Brave Humans

Liberals want gun control; conservatives are pro gun ownership.
Conservatives are anti-abortion; liberals are pro-choice.
Democrats push for government intervention in everything; Republicans want small government.
Republicans are fiscally conservative; Democrats are spendthrifts.

Do you hate generalizations as much as I do? Do you dislike stereotypes? Are you tired of people putting words in your mouth?

You know what? I doubt that the majority of Americans would fit neatly into any stereotyped ideological box. (Don’t you hate it when people offer statistics with no sources to back them up?) When listening to liberal pundits, I’m quite good at predicting the position that they’ll take on any topic. Same with conservatives. But these are people in the media, with ratings to consider, books to sell, agendas to push. Those of us not making a living at it? I think we’re a lot deeper and more complicated than that. (See Shades of Gray…)

Where do you fit on an ideological plane? How do you self-identify? Some people have called me liberal, some moderate…but I think I’m more of a moderate liberal. I’m not a Democrat; I’m Independent. But I bet there are issues where my stance would surprise you…where I don’t fit into the neat mold of a liberal. And I’m guessing that most of you are complex individuals, too.

So that’s what this post is about. Considering how you self-identify, in what areas to you diverge from the stereotype of that group? Where don’t you toe the “party line?” I’ll bet there are matters about which some of us agree that we wouldn’t have predicted. Also, there may be disagreements that remained hidden because we assume we know each other’s stance. I’m not intending this to be a post where we argue the merits of any of these issues; I’m searching for a venue where we can break out of our typecasting. I think we’re more than a bunch of Stepford ideologists. So, tell us, where are you a misfit?

I’ll start. I’m really against relaxing drug laws; I think many are too lenient already. (Heck, I wish prohibition had worked.) The only, very strict, exception I would allow would be for medical marijuana use.

To accompany that, I think that drunk driving laws are too lenient. I used to believe that once someone gets a DWI s/he should lose the privilege to drive forever. Then I decided that doesn’t allow for the possibility of rehabilitation. But I think laws need to be tougher than they are.

I could go on, but now it’s your turn. (Not to tell me why I’m wrong about drugs or alcohol; write another post about that. It would be interesting.) Where don’t you fit in, ideologically? What would surprise us? Inquiring minds want to know…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

In a recent column for the Washington Post entitled Fuzzy Climate Math, George Will raises his concerns about the impact of public indoctrination concerning global warming. This indoctrination is being conducted by what he calls the “media entertainment-environmental complex”. This seems to be phrase of Will’s own creation, intended (I think) to belittle and demonize those who think global warming is a real threat.

In my opinion, the column is generally dismissive and derogatory. The message is that global warming is a crock, cooked up to make honest Americans’ lives difficult for no good reason. Despite this, Will manages to raise several important questions concerning how to address global warming. These include:
a) Will the impact of the Kyoto treaty be worth the cost to those nations participating? Will it significantly reduce global warming?
b) Will the state-level initiatives currently under consideration in places like California be effective as well? Will these significantly reduce global warming?
c) On a personal level, will doing things like driving a hybrid car vs. a big gas guzzler like a Hummer make any real difference?

Here is where I generally agree with Will completely. If we are to address global warming, let us do it in the most effective and economically feasible way possible. The various current initiatives such as Kyoto may not be the right direction. I don’t know. Let’s for once, try and get this right the first time.

Aside of the snide and dismissive nature of the column, I do, however, have a real problem with one set of points Will tosses off about the relative merits of a hybrid vehicle like the Toyota Prius vs. the gas hog Hummer H3.

He states:

“Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles — trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide — to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.”

He continues:

“Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research (”Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal”) concludes that in “dollars per lifetime mile,” a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).”

So, if I agree with the vast majority of climate experts- most of whom I expect don’t work in Hollywood- that climate change is a serious issue, I should go out and buy one of most gas guzzling vehicles on the road rather than one of the most fuel efficient. OK, this seems nuts, so I checked out the link to CNW Market Research provided in the column.

I’ve read broad points of their actual report, as well as a response they wrote to lots of other folks questioning the per-mile cost of the Prius as they stated it. I think they are generally clear and responsive to the concerns raised. Here’s my interpretation of what I found.

Note: There are no direct links to either their actual report or the response to questions about their Prius numbers. Simply go to the CNW link above and scroll down to the downloadable documents “Dust to Dust” and “Why 100,000 miles for a Prius.doc”.

1. Their cost calculation for the Prius is based in part on the fact that Prius drivers generally drive much less than average Americans (about 7,000 miles a year vs. about 13, 000). This means that over the lifetime of the car, the cost per mile for a Prius is MUCH higher than average. CNW is not claiming that a Prius will fall apart at about 100, 000 miles. They don’t think it would. The calculation is based on their likely correct assumption that the car will have a functional life span of no more than 15 years. At roughly 7,000 miles a year this comes out to about 100,000 miles.

2. The manufacturing costs for the new technology and platform of the Prius are extremely expensive. This is true both for the Prius and for most new technology. Specific to the Prius, and adding to the cost, is the battery technology used in the hybid system. Batteries are environmentally dirty to both make and dispose of.

What Will doesn’t mention is what CNW also goes on to say about the Prius:

1. The cost per mile will certainly drop significantly over time as more people buy and drive hybrid cars. This will make the cars cheaper to produce as the technology becomes more widespread.

2. Current issues with manufacture and disposal of hybrids will be significantly mitigated as the technology develops- better batteries, more efficient manufacture, better disposal and recycling.

Will writes his column in an offhanded and flippant manner that implies the new technologies are no better and, in fact, may be worse than the old. There is a logical flaw here that I’m sure an individual as smart as George Will can see. The problems with the new technologies are largely due to their emerging nature and will likely be solved with time and further innovation. In contrast, the problems with the Hummer and other gas hogs are inherent in their intent and design and will never change. Finally, and most importantly, in my opinion, less oil intensive technologies are vital to reduce the world’s need for oil in general. This has not only potential environmental impact, but undeniable political impact as well.

Shame on you Mr. Will. Next time read your own sources before you write for the public.

Be Brave. Be Human. Drive Small.

So far today I have had to delete about 30 spam comments. When going through them, I also accidentally deleted a real comment (sorry Grant). So I’ve reached my limit. As of today, posting a comment will require solving a simple math problem. For anyone who needs a refresher on how to add two single-digit numbers, you can always visit Donald in Mathemagic land. Seriously, though, I’ve tried to make the “prove you’re a human” test as simple as possible.

For those who visit regularly, you can also create an account on the site and just stay logged in. That will bypass the check completely (plus you don’t have to keep entering your name and email). Everyone who has had a post on the site already has an account. If anyone needs help with that just let me know.

You learn something new everyday. (Well, I seem to.) There’s an article in Time Magazine this week that discusses voting rights of American noncitizens.

Voting rights? I had no idea that noncitizens could vote, but here are the facts as laid out by Time:
• “The Constitution leaves voting rules up to states and cities…”
• “…from 1776 to 1926, 40 states and territories allowed noncitizens to vote in local and even federal elections…”
• “…the aftermath of World War I created a mistrust of foreigners that lead all states to make voting the sole privilege of U. S. citizens.”
• “The rules started changing again in the late 1960s…”

Noncitizen voting rights often involve school board elections, but it is wider in some cities. Most areas, however, report that relatively few noncitizens take advantage of these laws. Some immigration activists seek to expand these rights, “so that politicians would be more responsive to noncitizens’ concerns.”

Like I said, this issue surprised me. My immediate reaction is that voting is a right/responsibility for citizens only. If I moved to another country, I wouldn’t expect to vote there unless I became a citizen. It’s something that seems to go along with citizenship…one gets a voice in how things are run.

But maybe I’m missing something…what are your thoughts on noncitizen voting rights? Any other views on the topic?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Even though the first ever super duper Tuesday will not be happening for more than a year, the mass neuroses of primary season has already begun. Although I am trying to be a brave human as defined by the fine folk who make a habit of reading and posting herein, cousins, I am a-scairt. Let me tell you why.

The leading Dems have raised 25 million apiece, and the Repubs almost as much, yet I have yet to hear about any of these “front runners” delivering a major policy address that included a specific proposals for legislative policy, with the sole exception of John Edwards. I understand that Mr. Edwards has put forth a detailed and specific legislative proposal for universal health care. I decry the lack of specifics from the supposed front-runner candidates, but that is not what I want to discuss. I applaud Mr. Edwards willingness to make a specific legislative proposal that he will have to defend, but I am not going to comment either for or against his proposal. I would like to take a position and be able to fulcrum that position to either support Mr. Edwards, or use his proposal as a measuring stick for other candidates on this vitally important (to me) issue. I can’t. I do not know what his position is, other than that it purports to provide universal care and to pay for it without bankrupting the country. It is this not knowing the specifics I want to comment on.

I am a reasonably educated person. I have spent way too much time and money on degrees and post graduate education. I am a reasonably well informed person. I read the editorial section of the Paper of Record most every day. I read the Local Rag and the local weeklies too. I get most of my news from NPR and I catch NewsHour in the car fairly often. I want to be an informed participant in our democracy, and I put some effort into it. I make sure I understand local political issues so that I can vote intelligently in local primaries and elections.

The positions taken by our local elected officials are SO much easier to understand - either they are in favor of expanding the county jail or they ain’t. They can explain cost overruns to local capital improvements or they can’t. They either want to fund arts and music programs in the high school or they don’t. I can get my mind around the positions. This allows me to find congruencies with my own priorities and then make reasoned choices without reference to the label a particular candidate is wearing. But I do not know how to do that in the presidential arena. That is why I am scared.

The choice we will be making a year and half from now will have ramifications that will echo for generations. I say that I want candidates who will have a serious debate about the issues, and I certainly want that as opposed to mudslinging and character assassination. Yet the candidates have not even begun to put out positions and the field is being winnowed down. What great ideas will be lost due to a failure to run well in the “money primary”? And even when there is a specific position taken by a candidate, such as Mr. Edwards’ healthcare policy, I can’t discuss it intelligently other than to say it exists! So what to do? I mean that as a serious question, it is not rhetorical. What do we do? Once the issues are so large, and the answers so complex that you need a Masters in Public Administration to understand the ramifications of the proposals and the alternatives, how do we make a responsible choice in voting for the person we want to lead this country, without making it a full time job? Are any of the candidates NOT complete piles of bullpuckey? What commentators can we trust as reliable?

I do not have a strong answer to the dilemma, but I know what I am going to do about it.   I am going to keep on reading the Paper of Record and the Local Rag.  I am going to keep read the candidates’ websites and position papers hoping for clear answers to impossible questions.  I am going to try and ignore the labels and rely on what the candidates actually say.  I am going to measure my priorities against the published comments and positions of the candidates, discuss it all with all of you (and others) and then I’ll choose.  Then I’ll hug my daughters and pray for the world I will have helped to leave them.

Todd

It hasn’t taken long for the tragic events in Virginia to be politicized. The investigation into the motivations of Cho Seung-Hui is still in its early stages, and yet there are those who are clear as to the cause. Joseph Palermo blames the shootings on the NRA, and the Bush administration’s penchant for war:

Also, if David Brooks and the Rightwing can blame video games and the violent movies coming out of Hollywood for the school shootings, then I think it is also fair to place some of the blame on our political leaders who called for us to invade and occupy Iraq. The bloodbath and carnage daily reported out of Iraq, as well as our young people going in and out of that death trap, provide the background noise for the violence that pervades our society.

Others have called for much stricter gun control laws. For example, Cliff Schecter writes:

To those who say guns don’t kill, people kill.

Maybe, but guns sure do make it easier to mow down 22 innocent college students at a time.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS?

On the other side of the fence, John Derbyshire blames the magnitude of the tragedy on the fact that nobody rushed the shooter:

Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren’t very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren’t bad.

Nathaneal Blake agrees that the problem is the fact that the men of Virginia Tech are cowards:

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.

Heading further to the fringe, creationist Ken Ham places the blame clearly on the teaching of science in schools, saying:

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking.

Of course even before Cho was identified, Debbie Schlussel was certain the shooter had to be a Muslim “Paki”.

Given the incendiary nature of many of these comments, there is one argument which sounds downright sane. Specifically it is the argument that much of this tragedy could have been averted if Virginia Tech was not a gun-free zone. The argument goes that if licensed gun owners were allowed to carry guns on campus Cho would have been stopped more quickly. This argument sounds so reasonable compared with the above statements. It is also completely wrong. Allowing guns on a college campus is a really bad idea.

Before I get labeled as a kum-ba-ya gun-hating liberal, let me give you a little background. I was raised in a rural farming community where gun ownership is a proud right. I do not own any guns, but I have friends and family who do. I understand the issues of gun safety and responsibility, and have used shotguns and rifles. My personal experience of gun owners is that they are upstanding and responsible American citizens, and I am opposed to the arguments that guns should be banned.

At the same time, I am also a university professor. So I understand the university culture and the type of stress students experience. I’ve had irate students in my office, and every time there is the small thought that maybe, just maybe, a particular student of mine could lose it, and I would be at the top of his list. You can’t make a career out of teaching college students without wondering if there is a bullet with your name on it from time to time.

That being said, let me re-iterate that allowing weapons on campus is a bad idea.

One of the clearest reasons is that dorms are not homes.

If I were to bring a gun into my home, I can ensure that my child understands the rules regarding the gun, and that my wife and I are trained in the proper handling and use of our gun. Most importantly, my wife and I control who may legitimately enter our home. We have exclusive control on access, and therefore can reasonably assure the security of any gun in our home.

Compare that to a dorm, where perfect strangers are placed together in the same close quarters. A gun-owning student may be placed with someone who has no experience with firearms. Since dorms are shared, a student does not have complete control over who enters the premises. There is therefore no way to ensure that a student’s gun could remain secure within their room. Even if the dorm room contained a secure lock-box, it never be reasonably secure. Currently computers and other pricey electronics are stolen on a regular basis to fund everything from drugs to tuition. Adding guns to the mix would simply provide another source of revenue.

This doesn’t even address the fact that the presence of guns significantly raises the risk of accidental shootings. Assuming the usual statistics, if students were allowed guns many more students would die from accidental shootings than would ever be murdered in tragedies such as Virginia Tech. Allowing guns on campus would put students at a higher risk, not a lower one.

If not students, then what about professors? Here, too, much of the same arguments apply. Faculty do not have control over who accesses their offices, for example. Even if faculty were to keep any gun on their person at all time, it is still a poor solution. For one thing, such an approach would invalidate the “concealed carry” argument. Attackers would know to attack faculty first, thus disarming a room. Such an approach would make targets of even unarmed faculty.

But perhaps the most important argument in favor of a weapons-free campus is the fact that universities work best as a protected space. The purpose of a university is to provide an environment where students can be challenged to learn both about the world, and about themselves. Adding weapons into the mix would simply add barriers between students and faculty. It would deeply hinder the learning environment, and we would gain nothing in return.

Despite this recent tragedy, universities are very good at creating a reasonably safe environment. Universities take the job of protecting their students very seriously. When you consider the population densities of most campuses, compounded by the fact that this population consists largely of fresh-from-home young adults placed in a high stress, competitive environment, the efforts of universities are commendable.

The incident at Virginia Tech is not evidence of a national problem which needs to be fixed, nor is it a referendum on gun control or the lack thereof. It is simply a terrible human tragedy.

With condolences to the Virginia Tech community and their families,
Brian

So, what’s the scandal du jour? Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, has recently admitted that he “signed off on Riza’s [his girlfriend’s] promotion and salary increase without a review by an ethics committee nor the board’s chairman.”

To his credit, Wolfowitz has admitted to the action and stated it was a mistake. As I watched this on CNN, I was surprised…someone out and out accepting responsibility for his actions. Then he spoiled it by saying that he was in “uncharted waters” and “still new in his job.”

Sorry, but no. That’s not an acceptable apology. Yes, he had just started at the World Bank, but he was not a new player in Washington. How long does he think he needed to be in that job before he realized that such a promotion could be construed as a conflict of interest? Six months? One year? Two?

No, it’s wrong, and he knew it. He may have felt pressured, or he may have honestly believed she deserved the promotion. But he knew: “In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations.” As president of the World Bank he needs to appear scrupulously honest, and this incident counters that. Then to make matters worse, he attempts to use his inexperience as an excuse.

He had me at “I’m sorry.” He lost me when he started making excuses. We’ll see if the World Bank’s board of directors agrees.

What about you?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Many posts ago (“And Now for Something Completely Different”), Rick commented that each person has a line he won’t cross. Do I? This was an interesting challenge for me since I also wrote “Shades of Gray,” suggesting that I don’t see topics in black and white as I did when I was younger. But do I have some absolutes? Any lines I would never cross? Well, yes, apparently; one popped up the other day during a conversation with my 5-year-old.

I need to preface this post: this is about my on-going meditations on lines I won’t cross. This isn’t about lines you won’t cross. I recognize there are very reasonable people who will disagree with me on this particular topic, and that’s OK.

Several days ago, seemingly out of the blue, my daughter asked, “You’d never spank me, would you? Neither would Daddy.” I replied, “No, we wouldn’t. But other people spank.”

And other people are trying to stop them. Just that day I read that California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View), had been trying to outlaw spanking in California for children 4 and under. She did not receive support for this initiative, so she presented a new bill that would “criminalize parental discipline involving a closed fist, belt, electrical cord, shoe or other objects.”

These two incidents got me thinking. Is that a line I wouldn’t cross? Would I ever spank a child?

Son of a gun…we have an absolute here. I never would spank a child; I don’t think children should be spanked. I don’t consider a sharp swat on the bottom child abuse, but I think there are other effective methods that don’t carry potential negative associations.

The negatives? Children depend upon us to protect them…how do we reconcile that with hitting them? We teach kids not to hit others, but spanking shows that someone bigger and in charge can hit. What kind of message does that send?

When I was getting my master’s degree, I had one adjunct professor who was superintendent of a local school district. Prior to that she was assistant superintendent for a large city school district in the south where corporal punishment was legal. Part of her responsibility was to mete out the paddling, so she was comfortable with the procedure. As she related her experiences with spanking, she became personal: she was driving one day with her two daughters in the back seat. One hit the other, and our professor said she turned around and smacked the wrongdoer. In relating this story, she never saw the irony of “I’m hitting her to teach her to not hit her sister.”

Her anger showed as she related this anecdote. Many times I’ve either heard about or witnessed spanking, and the parent was irritated. The punishment was not delivered in a thoughtful, deliberate way; it was an angry reaction. Is that a model we want to present?

I’ll admit I’m blessed with a tremendously easy-going child. Other than a few times when she’s been possessed by the devil, we can talk to her and reason with her. I know that there are a lot of challenging kids out there. I just took my daughter and her two cousins to a busy museum. Her younger cousin is just four, and, like many boys that age, he’s very impulsive. VERY. It didn’t take long until I took my eyes off him for a second, and off he wandered. We quickly located the escapee, and I gave him a short and meaningful lecture with the accompanying finger wag and stern tone. After that, he stuck closer, and I kept my eyes trained on that boy (hardly blinking!).

I was an elementary school teacher for 15 years in a state where corporal punishment is illegal. I had my share of aggressive students, emotionally disturbed students, and defiant students. Spanking was not an option, yet, for the most part, our classroom environment was happy and energetic. I realize that after 6 hours they went home; I didn’t have to deal on weekends or nights, but I was concerned with 25 other children at the same time.

When I asked my daughter her views on spanking, she said, “It’s not right to hit a kid because he or she* did something wrong. Especially if you’re bigger.” Well, that’s it in a nutshell. That’s one of the lines I won’t cross, a moral absolute for me. There are probably others, and I may bring them to this forum as I uncover them. So what about you? Do you have a moral absolute? What line won’t you cross?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

**She really did say “he or she;” she simply won’t accept the generic “he,” and I won’t let her use “they” for singular nouns.

Most of you probably recognize the title and its meaning. For those of you aren’t well versed in 1970’s B-movies, the line comes from the Charlton Heston film “Soylent Green.” Set in 2022, the film presents a world overpopulated and under environmental stress. Fresh whole foods are in short supply, thus the general population primarily dines on government supplied soylent. Derived from soybean and lentil (hence its name), soylent comes in a variety of colors. Soylent green derives its coloring from plankton. The twist ending of the film has Heston discovering soylent green also contains a secret ingredient: protein derived from human corpses. The final scene of the film has Heston crying out to the world “Soylent Green is People!”

In fairness to the fictional Soylent Corporation, there is no evidence of any adverse effects arising from the consumption of human-derived protein. Granted, there have been no long-term studies of the health effects of large-scale cannibalism in an industrial society, but in its processed form human protein would look and smell much like any other animal protein. The only real downside is that if the public knew Soylent Green contained human flesh, they would reject the food. The public’s rejection would be based solely on an “ick factor,” not on any scientific evidence of adverse health effects. So the Soylent Corporation stays hush-hush on its special ingredient, and everyone is happy. The corporation profits, and the public gains a new source of much-needed protein.

It all sounds too crazy to be real.

And yet food companies have made just such an argument regarding various foods, and have won the approval of the FDA. Three recent examples include genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, and cloned foods.

Genetically modified foods are created by splicing genes from one plant or animal into another. Usually this is done to hybridize plants of the same species, but there are cases of introducing animal DNA into plants, such as introducing a fish gene which resists freezing into tomatoes so as to protect the tomato plants from frost. There are even cases of human-plant hybrids. The FDA has recently approved the commercial cultivation of rice which has been spliced with a human gene which produces a protein found in breast milk.

The first genetically altered food was the Flavr Savr tomato, introduced in 1994. Although no longer on the market, Flavr Savr was crucial to the success of genetically modified foods, as it was allowed to be marketed without special labeling. The FDA stated that special labeling was not needed because “they have the essential characteristics of non-modified tomatoes. Specifically, there was no evidence for health risks, and the nutritional content was unchanged.” In other words, since it looked, smelled and tasted like ordinary food, there was no reason to inform the public of its gene-spliced origins. Genetically modified foods are now widely used, particularly in grains such as soybean and corn. To this day, no labeling is required for gene-spliced foods.

Food irradiation is a process where food is exposed to ionizing radiation. This is sometimes done by exposing food to high doses of x-rays, but more often is done by exposing food to gamma rays produced by radioactive materials such as cobalt 60. Depending on the radiation levels, the process kills off anything from general bacteria such as e-coli to the hard-to-kill botulinum spores (from which Botox is derived). If the dosage is high enough, there are detectable chemical changes in irradiated foods. Thus the FDA has required that irradiated foods be labeled. But since “irradiation” makes people think the food is radioactive (which it is not), the FDA will soon allow irradiated foods to be labeled as “cold pasteurized,” which sounds so much nicer. They have even introduced a happy little logo for cold-pasteurized foods, which looks similar to the USDA Organic seal, as you can see:

Cloned foods are the latest advance to hit the market. These are foods derived through the process of harvesting the DNA from an adult animal, implanting it into the egg of another, and stimulating this egg to develop and mature. The advantage for corporations is that one can harvest DNA from exceptional cuts of meat to create more of the same. Of course given the huge “ick-factor” people generally have with cloning, labeling meat as being cloned would effectively kill your market. Fortunately for the corporations, the FDA has determined that (of the clones that survive to adulthood) there is no significant difference between cloned and non-cloned foods, hence there is no need to label foods as cloned. They look, smell and taste the same, so there is no need to tell the public.

To be fair, there is no clear evidence that genetic modification, irradiation or cloning poses serious health risks. Granted, gathering such evidence is nearly impossible once they reach the general food supply. My point is not that these advances are harmful, but that they are not clearly labeled.

These new foods are left unlabeled because many would reject them. Cloned meat may be perfectly safe, but few people would knowingly consume it. Essentially the FDA’s position is that they know what is good for us better than we do ourselves. The corporate need for these new technologies apparently overrides our need to know the origins of our food.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if genetically modified and cloned foods were banned. Already there are cases of GM crops cross-pollinating with non-GM crops. I have less of a problem with irradiation, so long as it is clearly labeled.

How about you? What would you recommend to the FDA?

Credits: The Radura and USDA Organic logos are taken from wikipedia.

In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve blatantly ripped off Nick’s closing from a recent post (thank you, Nick). This phrase, “barely human,” sums up how I feel much of the time. Just this morning, in fact.

I often wonder what it means to be part of the human race. Now, it could be argued that I’m watching too much Battlestar Galactica these days (but really, you can never get enough BSG, so that can’t be it).

In my most brooding of moments, I’ve despaired whether I can ever fulfill even an ounce of my own human potential. By this I mean, I still feel like I’m trying to figure out who I am in this world, or who I’m supposed to be, or if I even want to be. Sometimes I don’t.

Sometimes I get so disgusted with the horrible things we humans do to each other that I can’t stand being human. I can’t bear being part of it. When those peaks of pique hit, I have to unplug and create space to feel and believe my own sanity. I fast, I meditate at my shrine, I go for walks in the sun or in the woods, I take a candlelight bath, I hang out on a friends’ farm to play with the other animals. I pray to get my perspective back in focus, and eventually, I am ready to re-enter the fray.

Other days, I feel completely isolated from the human race. I have to force myself to re-establish my connection with the rest of humanity. Maybe I spend too much time at home writing, or hunting inside my head – and when the moment comes where I have no doubt that I am the only sentient creature on earth, I go for a walk to the store, or sit in a coffee shop full of people, or perhaps the farmer’s market, any public place where I can remember one of the most basic truths: we are all the same. We are all just trying to find some peace and happiness. Sometimes, as odd as it seems, this anonymous experience of humanity is more healing than hanging out with my friends, although at other times I crave the company of those who know me well. I hear about their lives, joys and problems, and I remember: we are, each of us, trying to make the best of what we’ve got. We’re all in this together, and I am not alone.

If you’re familiar with Buddhism, this should ring a bell. In fact, this very notion is one of the reasons why I became a Buddhist six years ago. I am continually trying to access my Buddha Nature, and one of the ways I attempt this is to recognize Buddha Nature in others, cultivating compassion for them, for myself. Even those filled with hate, those who rely on brutality to make themselves feel better – even they are trying to be happy, albeit from a very twisted vantage point. There is something comforting about knowing that I am not the only one mucking about, and that in the grand scheme of things, I’m not doing so badly after all.

Let’s see…time to check in with the Human-o-meter. How human do I feel now? Pretty darn human, actually. And I’m fine with that. For now.