Besides writing and producing my radio program, Serenity's Kitchen, which I promise will be available as a podcast soon, I've started blogging beyond this blog, on Urban Politico and Reader Supported News. I figure if I want to reach people I need a bigger microphone than my google blog. Yes, I want to awaken some minds. I want peace, I want a healthy environment, I want universal healthcare. I want the world to be safe for children. I want, I want, I want....yeah.
I'll try to either link to my other blog posts or archive them here, just to keep track in a central location.
My current blogs are:
"The Corporate Coup of America" aka "Clean Elections A Must"
"The Paradox of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'"
"Defaulting on the Default World" - about the "gift economy" at Burning Man
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Counting points?
So hard to believe. Me, counting points? When I was a teen, it was a constant battle to keep me over 100 pounds. I ate everything and anything I could get my hands on, including shakes and malts and egg nog, but I kept slipping below 100 pounds.
During my 20's, my metabolism started slipping. Simultaneously, I was eating better, or at least eating out more. More money leads to more food, not necessarily lean cuisine. By the time I turned 30, I'd shot up to 123. But my 30's were merciless. I gained 60 pounds while I was pregnant with my daughter, Erin. I lost all but 15 pounds of it overnight, but although I exercised regularly I never lost any of that last 15 pounds.
Next came back surgery, and all those casseroles from the church ladies, not to mention the cookies and cakes. Six weeks of that and I was up to 145. Here's the funny part: I thought I was fat.
Over the next two decades, another 10-15 pounds crept on slowly. I went up and down, but most of the time I was still under 160. I didn't think it could get much worse. And then I got sick and had to stop working. I gained 20 pounds in six months. At 180, I really thought there was no way I could gain any more weight. But over the next four years, another 20 pounds crept on, and two weeks ago when I checked in at the doctor's office, I weighed in at 206.
Wait! This can't be right. I'm the girl who had to drink malts to keep the weight on.
There is a day of reckoning, and with respect to weight, that day at the doctor's office was mine. So yes, I am counting points. It's an alternative to eating spontaneously, which I think is the point of the points. You have to count everything that goes in your mouth. This requires thought, attention, detail, looking things up, calculations, recording. So much for spontaneous.
I find myself looking forward to a big meal, but then when I try to eat it I find it is really too much food. Sometimes I get hungry during the day, but a couple of small plums, or a tomato and a string of cheese takes care of that, or maybe 23 almonds.
The best thing is that fat free milk is only 2 points for a whole 8 ounce glass. Ahhh. Life's little pleasures.
During my 20's, my metabolism started slipping. Simultaneously, I was eating better, or at least eating out more. More money leads to more food, not necessarily lean cuisine. By the time I turned 30, I'd shot up to 123. But my 30's were merciless. I gained 60 pounds while I was pregnant with my daughter, Erin. I lost all but 15 pounds of it overnight, but although I exercised regularly I never lost any of that last 15 pounds.
Next came back surgery, and all those casseroles from the church ladies, not to mention the cookies and cakes. Six weeks of that and I was up to 145. Here's the funny part: I thought I was fat.
Over the next two decades, another 10-15 pounds crept on slowly. I went up and down, but most of the time I was still under 160. I didn't think it could get much worse. And then I got sick and had to stop working. I gained 20 pounds in six months. At 180, I really thought there was no way I could gain any more weight. But over the next four years, another 20 pounds crept on, and two weeks ago when I checked in at the doctor's office, I weighed in at 206.
Wait! This can't be right. I'm the girl who had to drink malts to keep the weight on.
There is a day of reckoning, and with respect to weight, that day at the doctor's office was mine. So yes, I am counting points. It's an alternative to eating spontaneously, which I think is the point of the points. You have to count everything that goes in your mouth. This requires thought, attention, detail, looking things up, calculations, recording. So much for spontaneous.
I find myself looking forward to a big meal, but then when I try to eat it I find it is really too much food. Sometimes I get hungry during the day, but a couple of small plums, or a tomato and a string of cheese takes care of that, or maybe 23 almonds.
The best thing is that fat free milk is only 2 points for a whole 8 ounce glass. Ahhh. Life's little pleasures.
The Paradox of "Don't Ask Don't Tell": It Creates The Problems It Is Supposed To Prevent
The ban on gays serving in the military is the law, and it's been deemed constitutional by our highest court. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, however has been found to be unconstitutional. But repealing DADT won't solve the problem of discrimination against gays in our military. Only repealing the law will do that.
DADT came into being as a compromise solution the last time a sitting president (Clinton) moved for a repeal of the ban, in 1993. Last week Congress once again refused to consider changing the law, which essentially states that 1. Gays are unsuitable for military service, and 2. Their presence in the military would undermine operational efficiency, including morale, discipline, unit cohesion, etc.
These assumptions have been challenged. I would argue that there is prima facie evidence that the basis for the ban is invalid. Beyond that, enforcement of the ban creates the operational problems it is supposed to prevent.
Over 13,000 GLBT service members have been discharged under DADT, regardless of their service records and ongoing performance at or above established standards. There are undoubtedly many more GLBT service members who have not been identified, and who continue to serve with undisputed honor.
Elizabeth Witt's case clearly illustrates the disconnect between the current law and the reality on the ground. The court found that Witt's discharge, not her service, resulted in operational disruptions, including morale, discipline and unit cohesion, all negatively impacted by her dismissal. While she served, Witt had a positive impact in all of these areas.
It would appear the ban is based on concerns that are not borne out by actual experience. Given the military's stated purpose to preserve and enhance operational efficiency, experience demonstrates clearly that enforcement of the ban is counter-productive. The logic behind the ban is flawed. Worse yet, the ban amounts to unjustified discrimination against people purely on the basis of sexual orientation.
One key facet in the rationale for the ban is that heterosexual service members will be uncomfortable knowing there are GLBT members in their own units. The possibility of being seen naked by a GLBT service member, who might find you sexually desirable is given as an example.
The fact that there are GLBT members in all branches of our military service is well-established. What this means is that there are already persons of various sexual orientations sharing the military life together, including incidentally some nudity. Despite this fact, the current forces seem to be functioning without difficulty. To what extent would knowing (that a fellow soldier is GLBT) vs. not knowing change what is an already well-established ease and ability to function together among our military personnel? There is one way to find out.
It appears our populace is ready for the undertaking. Surveys and polling of both the general population and the military yield almost identical results, indicating that about three-fourths of all Americans support allowing GLBT people to serve openly in the military.
There is an old proverb that says, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." The ban on gays serving in the military is a perfect example of what happens when this proverb is ignored. It's time to recognize that sexual orientation just is not related to successful performance in the military. Thinking it was, well that was just a mistake. It's time to cut our losses, and put this law in our past, where it belongs.
DADT came into being as a compromise solution the last time a sitting president (Clinton) moved for a repeal of the ban, in 1993. Last week Congress once again refused to consider changing the law, which essentially states that 1. Gays are unsuitable for military service, and 2. Their presence in the military would undermine operational efficiency, including morale, discipline, unit cohesion, etc.
These assumptions have been challenged. I would argue that there is prima facie evidence that the basis for the ban is invalid. Beyond that, enforcement of the ban creates the operational problems it is supposed to prevent.
Over 13,000 GLBT service members have been discharged under DADT, regardless of their service records and ongoing performance at or above established standards. There are undoubtedly many more GLBT service members who have not been identified, and who continue to serve with undisputed honor.
Elizabeth Witt's case clearly illustrates the disconnect between the current law and the reality on the ground. The court found that Witt's discharge, not her service, resulted in operational disruptions, including morale, discipline and unit cohesion, all negatively impacted by her dismissal. While she served, Witt had a positive impact in all of these areas.
It would appear the ban is based on concerns that are not borne out by actual experience. Given the military's stated purpose to preserve and enhance operational efficiency, experience demonstrates clearly that enforcement of the ban is counter-productive. The logic behind the ban is flawed. Worse yet, the ban amounts to unjustified discrimination against people purely on the basis of sexual orientation.
One key facet in the rationale for the ban is that heterosexual service members will be uncomfortable knowing there are GLBT members in their own units. The possibility of being seen naked by a GLBT service member, who might find you sexually desirable is given as an example.
The fact that there are GLBT members in all branches of our military service is well-established. What this means is that there are already persons of various sexual orientations sharing the military life together, including incidentally some nudity. Despite this fact, the current forces seem to be functioning without difficulty. To what extent would knowing (that a fellow soldier is GLBT) vs. not knowing change what is an already well-established ease and ability to function together among our military personnel? There is one way to find out.
It appears our populace is ready for the undertaking. Surveys and polling of both the general population and the military yield almost identical results, indicating that about three-fourths of all Americans support allowing GLBT people to serve openly in the military.
There is an old proverb that says, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." The ban on gays serving in the military is a perfect example of what happens when this proverb is ignored. It's time to recognize that sexual orientation just is not related to successful performance in the military. Thinking it was, well that was just a mistake. It's time to cut our losses, and put this law in our past, where it belongs.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
PPS Flare-ups Suck!
According to the statistics I've found, post-polio nerve loss and accompanying functional decline progresses at an average rate of 3% per year. If it was gradual, this might not be too big a deal. But it's not gradual. On the contrary, in my experience nerve loss occurs in periodic spikes, separated by significant periods of stasis. This pattern is consistent over 15 years.
Periods of stasis can be a year or longer...long enough for you to get comfortable with your current neuro-muscular system. Then, for no apparent reason there is a flare-up. Of course, you could induce a flare-up through overuse abuse, which is PPS talk for pushing your compromised neuro-muscular system beyond its capacity. When that happens, you get the really big flare-ups, and your average nerve loss will be about 10% per year.
But even in the absence of overuse abuse, flare-ups happen. And even a 3% nerve loss in your polio-affected body parts is going to hurt. Not only does nerve loss hurt in and of itself, but the muscles those nerves were serving are being abandoned. Even moderate muscle loss puts a strain on the remaining functional muscle tissue. This results in strained muscles and strained muscles hurt too. Never mind the stress on joints, which is cumulative.
I can get pretty bummed when I'm having a PPS flare-up. The most important thing to remember is that it will end. When it ends, you still have to figure out where your neuro-muscular system has landed and adjust your lifestyle once again to avoid overuse abuse. But it does end.
Periods of stasis can be a year or longer...long enough for you to get comfortable with your current neuro-muscular system. Then, for no apparent reason there is a flare-up. Of course, you could induce a flare-up through overuse abuse, which is PPS talk for pushing your compromised neuro-muscular system beyond its capacity. When that happens, you get the really big flare-ups, and your average nerve loss will be about 10% per year.
But even in the absence of overuse abuse, flare-ups happen. And even a 3% nerve loss in your polio-affected body parts is going to hurt. Not only does nerve loss hurt in and of itself, but the muscles those nerves were serving are being abandoned. Even moderate muscle loss puts a strain on the remaining functional muscle tissue. This results in strained muscles and strained muscles hurt too. Never mind the stress on joints, which is cumulative.
I can get pretty bummed when I'm having a PPS flare-up. The most important thing to remember is that it will end. When it ends, you still have to figure out where your neuro-muscular system has landed and adjust your lifestyle once again to avoid overuse abuse. But it does end.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
finally found what I've been looking for
As a writer, I have struggled with writing groups and classes where only positive feedback is given. If I wanted nothing more than positive strokes, I would show my work to friends and family. I wouldn't even bother with other writers or writing teachers. It's taken several years, but finally I've found both a writers group and a writing workshop where constructive criticism is the main course, and I can't get enough.
Intelligent responses from a variety of perspectives is the most helpful contribution that can be made to a writer. That is, if that writer is committed to producing the highest quality of work they are capable of; if what's at stake is the work, and not the writer's ego.
I'm very happy today to occupy a seat in a room of writer's who tell you what they really think.
Intelligent responses from a variety of perspectives is the most helpful contribution that can be made to a writer. That is, if that writer is committed to producing the highest quality of work they are capable of; if what's at stake is the work, and not the writer's ego.
I'm very happy today to occupy a seat in a room of writer's who tell you what they really think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
