Various Thoughts XI

I've been reminded (most gently) that I sometimes get things wrong. It's something hard for me to admit since I've always seen myself as perfect. (But see “The Law Is An Ass,” June 18, 2017, Comments.) Oh well, the best I can be is close to perfect. In any event, I won't hesitate to inform you of what I consider (close to) the truth – my thoughts. Let's begin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard an interesting term today. Self abuse. It referred to damage which people may do to themselves, knowingly or not. No malice is buried in the term, despite the fact that we usually understand "abuse" to imply intentional harm inflicted by one person on another. Words morph. Language changes over time. Does it matter? If children stop understanding what "clockwise" means because all they see are digital listings of the time, there will certainly be another term to convey the same idea. Or will there be?

There have been many proposals over time that we establish some kind of panel to keep track, or even pass judgment, over new words and expressions in (American) English. Is that warranted? Will it work? Words (and the ones I choose are random) don't mean what they did when I was young. "Marriage," "cool," "gay," "liberal," and, in this instance, "abuse" had different connotations if not denotations. And both are at risk of being doomed? Words are losing their value. Is there anything we can do about it? And should we? I'm not suggesting that we stop the development of new words. Only that we don't forget what words used to mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm an old-fashioned creep. When I was young, family entertainment included Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. There was no cursing on TV, and sexual identities were certain. And we got to see June Cleaver, the ideal modern woman.

Times have changed. I'm a fan of Madam Secretary which, when I started watching, was fairly staid. In the past season we have seen an affair, an unplanned pregnancy, a man "coming out" as bisexual, as well as children who often "diss" their parents – at least the son does.

Now, on television and in the movies, cursing is routine and homosexual and LGBTQ themes are rife – disproportionate to the numbers in the live population. At least I hope so. Ditto what we used to call pornography. (Society seems not only to describe and illustrate what used to be viewed as "perversions," but to lionize them – to make them appear mainstream and desirable.) The Supreme Court (notwithstanding Justice Stewart) may view virtually all expression as free, but I'm not sure I agree. (They view all non-dangerous speech as allowable though we disagree about what is dangerous.) It seems to me that there should be limitations as to what we and our children should be exposed to. Not just warnings.

I don't consider myself an enemy of free speech, but parents should not have to read children's books before deciding their appropriateness for their offspring. Or is that unjustified censorship? Should there be some restrictions on freedom of expression or do we live in a world where, as Cole Porter put it, Anything Goes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lemon flavoured custards, puddings and pies have been enjoyed since Mediaeval times, but meringue was perfected in the 17th century. Lemon meringue pie, as it is known today, is a 19th-century product. The earliest recorded recipe [for lemon meringue pie] was attributed to Alexander Frehse, a Swiss baker from Romandie. (Wikipedia)

I love lemon meringue pie, but I can't imagine how Alexander Frehse came up with the idea. More and more bizarre (in my not-so-humble opinion) combinations of flavors are being promoted – lemon and meringue are, however, not bizarre. What prompts chefs to come up with these recipes other than a desire to “wow” the public, impress the critics, and make money?

It's not just an American phenomenon. The idea of merging chocolate, hot peppers, and chicken is totally foreign to me and I've never tried chicken mole pablano. Neither have I any desire to do so. Talk about illegal immigrants. Perhaps I'm narrow minded but a charred steak is much more appealing. If you start with a tasty product you don't have to add or cover it with strange ingredients. Except, of course, to attract attention and money. I guess those are good reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time to turn off my brain.

Heresy

Alright. I admit it. I'm an anomaly.

No! Wait. I'm being too harsh on myself. I'm trying to be politically correct. I'm right and the world is wrong.

These thoughts crossed my mind last night as I had dinner out with my wife. It was at a nearby Chinese restaurant. It was her choice. Believe me it was her choice. My preference is for a steak house, since I love a nice steak with lots of burnt fat. Or a few similarly prepared lamb chops. With a nice glass of wine. Perhaps I'd choose a fancy dessert as well.

But I'm a good husband. So I had skinless fried chicken cutlets with peas and carrots. The name was fancier and, from the endless menu, it sounded tolerable. But it wasn't. Chicken is chicken and peas and carrots can, run but they can't hide. You can serve “snap peas” with grated raw carrots, but it's still peas and carrots. And schnitzel is schnitzel even with “plum” sauce. Moreover I suspect that the sauce was really a commercial combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor – but I have no beef with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial stuff, so I'll let that pass. (Actually I had chicken, not beef, with the combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor.) Fortunately it wasn't organic. (Or, at least, it didn't say so.)

Bottom line, though, is that I had chicken with peas and carrots. And the chicken was already sliced for me. People who eat in Chinese restaurants don't know how to cut food. (And maybe they all have false teeth.) There were lots of other things on the menu, but almost all of them were combinations of small pieces of meat and vegetables in some kind of thick, nondescript, sauce. Page after page of them. Far more than I cared to read. (There were also Thai dishes listed, as well as sushi, but all that proves is that the restaurant was keeping up with the fads. The food itself was no better.)

And, of course, there was a bowl of tasteless rice to fill me up, although there was no lack of food. What the dish lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity. A big glass of water accompanied my meal. Fortunately it was tap water rather than some of the pretentious and overpriced bottled variety. I suppose I could have had green tea, but there's a limit to my masochism. I can take just so much.

As for dessert, everyone got a couple slices of orange and a commercial fortune cookie which I was smart enough not to eat. I eschewed the pop philosophy and my “lucky” numbers. I'm sure it wasn't my loss.

So where am I going with this? I'm Jewish and I don't like Chinese “food.” It ain't food! I don't care if half the world eats it or something similar (I don't like Japanese or Thai fare either), it just ain't food. Anything you have to eat with sticks isn't worth the time. I'd rather pick something up in my hands. (We're Henry the Eighth, we are.)

I guess this means that I fail in the test of multiculturalism. I'm ethnocentric. I've got teeth. I'm a heretic. A pariah. And I don't want everything mixed together.

But I don't care. Others, and I don't exclude Jews, can eat what they want. Even if it isn't food. And I'll dutifully observe the ritual myself every now and again in order to keep up the ethnic image and maintain family peace, however I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Pass the bagels and lox. And the herring. And the rugelach.

And I'll have a steak tonight.

L'chaim

I should be dead.

I do everything wrong.

That's enough of the philippic. Let me get down to facts. I'm not being responsible. I'm supposed to walk 10,000 steps every day. I read that somewhere so it must be true.ⁱ But I don't do that much and I never have.ⁱⁱ And I don't jog, either. How am I supposed to keep fit? I like sitting in a comfortable chair listening to music and nodding off. And when I'm tired of that I take a nap.

And my food habits are wrong too. I love fat and salt. It was good enough for ancient sacrifices and it's good enough for me. Especially burnt fat.ⁱⁱⁱ An olfactory and a culinary treat. And I should add that I like other foods burnt as well – especially meat. From my perspective vegetarians are missing out on the best foods in order to satisfy some sort of religious belief system. Now I'm all in favor of religion, but they've missed the mark by quite a lot. And vegans are the worst. I think they're like Vulcans and come from another solar system.^iv In any event, I'm a carnivore.^v

There are some other facts worth mention: I'm twenty pounds over what one internet program tells me is my ideal weight. That must be because I love junk food – particularly cheese balls and potato chips. But I don't want to sell cake short (or shortcake for that matter), or cookies, candy, and Coke (especially the “Classic” variety).^vi I already mentioned that I love fat, even the saturated and trans varieties though I usually don't read food labels to see if they're present.

I don't take megavitamins, fiber, or food supplements, and I'm not a fan of anti-oxidants or the nine (I think it's nine) portions of fruit daily that will provide them. You can be sure I don't eat an apple every day (nor do I take a shower, so I don't have to worry about keeping the doctor away). I love gluten and high-fructose corn syrup. 

I prefer tap water to the bottled variety – especially to bottled water with all sorts of supplements and food colors in it. I also avoid all of the products that are supposed to support my immune system. (It's bewildering that so many people eschew immunizations for their children based on “scientific” studies long discredited and retracted.) I avoid “immune support supplements” like the plague (and yogurt).

 

I love inorganic and unnatural foods. Especially those that have been radiated and are derived from sources that contain genetic modifications. They tend to last longer and have fewer bugs and other pathogens. And they're usually cheaper.

I didn't mention, but now I shall, that I don't stop and smell the roses or hug trees. And I don't talk to my plants, although sometimes they talk to me.^vii I've been in a few automobile accidents – the last when I lost consciousness while driving^viii – and a plane crash. So far I'm still alive.

But I'd better watch my step or I'll die young. No, wait. It's too late for that. But I should still correct my behavior in order to add to my years. Though I've never been convinced that that was such a good idea. As John Mortimer wrote, “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

And I wonder if it would do any good anyway. Linda McCartney, Paul's first wife, was a vegetarian and an animal rights activist – an active member of PETA. She died of metastatic breast cancer, and one of the comments made after that was that she shouldn't have died. “She did everything right.”

So what's the answer? Can you prolong your life by doing everything right? Do you want to? And do you shorten it by doing things wrong?

There is no answer. G-d (or fate or whatever else, if anything, in which you believe) governs the length of your life irrespective of what you do. That's not to suggest that you engage in risky behavior like smoking, drinking, and texting while driving, but only that some of the things people do in search of immortality are overkill. Engaging in health crazes is not only costly, it's close to useless. From my perspective, the best approach is to do whatever you enjoy the most and believe is most responsible and best for you and everyone else (even if it's vegetarianism) without getting caught up in all the latest fads – especially those that promise eternal life or bliss.

When you try to cheat death you only cheat yourself.

Next episode: “Look At Me – I'm A Liberal” – I'm sensitive.

I         I think it was in a blog, and all bloggers know what they're talking about, and they're all in agreement.

ii       But who's counting?

iii      That's the way they served up sacrifices, and they knew what they were doing.

iv       Or universe. Or reality.

v        Actually I'm an omnivore (as long as it's kosher) but I don't like to waste my calories on salad and other varieties of animal food. (In truth, no calories are wasted. They all go to the common good. And the individual waist.)

vi       As you can see, I favor the C food group, and that includes Cheese balls and potato Chips. Of course when Linus Pauling urged us to take large amounts of vitamin C, I knew it was just a crock.

vii       I must admit that I find that somewhat unnerving.

viii     I've had no problems for the last few years having returned to driving after about a month of medical tests.

Watch Your Language

                                                      

The battle over euphemisms and politically correct speech is all but over – to the detriment of free speech,ⁱ the English language,ⁱⁱ the United States and its citizens,ⁱⁱⁱ and common sense. Saying the “correct” thing, even if it's not accurate, is much more highly regarded than saying the “wrong” thing, even if that's what you believe and that's what is true. Our current culture places a higher value on sensitivity than saying what's on your mind. Being right is less important than being correct.

But apart from self-censorship and acceptance of the whims of society, there are a number of language changes that somehow have become embedded in our legal system. “Marriage,” for example, which most dictionaries describe as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife,”^iv now has a secondary definition based, in some areas, on the legislature and the courts. Thus, the OED^v now includes in its definition “(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.”^vi The definition, therefore, depends on where you are. That's not unusual. Language varies depending on time and place. But the variation generally reflects usage patterns rather than the law.

Similarly, the difference between “fetus” and “baby,” one with far-reaching legal implications, is a difference based on law, not science or theology. Abortion is legal, the courts tell us, even if murder is not.

But those changes and differences are not the subject of this essay.

On July 20^th, James Holmes shot a large number of people inside an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, killing twelve^vii and injuring many more. Neither he nor his attorney has denied it. "This is not a whodunit," said Craig Silverman, a former chief deputy district attorney in Denver.”^viii So the issue of what happened and the identity of the shooter are not in question.

But none of the media appears willing to say so. All of reports of the crime refer to Holmes as the “suspect” or the “accused killer,” or they speak of him as the “alleged” killer. For example, “James Holmes, theater shooting suspect, faces formal charges Monday,”^ix was the headline on the posting of WPTV, while CBS notes that “Accused Aurora Killer James Holmes Allegedly Foreshadowed Crimes.” Another headline, on ABC, boasts “James Holmes: First Video of Alleged Killer Released,”^x while the Wall Street Journal noted that the “Alleged Colorado Killer Makes Court Appearance.”^xi

It's not hard to understand what's happening. This crime is not the only example of this phenomenon. The media are unable – or unwilling – to distinguish between fact and motive, and they're fearful of the legal consequences of using the wrong words. Because of this fear they are unable to state the obvious – that James Holmes killed some people. They will not say so until it has been certified by the courts. Only then will the defendant be a killer rather than an “alleged killer” or a suspect. In the meantime the suspected victims, alleged to be dead, will be buried. Or, at least, reported to be so.

When killings occur in other countries, the media are not shy about identifying the killers, whether Syrian armed forces, Chechnyan nationalists, or the Sudanese government. There is no talk about an alleged genocide or accused killers or suspects in a massacre. No one will sue them in these cases. But the press has been terrified into using misleading language out of fear of the American legal system. Rather than report that Mr. Holmes killed the people, and the dispute centers around whether the killings constituted “murder,” there seems to be anxiety about whether the wrong man has been accused, even though no one has made that claim.

The English language is becoming the world's second language. It is being adopted as a means of communication even by those for whom it is not the native language. That is so not only because of the dominance of nations which speak it, but because it is an expressive and nuanced language. Unfortunately we are removing those nuances in order to meet the demands of pressure groups, our own guilt, and the threat of the law.

"The only possible defense is insanity." Craig Silverman said that of the upcoming trial of Mr. Holmes, but it would apply as well to the press coverage of the event, and to our own treatment of the words we speak.

Next episode: “Bang, Bang, Bang” – Getting our way.

i     If someone who hears you speak deems you insensitive, you may be subject not only to academic censure, but to charges of “hate” speech. The old saw, “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you,” has been superseded by legislative and judicial outlawing of anything “offensive.” And when they develop a way to know what we're thinking ...

ii    For example, pronouns have been neutered and gender – a linguistic term – eliminated. The previously used term to designate a single individual, “he,” has been replaced by the pleural “they,” and similar changes have been made it the various forms of pronouns. Just yesterday I heard someone say, without irony, “To each their own.”

And a ship is no longer “she,” but “it.” It cannot be denied that language changes, but this wholesale imposition of the views of some on the entire language is regrettable. Apart from other considerations, the changes sound silly. And the language, itself, is impoverished by imprecision and by lack of color. Examples are numerous but these will have to do.

iii    An outstanding student – one very bright and with great potential – was once viewed as “special” and the educational system sought ways to maximize his (or her, but certainly not “their”) potential. Today the dumb and disabled (yes, I know that I'm violating all concepts of civility, sensitivity, and correct speech) are the ones we consider special and for whom we readily dispense our resources. No child, we are told, should be left behind, but our current system also ensures that no bright child will be helped to get ahead. It's no wonder that America's place among the nations educationally is falling, and that other countries are surpassing us in technical development and scientific achievement.

iv    Merriam-Webster.  

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

v      Oxford English Dictionary.

vi       http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

vii    By the time this is published the number may change.

viii    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/colorado-shooting-suspect-to-be-formally-charged-in-aurora-movie-massacre/2012/07/30/gJQAd8ukJX_story.html

ix http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-theater-shooting-suspect-faces-formal-charges-monday

x     abcnews.go.com/ July 22, 2012.

xi    July 24, 2012.

Fats, Fads, and Futility

                                                                                              

There's nothing more important than your health.ⁱ Trite, but true. Another strong component of most people's thinking is belief. We all believe in something, even if it's the idea that we can't trust Congress. For most the issue of belief relates to religious teachings; for others it's the belief that all religion is fraud. (Even atheism is a religion – a belief system.) But people have belief, and if you put health and belief together and you have a powerful force – one that controls most of us.

Unfortunately, much of what we believe has little support. For example, two of my favorite foods – fat and salt – are widely believed to be detrimental to our health. I never let that stop me, however. As it says in Genesis 45:18, “Ye shall eat the fat of the land.” I certainly wouldn't want to argue with the Bible. If it says that fat is good, who am I to dispute it?ⁱⁱ I see no benefit to following the contrary teachings.ⁱⁱⁱ

But wait. The warnings are what you read in the newspapers, so you know they're true. However you read the opposite as well. A recent article in the New York Times^iv raised questions about our view of the harmful effects of salt.^v The article pointed to “a slew of studies suggesting that reducing [emphasis added] sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a 'safe upper limit' is likely to do more harm than good.” Such studies were widely ignored however. They didn't correspond to the dogma of the times. The author of the newspaper article also stated that “(t)his attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed.”

And the harmful effects of fat, about which we're warned all the time, my be less well established than what the enemies of fat say . Another New York Times article,^vi by John Tierney, wrote, “The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly.” He attributed the view to a “cascade” effect in which a theory was presented which sounded plausible and subsequent experts deferred to that theory even if they couldn't confirm it. It sounded like the right thing, and most people – even scientists – aren't eager to dispute what seems true. Especially if it agrees with what they already believed.^vii

In both of the case cited above there is the disagreement among experts, but the message to the public doesn't suggest this. Salt and fat are bad. So we're told by doctors, nutritionists, newspapers, and all the other experts. Science is sloppy. It doesn't matter if the popular perception is true or if it isn't. Once an obviously correct idea captures the imagination, it is hard to dislodge it. If the media proclaim it to be true, it's true. After all, there's a scientific study which comes to this conclusion. Or, at least, a scientist. The authors of papers may have to reveal funding sources and their scientific affiliations, but there is no requirement that they disclose their political views and their pre-existing notions.

But there are also reports based on outright deceit. A single study,^viii with what has been described as “falsification” and “fraud,” led to the widespread belief that immunizations cause autism. And that view has persisted in the public mind, although scientifically disproved. As has the persistent belief that breast implants cause autoimmune disease.^ix Popular perceptions, like the ideas that megavitamins, anti-oxidants, foods said to strengthen the immune system, natural, and organic foods are good for you and genetically-altered and irradiated foods are bad, don't require proof.^x Everyone knows that electric power lines cause cancer. Why do some reject such an obvious truth? Such ideas are intuitive and, therefore, correct. Never trust a scientist or doctor.^xi Trust your intuition. Trust your gut.

But the biggest source of misinformation,^xii and a popular preoccupation of the public, can be found in the plethora of diets and the books that promote them. The simple version of weight is that the more calories you ingest, the more you'll weigh; the fewer, the less. Weight is a matter of calories.^xiii But people want magic – something that will allow them to eat what they want while shedding pounds. So there are diets that cater to every taste: diets that permit carbohydrates while limiting fat, diets that emphasize protein, high fat diets, low fat diets, low glycemic-index diets, diets that are accompanied by exercise, and those without, some supplemented by vitamins, some not, and variations of all of these. Diet books are published at almost the same rate as cookbooks. With most diets there is an initial loss of weight which sparks the enthusiasm of the followers of the plan, and their spreading the gospel of the new regimen. But later on the lost weight is usually regained – and sometimes more weight is added than was lost initially. The early results may originate in diuretic and laxative effects, as well as the enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice of the dieter. All of these effects disappear and pall later on. So, ultimately, the diets fail.

People want THE ANSWERS to all their health problems, and they don't want to wait. They look for magic and “feel good” solutions to those problems. Belief is substituted for scientific study. And it's a strong force. So strong that convincing a believer that he's on the wrong track is almost impossible. Facts are irrelevant when compared to “obvious” and “logical” answers. But those answers are ones that the people who control our society don't want you to know. You can't trust authority.

So like other fads, most diets are doomed to failure. If any one worked there would be no need for alternatives, and no market for them. Rather, there are so many that it seems clear that none of them is worth its salt. In fact, the salt is probably more worthwhile.

As Craig Claiborne said, “Man is born to eat.” And, in the inspiring words of Orson Welles:

Ask not what you can do for your country,

ask what's for lunch.

Next episode: “7” – Other.

i        For some, politics is a strong force but many people wisely ignore it.

ii      And most of the sacrifices had salt added. Can I criticize the the desires of the One to Whom the sacrifices were made?

iii    John Mortimer's observation also has merit: “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

iv     And, consequently, fit to print whether true or not.

v     “Salt, We Misjudged You” by Gary Taubes, described as an independent investigator in Health Policy Research for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The article appeared June 2, 2012.

vi    “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus,” NYT, October 9, 2007.

vii   When it comes to the question of “global warming,” many attribute the statements of various scientists to political beliefs rather than scientific facts.

viii   By Andrew Wakefield.

ix     Indeed, although scientifically unsupportable, it has cost some manufacturers large sums and driven some of them out of business.

x     In fact any dispute of these views probably reflects scientific bias or conclusions driven by the deep pockets of those who gain by the controversy. It took a long time for the public to accept the fact that Laetrile was not only useless but it kept patients from getting valuable help in a timely manner.

xi     Actually that's an excellent idea if observed in evaluation of single studies, like the ones in newspapers – usually on the front page. But those are the ones that the public believes. Most scientists won't accept such studies until they've been duplicated and verified, however the failure of a study that was highly touted is not nearly as interesting, and will only be printed in an inconspicuous place on an inside page, if it appears at all.

xii    And a major source of revenue for authors and publishers.

xiii  The concept of calories was first introduced by Clément in 1842, and it referred to heat production. Later in the nineteenth century the relation to food was noted.

Vitamin $

 

A friend told me yesterday that she buys fruits and vegetables from a local food co-op. In fact she volunteers to work there. Unfortunately, the quantities that one has to purchase tend to be large amounts and it's sometimes necessary to eat a lot of a particular variety, whether you want it or not. But I guess that's better than throwing it out – although that, too, may sometimes be necessary.

I inquired about the reason for buying from the co-op, and was informed that the produce comes from a local source. But, of course, my supermarket is a local source. And I can get whatever quantity I want, of a wide variety of foodstuffs. No. I apparently misunderstood. The food, itself, is local. It's fresher.ⁱ That means, as everyone knows, that it's more nutritious. Food loses nutritional value with time. If it comes to your table a few hours later it has lost some of its vitamins.ⁱⁱ At least that's the teaching.

In all honesty I'm not convinced that there is any significant loss in food value.ⁱⁱⁱ Nor is it likely that any marginal increase or decrease in vitamin content – if there is any – will affect your health. Most Americans are well nourished and not in need of additional vitamins beyond what they'll get in a reasonably balanced diet. They're paying for a dream^iv rather than a reality, but that's the way it is with a lot of what we do. And the local farmers and the nutritionists have to eat, too.

In recent years, though, we have become addicted to pronouncements of those who claim they can improve our health. They build on vague ideas from folklore and on hope, transmitted by others with the same goals. Huge industries have come from these dreams – exercise machines, folk remedies, personal trainers, training shoes and other clothing, “organic”^v and “natural”^vi foods, books, nutritionists and health gurus, and the lobbyists who protect these trades.

Claims abound concerning the scientific backing of whatever panacea is being promoted. In fact all that exists may only be a single unverified result in a reasonable scientific publication, but that's enough. Unfortunately the “scientific evidence” is more likely that found in a newspaper – but much too often if there is any published material on the subject it can be found in an advocacy periodical that would not stand up to independent review of any kind. Too frequently the only reference by supporters of these fads to valid scientific studies^vii is to dismiss them as being inaccurate and contrivances of the “establishment” whose main interest is to keep the average citizen from enjoying the benefits of whatever they favor. “They^viii don't want you to know” about the product being promoted.

Our goal is to live forever. It's not possible, of course, but that won't stop us from trying.

Jon Carroll writes:^ix AFTER THE DEATH of Linda McCartney, I heard someone on television say, with anger, that her death was tragic because “she had done everything right.”

I gathered from context that the speaker meant that Linda McCartney had eaten food free from additives or hormones, that she had not used tobacco or drunk alcohol to excess, that she had exercised regularly and seen her doctor once a year and that, when the first signs of the disease were detected, she had taken all necessary and appropriate steps. And I thought of something I had heard a week earlier, a quote whose source I did not remember: “Americans think death is optional.” … People who do everything right die, and people who do everything wrong die.

Nothing guarantees eternal life, though some measures improve you chances to live longer. That doesn't mean that whatever is promoted as being healthful is, in fact, advantageous. But that's what the seller hopes you'll think as you pay an inflated price. And, as with so many marketing devices, they may even (invent/discover and) alert you to a disease for which they have just the right thing. Rather than high-fructose corn syrup they will sell you sugar. And not just any sugar but demerara. As for salt, you shouldn't get the plain ordinary variety – it's better to use sea-salt. Actually there's no advantage either to the demerara sugar or the sea salt, but the profits are higher and the feeling of virtue is greater. And it doesn't matter that scientific studies of anti-oxidants haven't shown them to be of value, everyone knows that you'll benefit from them – so there are plenty of people who will sell them.

The stores are filled with nostrums and panaceas. And there are numerous buyers. They believe that the Holy Grail, the Fountain of Youth,^x can be reached by the use of the cure-alls and folk remedies they buy. And they believe that what is promoted as proper nutrition will lead to an increased life-span during which they'll feel better. In fact it's better for everyone. But those who most need nutrition boosts can least afford it. Like most fads and styles (fashions), “nutrition” is most popular among the middle and upper classes. Those who are already well nourished are the ones who can afford extra nutrition boosts and what they believe are aids for their immune systems. And diets should be designed to help you avoid whatever you're allergic to – wheat and gluten, dairy products, bananas, peanuts, potatoes, whatever. Everyone has “allergies” nowadays. Many of them (though certainly not all) are imagined, but they serve as a convenient explanation for whatever makes you unhappy about yourself. And that's what keeps nutritionists working. They hawk placebos.^xi Placebos – which they may actually think have real value – are the answer. If you believe it will work, it will work. Belief is the answer.^xii

Nutrition ought to be a science, not a religion. And health care should be based on scientifically tested methods rather than the folk remedies of a multicultural world, and anecdotes of success of unproven foods and techniques. But that's so twentieth century.

Next episode: Miñana – No, it's not Mañana.  That's the way I wanted to spell it.

i     At least that's what the vendor says. It's also covered with dirt for which you pay when it's weighed.

ii    Of course the same is likely to be true if it sits in your refrigerator for many days before you can use it up. But that doesn't count. It was (allegedly) fresher when you got it. Even if you got to the co-op late. After work. And it's a drag to have to eat the same thing day after day because of the large quantity you bought, but it's virtuous to do so.

iii    I know there's a gain in self-esteem, but the cost is high. And when this fad is past she'll be left wondering why she wasted her money. But human nature and virtue sometimes cloud the thinking.

iv    Like with cosmetics. In fact most of the nutrition business is cosmetic.

v    Personally I prefer inorganic. Of course the standards for both are a little hazy. But put “organic” on the label (don't worry – no one will check) and you can jack up the price. In any event, I'd prefer not to be sickened or die from infections that safe (but not “organic”) pesticides could have prevented.

vi    In view of the fact that arsenic, uranium, and poison ivy are natural, I tend to be a little cautious when I see that term. Of course it has no clear definition, so you'll see it on a lot of products.

vii     If you doubt what I'm saying, read the following article and decide whether those who view fats as toxic to health and appearance have altered their views since the article appeared in 2006.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E2DC143EF93BA35751C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=1

viii    Whoever “they” are.

ix     http://www.sfgate.com/, April 27, 1998.

x     It probably yields bottled water. That's what people pay large amounts of money for, even though New York City tap water costs only about a cent per gallon (which I suspect is the approximate cost everywhere) and often the bottled water is simply some other municipality's tap water. There's no good evidence that bottled water is any better for you than tap water – in fact it often contains toxic chemicals – bu,t since the bottles are plastic, they are costly to manufacture, utilize petroleum for their production, and are frequently not recycled, making a significant impact on the environment.

xi    Placebos in terms of techniques, foods, herbs, and the like. It's the emperor's new craze.

xii     And among the remedies are enemas and intestinal purges. If you believe in them you can explore for yourself how they compare to organic okra and a vegan life style.