GMO Labeling: A Conversation

Dear Representative Levin:

Thank you for your response to my email in support of H.R. 1699, the “Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act.” I do not necessarily agree with all that you wrote but you gave me some things to consider.

The thing is, sixty countries have already banned GMO's, especially seeds. Most, if not all, of these crops are designed to be resistant to RoundUp, the herbicide Monsanto created and sells to control weeds in the fields. There is a picture circulating that shows people spraying a field with RoundUp and they are in hazard suits with gas masks. If something  is that dangerous to work with, do we really want it sprayed on our crops?

An 80 acre field was found to be growing genetically altered wheat. It was sprayed with roundup to clear the field but could not be killed. How it got there is unclear since this wheat has not been approved. I have my doubts about how healthy herbicide resistant crops can be for the human body. I WOULD, however, like to have the opportunity to make the decision for myself.. Labeling would give us that choice.

It is somewhat patronizing to say that labeling would be confusing. Personally I read nutrition labels all the time and do not find them confusing in the least. People would have the choice to read labels of GE foods or not. Those of us who do not want to eat those food products should be given the facts about whether they are genetically modified or not.

If Big Ag (read Monsanto) is so afraid consumers would run away from GE food products, that says something about their own doubts about their safety and healthfulness. Personally I do not trust any company who created things like DDT and Agent Orange. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions aside, Congress should not trust them either. Given Monsanto's checkered past, I would think the most prudent move would be to approve labeling.

A Place At The Table

A few evenings ago I had the opportunity to attend a screening of the film, "A Place At The Table", starring Jeff Bridges. It was a very thought provoking and emotional film about hunger in America. I highly recommend it as a way to elicit conversation and discussion about the very real crisis. There are many facts about hunger in the film, elucidated by various experts but the experiences of a number of people (primarily of single mothers!) were what stuck out to me. Much is said about hunger in this country but we do not often stop to think about the individuals who are affected. Numbers and statistics are dry and it is tempting to focus on them rather than people because, as this film points out, people are harder to ignore; they are harder to forget. 

It is impossible for me to forget the little girl who lived in squalor and went to school hungry most days. The devastating effect hunger has on children was most disturbingly demonstrated by her situation. She could not concentrate or focus on school work when her stomach was growling. For me, this situation hit all too close to home. As I watched Rosie, I saw myself as a child. 

When I was in first grade, one of the teachers who knew my father (she had been his teacher as well) took me aside and talked to me about breakfast and then talked to my parents. I was always being sent to the corner because I was tired and couldn't concentrate. I never made the connection between that and not having eaten in the morning. This film became very  personal. I remember my family had government issued canned peanut butter and also cheese. I never paid much attention, I guess I figured everyone had the same. 

Hungry children are nothing new in the country but the epidemic certainly is, at least since the 1960's when president after president issued wars on hunger. The school lunch program and, later, the school breakfast program cut childhood hunger drastically. What changed? Why are 1:6 children in this country suffering from food insecurity? Watch the film and you will find out. 

To discover more about the issue you can visit: http://www.takepart.com/place-at-the-table/film.

Desperate and Disabled in Detroit (Part 1)

Detroit and the surrounding area was one of the hardest hit during the recession of 2007. We are used, unfortunately, to hearing the stories of those who lost their homes to foreclosure after they lost their jobs. Thousands upon thousands in southeast lower Michigan fell victim to this devastating combination. What we do NOT often hear is the emotional/mental fallout from these events.

The loss of a job in times when the economy is healthy is bad enough. It creates stress on the unemployed and the entire family unit. But when the economy is poor there are extra stresses and pressures. The outlook for finding a new job is not good, with many more people vying for each and every position. Even if a person is fortunate enough to qualify for unemployment benefits UI doesn't last forever. Those who run out of benefits before finding a new job are under the added stress of being unable to pay the mortgage and other bills. If the situation goes on long enough, even putting food on the table is a huge issue. So is being able to go to the doctor when they are ill. In short, everyday necessities are not being met.

There are physical issues that arise in these circumstances, those connected with hunger, those connected to not seeing a doctor when needed, those involved with not having a roof over one's head. Those are the effects which we most readily see. But there are some things even worse than losing a job and losing a home. Dan Quayle reportedly summed it up quite well (albeit accidentally) when he said, "A mind is a terrible thing to lose."

Many, many people who have gone through all the above losses eventually crack under the pressure and fall into some form of mental illness, whether it is depression or psychosis or some other form. The result is the same: those who have lost almost everything else now are faced with losing themselves. The horror of falling into the abyss of untreated mental illness cannot be overstated. With the loss of a sense of self properly grounded in reality, the person has lost about everything. That is, in part, why the suicide rate goes up in recessions. Great loss creates great depression.

The extremely sad part is that, as a person falls into mental illness, the chances of getting a job and getting one's life back steadily decreases. It becomes a vicious cycle. When there is no hope, there is depression and suicidal thoughts. When there is depression there is disability. Where there is disability, the chances for employment go down. And so it goes.

That is the reality of many, too many, citizens in Michigan (and in the US) these days. So many people, especially those who are over 50 (who face discrimination in job interviews and the job hunting process) give up. Far too many see only one way out: suicide. Some succeed, leaving family and friends behind to deal with the aftermath. Others do not and succeed only in making their situation worse.

What, then, is a desperate person in SE Michigan to do? What resources are available for those who have fallen through society's cracks?

(End Part 1)

Grasping the Unreasonable

In trying to make some sense of what happened at the Boston Marathon last week, I have been struggling to understand terrorism. So I turned to the etymology of the word.

The word "terrorist" actually comes from the French word terrorisme  which comes from the Latin for great fear, dread, terror. The Latin verb terrere means "to frighten". (2) The French Revolution gave us the first modern use of the word:

 " The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur (Reign of Terror). Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible." (3)
The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists"   (4) The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning 'systematic use of terror as a policy'." (5) 

Undoubtedly terrorism as an act has existed much before the French Revolution but received it's contemporary name at that time. The Reign of Terror, by the way, demonstrates a truth of modern terrorism, namely, that terrorists invariably see themselves as instruments of righteousness. They convince themselves that the crime is really justified by the ends they seek. "Terrorists are generally people who feel alienated from society and have a grievance or regard themselves as victims of an injustice."(6) They also believe that the people being terrorized are NOT innocents but rather guilty instruments of evil. What we see as terrorism, they see as justice. This is a perverted view of reality on their part, of course, but it is what allows them to live with themselves and to carry out their "mission."

I next tried to find one single good definition for what terrorism is. It turns out that there is little consensus about this.  Not known for its comprehensive nature, Wikipedia's article  "Definitions of Terrorism" mentions about 50 different points of view. (1) Undoubtedly there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

One of the many definitions that caught my attention is from the United States Patriot Act:

 "The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." (7)

This definition interests me because of how broad it seems to be. Violence or the threat of it does not necessarily have to be present in order for an act to be considered terrorism. While it must be an act that is "dangerous to human life," there is a large amount of leeway. Danger to human life could, for example, include acts against technology as opposed to direct violence. Also it must APPEAR to be intended. The United States government could, presumably, call something a terrorist act if they even THINK it is intentional. This differs from almost every other definition many of which include some commonalities:  1) A threat of and/or act of violence 2) against innocent people 3) in pursuit of  political and or religious aims 4) designed to create fear and terror.  Many of the definitions of terrorism contain all or most of these characteristics but do not seem to specify the APPEARANCE of intent nor the broadening of acts of or threat of violence to include danger to human beings. The Patriot Act appears to be so vague as to allow for things to be defined as terrorism that might not be considered in most other definitions.

One of the reasons it is almost almost impossible to pinpoint a single description of terrorism is because there are as many forms of terrorism as there are acts of terror.

 " Excepting the most ruthless dictatorships, terrorist organizations have emerged in virtually every kind of society: democratic and authoritarian, developed and developing, ethnically or racially diverse and homogeneous societies. The diversity of social and cultural environments of terrorism has, so far anyway, defeated efforts to explain terrorism by pointing to class, racial, or other social inequalities; economic exploitation or decline; political oppression; demographic imbalances; or other social structural factors." (8)

Each of these terrible acts are as unique as the historical moment and setting in which they take place. It is difficult to define something which changes in each and every incarnation. Nevertheless, we seem to be able to recognize it when it occurs, whether it is the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or the Boston Marathon bombing of this past week. 

Looking at many of the common elements of terrorism (see above) I began to wonder about bullying and if it is related to terrorism. There seems to be some similarities.
To threaten or imply violence in a way designed to create fear makes me wonder at what point is terrorism a form of bullying? Or maybe it is the most extreme version. Bullying is:

"Repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to another person's body, emotions, self-esteem or reputation." (9)

In both terrorism and bullying, the intent is to cause harm in order to induce fear. Granted, bullying is most often directed at an individual but it can also be bullying by a group of another group. The difference lies in the intent and the severity and the number of people affected. Terrorism is usually engaged in for political or religious reasons while this is not necessarily true of bullies (though it may be). Terrorism is designed to inflict the most pain on the most innocent people and to create the most terror. Essentially, it seems that terrorists are extreme bullies and it makes me wonder if terrorists were bullies first.  Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky put it well when he characterized terrorism as "...the dirtiest weapon of the weak against the strong". (10). On an individual level, this might also apply to bullying. Both terrorists and bullies operate from the position of weakness - to intimidate those who are perceived threats to them.  That it doesn't appear this way to the bullied is one of the facets of the unreasonableness of the behavior.

By its very nature, terrorism involves unreasonable acts and, as such, eludes understanding. Is it impossible to get our minds around? Terrorism has been around as long as humanity and as yet has not been resolved.  How can we comprehend terrorism? Perhaps we can't and never will. Maybe we shouldn't try.

ENDNOTES

1.    "Definitions of Terrorism", Wikipedia.org  http://bit.ly/109U2ZC , accessed 22 April 2013.

2.     Burgess, Mark. A Brief History of Terrorism, Center for Defense Information.Quoted in     Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism.

3.    Ibid.

4.   "Early History of Terrorism, http:// Terrorism-Research.com, quoted in Wikipedia " Def. of Terr"

5   Harper, Douglas. "Terrorism", Dictionary.com Online Etymology Dictionary.:accessed:        August 10, 2007 in Wikipedia: Definitions.

6.   Hudson, Rex A. ed. by Marilyn Majeska, "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why. (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: Washington, D.C., 1999)  Accessed 23 April 2013 www.loc.gov/…d/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf .

7.   http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2010_report_on_terrorism.pd Quoted from: Wikipedia, Definitions, accessed 22April 2013.

8.  Turk, Austin T. "Terrorism" in Encyclopedia.com  http://bit.ly/dLlnY2 : Accessed 23 April 2013.

9.    From Duhaime.org, Legal Dictionary, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary
 /B/Bullying.aspx : 22 April 2013.)

10.    Zagraevsky, Dr. Sergey, "365 Reflections on a Human  and Humanity," http://zagraevsky.com/365_engl.htm in Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism"

It is Time

 

 

Proposed legislation in Michigan would allow health care practitioners to refuse to provide any procedure or prescription for any moral reason. In the past that has been confined to abortion. In the new legislation the morality clause can be applied to almost anything - from contraception to Viagra. Indeed, I wonder if the men who promote this Bill really intend for it to be so broad. If they realize that it enables physicians to refuse to prescribe Viagra and pharmacists to refuse to fill those prescriptions, I wonder if they would be so eager. I would bet on a clause to exclude Viagra and other ED prescriptions. Otherwise, the men in the state would raise a huge outcry. What they need to realize is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The hypocrisy in Lansing seems to run rampant these days. Not only are the male Republican legislators working to regulate women's healthcare they also are trying to force drug testing on people who receive welfare in Michigan. So the poor who receive state money must be tested for drugs but the legislators (who are paid by the state) and corporations (CEO's presumably) are not. This hypocritical tactic has already been tried and found wanting in Florida. Meant to save the state money, it cost thousands of times more than it saved. Only about 5%of welfare recipients ever tested positive. What would happen if state legislators were tested one could only imagine.

It is very easy to legislate morality for those who are either voiceless or oppressed but those values are never enforced for the oppressor (almost always straight, white men). There comes a time when the oppressed rise up and say with one voice, "no more!" It is that time. It is time for women to say, "no more!" It is time for the poor to say, "no more!" and it is time for the LGBT community to say, "It is time for love to triumph over hate." It is past time.

Neither Rhyme Nor Reason

Sometimes it feels like the world is "going to hell in a hand basket." This is one of those times. It has been a terrible week or so, starting with the Boston Marathon bombings. I think most of us have been emotionally impacted by the horror of what happened, the death, the injuries, the terror. We have also have been moved by the heroism of those who, with little thought to their own safety, rushed to the injured to help any way they could. I suppose we all look for silver linings in the face of the tornado but it is amazing at how often they are there to be found. Among the horror of children killed and having legs blown off there were those who tore clothing to make tourniquets, those who carried the wounded and much more. It was a day to stand up to terror and Boston did. They continue to do so. Brave Boston.

And then there was the terribly wrong-headed vote in the US Senate which failed to overcome the filibuster by the GOP that prevented a vote on expanded background checks for gun purchases. There, in the face of those from Sandy Hook who survived a mass shooting, in the face of Gabrielle Giffords who has fought long and hard to recover from an assassination attempt by a mad gunman the US Senate caved in to the forces of fear - the gun lobby.  The Senate was too afraid of the gun lobby to do the right thing when they should have been emboldened by the presence of the heroes who struggle everyday to overcome the effects of guns on their lives. Rather than see in those faces the human cost of the unregulated gun industry, the industry of death and destruction, they were emboldened only by money. Shame! It was indeed a shameful day on Capitol Hill.

Next there was, of course, the terrible explosion of the fertilizer/pesticide factory in West, Texas. So many people lost in the blink of an eye simply because the state OSHA hadn't seen fit to inspect the plant for DECADES. How many people have to die because of corporate greed and disregard for safety? So much negligence, so much sorrow.

So much death and destruction, so much chaos. So little reason. 

Homeless Jesus

                                      Carlos Osorio / Toronto Star

Who is Jesus? This question has haunted the Christian church since it's very earliest days. In fact, it is the point of four different Gospels in the New Testament, each having it's own interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth. For all four, Jesus led a group of disciples, performed miracles, preached in Jerusalem, was crucified and resurrected from the dead. However, each of the Gospels has it's own particular point of view. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia: 12 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk .)

"The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[67] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[36] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[36] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[36] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[68] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[66] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.[68][69]
The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[36]
Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple. He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics. The Gospel of John ends:(21:25) 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen' " (Multiple sources referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia:14 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk ).

So, Jesus has ever escaped the grasp of the Church, refusing to be caricatured by anyone, even the earliest Christians. Was he Man of Wonder, Son of God, Son of Man, Teacher, Healer, Messiah?  Was he the Savior of all humankind or the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy? The questions, seemingly, never end. And perhaps that is as it should be.

The latest formulation of " the Jesus question" appeared in the form of a statue by Timothy Schmalz. It depicts Jesus as a homeless person, covered and laying on a park bench. "Jesus, the Homeless" is the Savior who was made flesh, and lived among us. Jesus the homeless, became one of us and, more than that, identified with the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones without a place to stay. In short, Jesus the Homeless is the Jesus born in a humble stable (or grotto).

This Jesus has not always been well accepted, especially by the wealthy and well-off. These folks prefer Jesus the Teacher. Teaching has always (till now) been a respected and accepted occupation. The wealthy have no problem accepting the One who came and taught humanity. They do not, however, care much for the Jesus who overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple or the Jesus who healed Lepers and related to outcasts. Most of all, they do not like Jesus the revolutionary.

It should be no surprise, then, that two prominent Roman Catholic Churches, one in Toronto, the other in New York, turned away "Jesus the Homeless". The statue was not welcomed by either archdiocese ("Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches"  by Leslie Scrivener in The Star, 14 April 2013 ) Apparently, church administrators do not appreciate the humility of Jesus either. Perhaps they do not like the mirror this statue holds up for them. In the homeless Savior, the well-off and powerful see themselves in stark contrast to Jesus who calls us all to identify with the "least of these"

It is too bad that "Jesus the Homeless" only found a home in front of a seminary. Somehow, I don't believe that this Jesus was meant to be seen and embraced only by the scholarly. Jesus was never meant to be captured by books but is understood best through service.