Thoughts on Diet and Exercise

The New Year calls forth many resolutions regarding diet and exercise. Most are broken rather quickly. One reason is that resolutions are often made without an understanding of the sound principles that are necessary to help motivate a sustained commitment.

Stephen Covey, in his book The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, argues that the cultivation of what he calls physical intelligence is an essential element towards achieving other purposes:

If we can subordinate the body to the spirit—that is, our appetites and passions to our conscience—we become masters of ourselves. People whose lives are a function of their appetites and passions rather than a conscience cannot give of themselves. Their space between stimulus and response is narrowed—they lose personal freedom, thinking all the while that they are exercising it. The body is a good servant but a bad master…

What happens to our emotional intelligence, or to our heart, when we neglect our physical bodies? What happens when we become a function of appetites and passions? Patience, love, understanding, empathy, compassion, and the ability to listen are themselves subordinated—they become buzzwords without flesh and blood to drive them.

Covey’s action guide points to “three fundamental ways to develop our physical intelligence. First, wise nutrition; second, consistent balanced exercise; third, proper rest, relaxation, stress management, and prevention thinking.”

The following recommendations are offered in order to help stimulate your thinking. Some of these changes will involve fundamental changes; they are not just tweaks on the margin. Of course, if you have an existing physical condition, consult your health care provider before trying them.

Nutrition:

For many, the typical American diet is horrible. It is filled with refined carbohydrates, excessive animal fat, and cheap and deadly vegetable oils.

Here are my recommendations:

• Eat four to six servings of vegetables from the Brassica family a day; these vegetables include broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale and collard greens. These vegetables are high in vitamins, calcium, and anti-cancer compounds. Leafy, dark green vegetables (kale, collards, mustard greens) are essential part of a healthy diet, and most Americans do not eat them at all. Eat them daily; simply steam them without overcooking them. When available, locally grown produce from farmers’ markets and/or organically grown vegetables are preferable.
• Increase your consumption of whole grains and beans such as brown rice, whole wheat, quinoa (a fast cooking and nutritious whole grain), lentils, black beans, kidney beans etc.
• Drink more water (filtered municipal tap water, quality well water, or spring water). Soda, milk, coffee, tea, juice, energy drinks etc. are not substitutes for water. Chronic dehydration is a factor contributing to many illnesses. There is no substitute for simple, pure water.
• Greatly reduce or eliminate refined carbohydrates such as white flour and sugar. Sugar suppresses the immunological system, and excessive consumption contributes to many chronic health problems. According to U.S. News and World Report, in one year, the average American consumes approximately 142 pounds of sugar and another 61 pounds of high fructose corn syrup. Some of this is consumed in the form of soda, of which the average American drinks 52 gallons per year. In the same year, the average American eats only 8 pounds of broccoli.
• Reduce or eliminate artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. If you need to be motivated, google “aspartame dangers” and read just a few of the thousands of web sites on this dangerous food additive.
• Increase your consumption of wild caught fish while reducing your consumption of red meat. Minimize the use of farm raised fish, feedlot beef and pork, and factory raised chickens and eggs. Feedlot beef is often euphemistically referred to as corn fed beef. Feedlot beef is high in saturated fat and low in omega-3 fatty acids. The alternative is grass fed beef which is leaner and has more omega-3 fatty acids.
• Speaking of omega-3 fatty acids—most diets are dangerously low in them. Wild Alaskan salmon, as well as fresh flaxseed oil, are good sources of these essential fatty acids. Flaxseed oil can be found in the refrigerator case of Whole Foods or your local natural foods store; it may be used instead of butter on popcorn and toast.
• Reduce your consumption of milk. Americans have been culturally “hypnotized” to believe that they can’t have “strong bones” if they don’t drink cow’s milk. Cow’s milk is indeed a perfect food, if you are a calf. There are foods other than milk that are rich in calcium. In order to increase calcium consumption, as well as many other vital nutrients, again, eat more green vegetables from the Brassica family.
• For cooking, use olive oil or unrefined vegetables oil such as sesame or safflower. Spectrum is a manufacturer of quality unrefined oils. Do not regularly consume heavily refined supermarket oils such as soybean or canola oil; and stay away from processed foods with partially hydrogenated oils.
• With your doctor’s advice, look to reduce your reliance on prescription drugs. High cholesterol and blood pressure drugs may be reduced or eliminated if major dietary changes help eliminate/control the underlying conditions. There are herbal compounds, such as New Chapter’s clinically tested Zyflamend, that reduce inflammation (some herbs interact with drugs and you should consult with your physician). There are growing numbers of physicians who are interested in alternative or complementary medicine.

Exercise:

There is a new exercise movement which some have labeled the “functional fitness movement.” This movement holds great promise for individuals to build a personal exercise regime that can be followed throughout a lifetime. Functional fitness helps to build strength and flexibility; it provides aerobic conditioning as well. The wonderful thing about functional fitness is that it does not rely on weights but instead relies on body-weight. These exercises not only reduce the risk of injury, but also allow you to exercise at any time without equipment. This is perfect for “road warriors” or time-challenged individuals. Personally, I do these exercises several times a day in blocks of 10-15 minutes.

Here are some specific recommendations: For men, John Peterson’s Pushing Yourself to Power. For women, Wendie Pett’s Every Woman’s Guide to Personal Power covers the same ground. For men and women, John Peterson’s and Wendie Pett’s Miracle Seven is excellent. For men and women, there is a compact, inexpensive, and ingenious exercising device called the Lebert Equalizer. Scott Sonnon’s Intu-Flow program will condition ailing joints and support flexibility efforts. If you have not been exercising, consult your physician.

Stress Reduction:

• Identifying with your ego is your number one source of stress. Be more aware of your stressful ego thoughts. Non-judgmental awareness brings relief. While you cannot directly control your thinking, there is no need to grab hold of, and ruminate over ego thoughts. Make an empty space and more peaceful thoughts will automatically fill the void.
• Reduce your consumption of television. Do not watch the local news or pundit shows on Fox News or CNN before you go to bed. These shows are filled with transitory and meaningless information about celebrities, crime etc.—they pollute your mind, increase stress, and increase difficulty sleeping.
• Cultivate practices such as quiet reflection, prayer, meditation, exercise, or walking that allow you to clear your head.
• Note: Stress is a common cause of back pain. If you have back pain, consider the drug-free and surgery-free work of John Sarno, M.D. (I have read Sarno’s books but I have not reviewed his DVD)

Best wishes for a healthy and happy New Year.

The Story of the Other Wise Man

An annual Christmas tradition in our home is my wife’s reading of The Story of the Other Wise Man by Henry van Dyke. This little gem of a novel tells the tale of the pilgrim Artaban. Artaban lives during the time of Jesus and devotes his life to searching for him. He never encounters Jesus; but along the 33 years of his pilgrimage, Artaban performs many heartfelt, charitable deeds. I won’t spoil the ending; but as he is dying, Artaban learns that his life had more meaning than he ever could have imagined.

In the preface to his book, Van Dyke offers insights on the human condition. No matter how hard you work at it, it will never work out the way you hoped for:

You must face the thought that your work in the world may be almost ended, but you know that it is not nearly finished.

You have not solved the problems that perplexed you. You have not reached the goal that you aimed at. You have not accomplished the great tests that you set for yourself. You are still on the way; and perhaps your journey must end now—nowhere—in the dark.

Later in the preface van Dyke offers wonderful advice to all who are moved by the creative force within:

An idea arrives without effort; a form can only be wrought out by patient labor. If your story is worth telling, you ought to love it enough to be willing to work over it until it is true—true not only to the ideal, but true also to the real. The light is a gift; but the local color can only be seen by one who looks for it long and steadily.

Van Dyke offers the wisdom that the goal is not what counts, but that the integrity by which you seek to accomplish the goal is everything:

Who seeks for heaven alone to save his soul,
May keep the path, but will not reach the goal;
While he who walks in love may wander far,
Yet God will bring him where the blessed are.

Toward the end of the book, Artaban faces one last test. Will he be true to his goal or true to Love. He chooses Love. Van Dyke writes:

What had he to fear? What had he to live for? He’d given away the last remnant of his tribute for (Jesus). He had parted with the last hope of finding Him. The quest was over, and it had failed. But, even in that thought, accepted and embraced, there was peace. It was not resignation. It was not submission. It was something more profound and searching. He knew that all was well, because he had done the best that he could, from day to day. He had been true to the light that had been given to him.

There is a final treat for the reader of this wonderful book—and that I will leave for you to discover.

Best wishes for a wonderful and peaceful Holiday.

Davy Crockett Advises the Candidates: “Not Yours to Give”

When 435 Congressmen exercise almost unlimited power to spend and then shift the bill to every other American, the result is what we have today—out-of-control federal spending. This spending has resulted in a national debt of over $ 9 trillion.

In truth, the Constitution of the United States does not provide this unlimited power. Yet because, as a nation, we have lost our collective understanding of constitutional principles, Congressmen behave as though they have this power. Our collective lack of understanding is further revealed by the simple observation that most candidates seeking office, at all levels, make promises of expanding spending into new areas.

In the presidential campaign, last week’s focus was on a Clinton aide’s comments on Obama’s youthful drug use and Huckabee’s repulsive bigotry against Mormons. With this, the public focus is turned away from the fact that all three of these candidates have proposed an expanded role for the federal government.

Of course, character issues are important; but the media devotes proportionally little time to issues such as the role of the federal government in the economy. To the media, it is simply a given that all “good” and “serious” candidates will support an expanded role for government.

Sometimes a good story can go a long way to help us reflect on the basic values and principles that help determine the size of government. American folk hero Davy Crockett, who died at the Battle of the Alamo, serves up a helpful story.

Crockett served three terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1831 and again from 1833-1835. An 1884 book The Life of Colonel David Crockett by Edward Sylvester Ellis relates the origins of Crockett’s most famous congressional speech. This speech has been commonly referred to as “Not Yours to Give.” As the 2008 candidates engage in a bidding war of promises to spend other people’s money, Ellis’s account can help stimulate dialogue on the principles that help determine the role of government.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and—

“Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdolger…I begged him tell me what was the matter.

“Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.’

“I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.’

” ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

“Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.’

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.’

“‘Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’

“The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“If I don’t, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. ‘This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

“‘Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.”

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came up to the stand and said:

“Fellow-citizens – it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. “There is one thing which I will call your attention, “you remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Ron Paul and America’s Founding Principles

America is a great nation. America’s greatness is no accident; its greatness is a direct result of its founding and transcendent principles. These principles have resulted in, as Stephen Moore and Julian Simon observe, “more material progress in the United States in the 20th century than there was in the entire world in all the previous centuries combined.”

With this prosperity has come complacency and widespread ignorance of what America’s founding principles are. These principles include the right to own one’s body, as well as the right to own physical property. Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder of The Little House on the Prairie books, wrote of these rights:

The revolutionary basis (of this country) is recognition of the fact that human rights are natural rights, born in every human being with his life, and inseparable from his life; not rights and freedoms that can be granted by any power on earth.

Government’s job then is not to grant us rights, but to uphold our inherent rights. Of all nations on earth, only America was founded with the principle that rights are inherent and not granted. When we understand this principle, we understand why James Madison wrote: “All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.” And, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.”

In America today, few understand that transcendent idea. Almost all people seeking political office see government has having almost unlimited power to confiscate wealth from some citizens and some corporations for the benefit of other citizens and other corporations.

I don’t ordinarily like blogging about politics. Politics can be a divisive force precisely because there are so few statesmen seeking office. Elections then revolve around personalities and spin, rather than a reasoned dialogue over principles and issues. Yet, when someone says what he stands for in clear terms and with respect for others, there is the possibility of reasoned dialogue. Such dialogue helps all of us reflect on which principles we value and cherish.

This year is an unusual year because there is a statesman seeking office who speaks in such clear terms. That person is Ron Paul. Although it is unlikely that the country is ready for the kind of sea change that Paul represents, if Paul is able to go deep into the primary season, his candidacy will help bring forth many important issues for Americans to reflect on. A strong showing by Paul in the primary season helps insure that his ideas—and the dialogue they ignite—will continue to be heard this year and beyond.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I support Ron Paul:

1. His consistent principled opposition to the war in Iraq. In foreign policy, he supports the vision of the founding fathers—commercial relationships with all, but no entangling foreign alliances.
2. His consistent opposition to the war on drugs. This war has helped to erode personal liberty, has made war zones of inner cities, has filled our jails, has corrupted police all over the country, and has cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. His consistent opposition to Federal Reserve policy; that policy is threatening to send the U.S. economy into economic collapse. As an economist, I personally know that Paul has studied for decades the work of great economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek. Paul understands the consequences of decades of runaway deficits and inflationary monetary policy.

Today, I sincerely believe that there are several grim scenarios facing the United States. Again, we have lost our collective understanding of the founding principles that had helped make this country a beacon of liberty and of economic prosperity. Whether we are talking about an individual or a society, forgetting our principles has consequences. Because we have forgotten our principles, America is in serious danger of an economic collapse and more ruinous foreign wars. Yet that can change. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can help begin the dialogue that can ignite the process of America regaining its great, founding, and transcendent principles.

Do Crops Need Brawndo?

In the satirical film Idiocracy, which is set 500 years in the future, a Gatorade-type product has completely replaced water. Water is now used only in toilets. Indeed, the product called Brawndo has replaced all other foods on the government’s food pyramid chart.

Crops in this future world are watered with Brawndo. Naturally, they are dying. The public, though, sees no connection between the dying plants and Brawndo. As more plants die, these future Americans simply use more Brawndo and mindlessly repeat: “It’s got what plants crave. Plants need electrolytes.” In this future world, the public’s faith in Brawndo is absolute.

How far away is such a world? Maybe not so far.

In the past few years, there have been many deadly outbreaks of E. coli 0157 bacteria on fresh, leafy, green vegetables such as spinach and lettuce. Rather than addressing the root cause, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) instead has proposed rules which are their equivalent of using more Brawndo.

The E. coli outbreaks have more to do with unsafe practices on many farms, rather than anything inherently risky in growing or eating leafy greens. Michael Pollan, writing in the New York Times, traces the E. coli outbreak to feedlot farming practices:

The lethal strain of E. coli known as 0157:H7, responsible for this latest outbreak of food poisoning, was unknown before 1982; it is believed to have evolved in the gut of feedlot cattle. These are animals that stand around in their manure all day long, eating a diet of grain that happens to turn a cow’s rumen into an ideal habitat for E. coli 0157:H7. (The bug can’t survive long in cattle living on grass.) Industrial animal agriculture produces more than a billion tons of manure every year, manure that, besides being full of nasty microbes like E. coli 0157:H7 (not to mention high concentrations of the pharmaceuticals animals must receive so they can tolerate the feedlot lifestyle), often ends up in places it shouldn’t be…

So how does the USDA respond? They have proposed rules that will concentrate farm production further in the hands of large farms that use unsafe practices. Pollan writes:

Heavy burdens of regulation always fall heaviest on the smallest operations and invariably wind up benefiting the biggest players in an industry, the ones who can spread the costs over a larger output of goods. A result is that regulating food safety tends to accelerate the sort of industrialization that made food safety a problem in the first place.

According to the Cornucopia Institute, the new rules “include growing practices that discourage biodiversity and sustainable/organic farming practices, deplete soil fertility, and create “sterile” fields—methods that have not been scientifically proven to actually reduce E. coli 0157 bacteria but are certain to reduce biodiversity, harm wildlife, and burden family-scale farms.”

For example, the proposed new rules may require testing for pathogens at every harvest. Large farms that grow one crop, which they harvest only several times a year, will incur proportionally less expense to meet that requirement than small family farms that continually harvest many types of greens.

According to the Cornucopia, these rules “discourage the development of microbial life in the soil.” In doing so, Cornucopia observes that the risk is increased: “In fact, sustainable farming methods that promote microbial life in soil have shown to reduce E. coli 0157 because it has to compete with other microbes and is therefore less likely to thrive.”

Simply put, policies that encourage more food centralization create more problems and put us all at risk—not only from E. coli outbreaks, but also from disruptions to our food supply caused by known and unknown risks.

The Dangerous “Teaser Freezer”

Problems, arising from the bursting of the housing bubble, continue to escalate. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported on a pending agreement between the Bush administration and lenders. The agreement would freeze interest rates to troubled borrowers for up to seven years at low, introductory, teaser rates.

My post Something for Nothing wrote of the resentment that such bailouts will create. At his outstanding blog, Mish Shedlock explains why the bailout will fail—those who have negative equity in their homes will have every incentive to fall behind on their loans in order to receive a bailout. Mish writes:

It will fail because it is in the best interest of those underwater on their loans to make it fail. People are going to understand they are way upside down on their home loans, and those people along with everyone who resents others being bailed out will have every reason in the world to walk away. So walk away they will.

Last week also saw Wall Street rallying on the possibility that Bernanke will cut interest rates by another half-percent. No doubt we will see continuing actions and proposals to bailout the financial sector—at the expense of the economy.

At the same time, there is little to indicate that the public has had enough of all of this. A dangerous belief has strengthened over the past decades—the belief that Fed is an omnipotent director who can navigate the economy away from harm. Doug Wakefield writes of crowd behavior:

Until we understand our human tendency is to extrapolate the past, and embrace stories that support our feelings of a current trend, we will fail to search beyond our feelings and passionately seek for signs of the END of a current trend.

In other words, until we are forced by circumstances to confront our beliefs, we usually don’t. This basic fact of human nature makes it almost a certainty that the current economic crisis will continue to escalate.

The fact that anyone can still have faith in the institutions that by their policies created the mess, is strong evidence for how hard it is for human beings to reflect on cherished beliefs.

Many independent financial writers and economists (myself included) predicted this housing crisis. Robert Prechter wrote in 2002:

What screams “bubble”—giant, historic bubble—in real estate today is the system-wide extension of massive amounts of credit to finance property purchases. As a result, a record percentage of Americans today are nominal “homeowners” via $7.6 trillion in mortgage debt.

Or, consider what Warren Brussee wrote in 2004:

Come 2008 the number of people giving up on making house payments will skyrocket. Since many of the recent mortgage loans were adjustable rate or had little or no collateral, banks will be forced to foreclose on the homes and sell them, causing a glut of homes on the market and a deflation of home values. In the 2000 market drop almost no banks went belly up because people had not bought stocks on leverage. This is not true in housing, where people and banks are leveraged. As the current inflated home values go down many people will have mortgages greater than the value of their homes, and they will happily give their homes back to the bank rather than fight their mortgage payments. Unless the federal government comes to their rescue, many banks will fail in this downturn. This is because banks also got too confident and optimized bottom line results with little consideration for the risks they were taking with marginal mortgage loans.

I could have included other prescient forecasts, but the point is this—our current crisis is not an unfortunate result of unpredictable events. Instead, it is a direct consequence of exceptionally poor policies. Many treat seriously proposals coming from the same institutions that implemented these poor policies—that in itself is a sign of how far away we are from the end of this crisis.

Consider this current sobering forecast. One financial writer was asked to use a baseball metaphor for how far we are into this economic crisis. He was asked: “Would you say we are in the seventh inning?” His response: “Hardly, they are just playing the national anthem.”