high, I'll probably still fail, but at least I tried.
This is what wikipedia has to say about them.
"In the modern age, "dime novel" has become a term to describe any quickly written, lurid potboiler and as such is generally used as a pejorative to describe a sensationalized yet superficial piece of written work."
Those are fighting words. So why do we ingest such terrible literature?
It would be easier to start with what makes good literature. In my humble opinion, good literature is about potential. Good literature is literature that has a voice to reveal truth. It says something about the condition of humanity and/or its place in the universe. It gives way to deeper thinking and possibly real world application or change. Change isn't a required component, but there definitely has to be some inspired reflection on the truths as they are revealed.
That said, not everyone is going to have brilliant "ah ha's!" when they read something touted as good literature. Still, the potential for depth has to be there to be considered literature.
Compare that to the dime novel.
The dime novel is like my experience with Twilight; it's a short lived enjoyment that inspires no depth or internal awareness. You don't feel compelled to re-read these because you already got all you could get on the first go around. You're welcome to still re-read them, but the second experience could never be as good as the first. It's a book that says absolutely nothing, but gives you a thrill anyway.
Most genres strive to have a mixture of the two and many succeed. Shows like Avatar, the Last Airbender, Doctor Who, and Sherlock give people something to think about while at the same time being highly entertaining. They are often modernly called, "smart shows."
So why are there so many stories in the world, but only a fraction of them are worth the time?
Quantity and Demand
The people demand a thousand channels with a thousand stories to spend all their spare time on at any given moment of the day. The newer, the more exciting, the better. The people also demand new books to be released almost as fast as they can read them. This puts a lot of pressure on the companies that produce the entertainment to churn out products almost as fast as they can come up with them. There is no time for the depth of literature to sink into the creative process before the lights are out and the presses have stopped running. Shows like Sherlock can bypass this problem by taking three years to hammer out fine details, but most stories don't have that luxury.
Addiction to "New"
New stories are exciting. Repeating old experiences in a new format is both comforting and entertaining. When the subject is superficial though, we have no reason to stay and many reasons to feel bored. We ingest dime novel quality novels so often that we've fallen into the habit of excited anticipation, consumption, rejection, and impatience for the next big story. We've followed this pattern as a society so much that we hardly even notice that the "new story" of today is the same crap story of yesterday.
Personal Test: Do you have a new favorite book or story that you experienced last year? What was it? Have you revisited it since you first found it? How do you feel about it today. Now that you're aware of the cycle, would you go back and enjoy what you once had, or is it not worth the time to re-experience?
Anti-Reflection
Our society is currently molded on the belief that if you don't think about it, its not your problem and nothing is wrong. The antithesis is saying if you don't constantly think about something you don't actually care, but that's a different social problem.
Literature has the nasty habit of bringing deep thinking and reflection to the foreground; which provides an environment where you see things that you'd rather not see or deal with. One of the nastiest truths literature likes to bring up is the myth of the happy ending. There's this modern myth that life has to be good. There's a finish line that if you reach it, it will mark the beginning of eternal happiness and contentment. If life isn't good, then something is wrong, you're not on track to the golden finish line. Therefore, if something is wrong, then we have a responsibility to "fix it" or suffer forever. Literature often teaches that life isn't always good and that its normal to experience bad things. Literature also teaches that some things just can't be fixed, life isn't perfect, and that's totally normal. It's very different from the "disney-fied" messages of our youth and very uncomfortable to us because we're not used to acknowledging that side of life.
Kinda sad when you think about it. Life and adulthood does eventually happen. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared for it? I'm not saying, cast out all hope, but at least have more realistic expectations for what life is like. It is better to live with meaning, than to live for the happy ending.
If you've ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, then you probably couldn't help but notice how many today are like the character of the wife. The fact that's she's introduced as a suicide risk is telling on how living without meaning takes a tole on the human spirit. She was willing to go into debt to increase her experience in fantasy and perceived happiness. She would rather continue living in her meaningless make believe world with her "family" of entertaining tv personalities than deal with the internal problems of emptiness she knows is there, but doesn't acknowledge. Whenever her husband tried to get her to engage in any kind of conversation that had depth, she avoided and rejected him.
Conclusion
Personally, as a writer, I've always wanted to be someone who said something. I grew up on dime novels and better. I enjoyed the stories about dragons and fairy queens, but the stories I enjoyed the most had dragons and inspired self-reflection. My goal is to be the kind of writer to who can trick dime novel addicts into a state of reflection and reveal truth among the spoils of entertainment. If my name is going to be on the cover, I want it to be a work I can be proud of. Something that will be loved and will last at least a few decades. That's why I refuse to publish until I am absolutely ready. My expectations are high, I'll probably still fail, but at least I tried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)