A 40 by 40 update

A few weeks shy of 11 months after posting my list of 40 things I would like to accomplish by the time I turn 40, it seems relevant to report in on my progress. The past year has been a time of pretty intense change in my life. I made the decision to leave a city and state I didn’t particularly love, not because I had somewhere better to be, but merely because I no longer wanted to be where I was. I left two jobs, both of which had aspects that were incredibly rewarding and aspects that were gnawingly upsetting. Neither job was sustainable financially, nor offered enough benefits (like health insurance or benefits of any kind) to stay long term. So it was time to go. As such, much of the year has been spent addressing old commitments and responsibilities while trying to create and allow space for new ones to develop. It hasn’t necessarily been a wish list year, but definitely a building year nonetheless.

There are only two things I feel prepared to cross off my 40 by 40 list:

First, “21. Take a self-defense class.” I took a six-week self-defense class this Fall at the local gym. My instructor was this tall, skinny ex-Marine with a black belt in Tae Kwon Do who was pretty much a ninja (and who thinks his sensei may be training him to be an assassin). He is also a very cool dude. I learned a ton, perhaps most importantly that my knowledge (and skill) is very limited. I left the class with a collection of useable moves and knowledge, but also understand that self-defense is a practice – one of those “use it or lose it” skill sets. I’m hoping not to have to put my newly acquired skills into active use, and yet I don’t want to forget the things I’ve learned. In fact, I’d love for them to become instinctual. Short of taking up martial arts, I’m uncertain how that will come to pass, so in the meantime I am content to say I took the class and will figure out the next step later.

Second, I can officially cross “5. Earn a Masters degree” off the list. It has been a long, tedious path and even saying “I did it, finally” seems like tempting fate. Most every roadblock that could have impeded my work did. IRB folks took a month off while I faced down a deadline they imposed. The academic advising folks decided at the last minute to try to hold me accountable to program requirements implemented two full years after I began the program. An advisor gave me an “R” grade (an incomplete in a research course) for no discernable reason and didn’t change it to a letter grade (an “A,” thank you very much) ‘til the eleventh hour when I was facing down a deadline that would have prevented me from graduating. And that doesn’t include the numerous years and hundreds of hours it took to complete the thesis itself. It’s been a long journey. But, as of Tuesday afternoon, I have an email and a transcript informing me that my degree has indeed been conferred. Thank goodness. Now I can walk away from the hellish bureaucracy and focus on more important things. (And yet, it still doesn’t feel real. And I have a month-long wait until they send me my actual degree. That’s one VERY expensive piece of paper.) Regardless… yay!

I have one goal that I completed roughly one-third of: “16. Buy a bicycle and a helmet. And ride whenever possible.” A bicycle was bequeathed to me by an old roommate who moved to Iowa and knowingly left it in our basement. I carted the bike across the country with me when I moved, but never succeeded in getting the tune up I decided it needed, nor in buying a helmet. Thus, no riding took place. And now it’s cold and wet and I’m not hardcore enough to ride in the wintery ick. I have hopes for completing the remainder of the goal next Spring/Summer…

Running Man. (The yoga pose, not the dance move.)
image via Kate Taylor

And I have three goals that are what I would consider “lifestyle goals” – the kind that you can’t really accomplish except continually. (As such, I am uncertain the requirements for successfully checking them off of my list. Something to ponder…) First, I have tried (with varying levels of success) to “17. Be committed to having physical activity as a central component of life. This can include running, yoga, pilates, biking, etc. on a regular basis (at least 3-4 times a week).” I’ve been taking a fantastic yoga class at the local gym with a wonderful teacher that challenges me and makes me feel strong. (On Monday I learned the Running Man, though I hold mine barely above the ground, not all fancy high-in-the-sky like the photo to the right. Wow!)

My ridiculously adorable niece
with whom I spent 60+ hours a week.

And before I was nannying 60 hours a week I was getting to the gym roughly three times a week. Now it’s once or twice. It’s hard (for me) to build in time for intentional physical activity when I leave for work at 6am and get home 6:30pm or after. So, a goal in progress… (and that’s okay).

Second, I’ve had the opportunity to “25. Play the piano regularly again.” I’m currently living in a house with a piano and can play nearly any time I want. It’s lovely, and while I would really like to buckle down and play/practice an hour every day, or some similar routine, I’m grateful to have this happy outlet accessible as time permits. I often play 15-20 minutes a few times a week. It makes me happy. (And helps me see both how much my piano skills really have remained instinctual and how much has slowly faded of over the years of non-use.) It’s a joyful time, nonetheless.

And third, I’ve been able to “26. Join a regularly performing choral group that challenges me and brings me joy.” It’s nothing fancy – a local church choir, but one that does a good variety of music and holds itself to a high standard. It’s been great to practice my sight-reading skills and revisit the self-reliance of singing in a fairly small group (only 3-5 regular altos). And the obligation is minimal – rehearsal one night a week and performances on Sunday mornings. A few of the pieces we’ve done have included (one of my favorites) Manz’ “E’en So Lord Jesus Quickly Come” (this version is a bit slow, but…), Benjamin Britten’s “Jubilate Deo,” John Rutter’s “The Lord Bless You and Keep You,” “For the Beauty of the Earth,” and “Star Carol,” and the classic 16th century German carol “Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming.” And I’ve been working on remembering all those years of Latin, as well as once again picking up a Gregorian chant here and there. I’m grateful to be in a space that I can really sing. What a gift.

Otherwise, life carries on. And more changes seem to be on the horizon. I’m uncertain what 40 by 40 goals are next on the agenda, but I’ll fill you in as time passes. Hope you all are well!

Tidbits from the world on gender inequality

Sometimes being a woman sucks. And I’m not talking about biology. I’m talking about sociology.

I’m talking about having to include in my thinking about what clothes to wear my willingness to endure catcalling and street harassment because of someone else’s decision to “comment” on my appearance. I’m talking about grown-ass people telling me that they feel sorry for me because I’m 30 and single, even when I don’t feel sorry for myself (and while simultaneously congratulating my 30 and single male friends for successfully remaining “unchained”). I’m talking about my sister having to file for disability leave when her “disability” is having become a mother.

Like I said, sometimes being a woman sucks. In that vein, I’ve run across a whole bunch of engaging, informative, depressing, and refreshing gender-related stuff as of late that I thought I’d share. Check it:

The female body
The female body is constantly under attack. We’re supposed to be young and skinny (aka scrawny) but also perky and curvaceous. It’s exhausting (whether you’re trying to abide or trying to resist). But, there are some folks trying to fight back.

• The folks over at My Body Gallery have created a user generated space where women can send in images of what real women – themselves – look like. The site is not without problematic elements, however. (I, for example, see little reason to categorize my body shape as an apple, pear, banana, or hourglass or to list my height, weight, and clothing sizes. Plus, they unfortunately have an advertising problem. All the ads I've seen are for things like Victoria's Secret and shapewear. Boo!) But I appreciate the site owners’ intention. It will be interesting to see how the site grows or is used over time.
• A friend recently created the website Evolve the Aesthetic (ETA) with the intention of engaging women in the reclamation of their own beauty and encouraging the capacity of women to define for themselves the concept of beauty. The project's objective is to shift cultural ideals of beauty increasingly towards how women really look in their amazingly diverse manifestations of beauty. I expect that exciting, innovative stuff will be coming out of ETA, so keep your eyes on it.
• Ovens, an illustrator (who authors the webcomic Effort Comics) offered this gem of a tutorial on how to draw boobs and ladybits in general. Based on the representations of women we see everywhere – be it comics, advertising, video games, etc. – a whole world of folks could benefit from her instruction.
• I watched this hard-hitting documentary last week called "America the Beautiful." It originally came out in 2007, but does a really heart-wrenching job at asking the question “Is America obsessed with beauty?” And it begs a response to “Who benefits when young girls and women feel ugly?” You can watch the movie in its entirety on Hulu (with an account), through this Love Isn’t Enough blog post (where you just have to enter your birth date), or right here.  

Health care
Women’s health care has been all over the news as of late. Here’s a few things to ponder:

• Did you see Stephen Colbert's response to the Department of Health and Human Services's new policy that insurance companies must cover women’s birth control and preventative health care services (HPV vaccines, STI testing, etc.) without a co-pay? The Colbert Nation-provided tag reads: “Free birth control will wipe out the American race and instantly turn daughters into wanton harlots with insatiable sexual appetites.” I laughed. A lot.
  

  The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
  Women's Health-Nazi Plan
  www.colbertnation.com
  Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

  (And if are looking for an additional reason to laugh, Colbert also offered a hysterical response to Summer’s Eve’s ridiculous (and racist) new ad campaign.) 



Click to embiggen.
(Yes, I know that is not a
real word, but I like it.)

• There has also been word that women's health care costs are expensive. (Shocking, right?!) Looking at just the services that would be provided under the new legislation, here’s what we’ve got.  This fabulous info graph is courtesy of the folks at Good. What gets me about all this political arguing is that men’s health care (to the best of my knowledge) is covered by insurance companies by default while women’s health care has always been an “add on,” considered non-essential. 51% of the population has non-essential health needs. Awesome.

Economics and educational attainment

• Some utterly depressed pay gap statistics were recently reported by the Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce in their report “The College Payoff: Education, Opportunity, Lifetime Earnings” (pdf).  Here’s one of the key charts of findings.

  

  Click to embiggen.

  And in case you’re worried that you misread the notes in red (or they're just too small to read), here’s what they say:  “Women have to have a Ph.D. to make as much as men with a B.A.” and “Men with some college but no degree earn about the same as women with a Bachelor’s degree.”  That makes me feel GREAT as I work to finish my Master’s. But, as you can guess, women aren’t the only one’s losing out. People of color, too, aren’t earning as much as their white peers. The study introduction summarizes things pretty well, saying:  “The findings are stark: Women earn less at all degree levels, even when they work as much as men. On average, women who work full-time, full-year earn 25 percent less than men, even at similar education levels. At all levels of educational attainment, African Americans and Latinos earn less than Whites.”

The Illinois Women's Health Registry -- an easy way to advocate for women's health

Women in Illinois -- wuz up?!

Go join the Illinois Women's Health Registry.

Did you know that most of the medical research that informs what we know about health, well-being, disease, and medicine has been the result of research studies conducted primarily on men?  (All those shifting girly hormones make it easier to 'control for variables' when doing research with male subjects.)  While there is much to be learned from these studies, by not including women there are large gaps in medical knowledge as it pertains directly to women and girls and our health.  (And I mean our health in general, not just our reproductive health.  Research is showing more and more that sex has an impact on all areas of health, not just reproduction.)

We know that:

"A number of important differences exist between men’s and women’s experiences of health and illness. Some diseases occur more commonly among women, while others disproportionately affect men. Further, men and women frequently experience different symptoms of the same underlying problem or illness (e.g., heart disease), and they often respond differently to the same medications or therapies."

But -- happy day! -- there are researchers across the country (and probably around the world) who are working to expand what we know about women and women's health.  And their goal is that someday all people will have access to healthcare and health-related information that recognizes that our identities, including our sex, play an important role in our overall health.

In Illinois, one organization working to support research around sex differences in health is the Institute for Women's Health Research at Northwestern University.  They've got all sorts of great things going on, but the one I want to share with you is the Illinois Women's Health Registry.

The Registry is a database that gathers longitudinal data from women in Illinois about their health and well-being.  I've taken part in the Registry for the last three or four years, and it's really simple.  Once a year, I hop online and take 30 minutes or so to complete a confidential health survey.  (They send me email reminders, so it's not like I have to mark my calendar a year out to be sure I get it done.)  The survey asks questions about my demographics info, health conditions, symptoms, diseases, family history of disease, environmental exposures, and stress.

My (de-identified) data is then pooled with that of thousands of other women to track trends in women's health in Illinois over time and to help identify health needs and priorities for our larger community.  In addition, the database serves as baseline data for health researchers.  AND, it can be used to identify women who match eligibility requirements for current research studies and clinical trials. (If you match a study, you are invited -- but in no way pressured -- to participate.)

And the Institute sends you emails and/or mailings about once a month with info and research related to health issues as they pertain to women.  (You can, of course, opt out of these mailings if you choose.)

Every year when I update my info I think, "Dang, this is such a good idea!"  So, now I'm encouraging you (women 18 or older living in Illinois) to join.  It's easy and is a simple way to contribute to the health and well-being of all women.

To participate or to get more information about the Illinois Women's Health Registry, go HERE.

"The State of Play in Chicago's Communities" is published and ready for your reading pleasure!

Through my work at Chicago Children's Museum I spent roughly five days a week last April and May (2009) documenting and helping to facilitate workshops for parents and professional development trainings for educators about the connections between play and learning. Our 'Communities at Play' team (or CAP, as we called it) set up short-term residencies in Chicago Park District buildings located in four Chicago neighborhoods -- Englewood, Humboldt Park, Pilsen, and Rogers Park -- and listened to what people had to say about play, its value, and the barriers they face in supporting children's play in their communities.

Then I spent from June to October (2009) analyzing all the data we had collected, merging it with data from online surveys the Museum had conducted between October 2008 and April 2009, and drafting the first version of what would become the "The State of Play in Chicago's Communities" report. After MONTHS of revisions and delays within the Museum, the final report is now available to the public. Yippee!

In some ways the final report is markedly different from what I originally wrote and I mourn portions that were taken out and language that was removed by editors who had the final say, but much of the report's core remains the same. If you would like to read the report, you can find it here (pdf). Also, all of the photographs of adults in the report were taken by me (as are the photos in this post).

It's nice to see that all the efforts put forth by the CAP team and participants is finally available to the world. Go read the report!

Call to ACTION in Illinois! Stop the budget cuts!

We're in a sad, sick state of affairs in Illinois, and this is one of those situations where we CANNOT just sit on our hands and expect things to turn out well in the end. This is battle that needs champions fighting for our beliefs and our rights. Folks like you and me.

Here's the skinny:
On May 31, 2009 the Illinois General Assembly passed a partial year budget for FY 2010 that created a $9.2 billion funding gap, which is forcing drastic cuts in community- and state-provided fundamental social services ($5 billion in cuts for community-provided services and $4.2 billion in cuts for state-provided services, says Governor Quinn). (This issue is the "Current Focus" on the www.illinois.gov website.) We're looking at severe cuts in mental health services, addiction prevention and treatment programs, violence prevention programs, family planning services, child care and youth services, and education programs. The budget is set to go into effect July 1 (next Wednesday) and will be devastating to the people of Illinois unless we demand that our legislators return to Springfield and work out a budget for the full fiscal year that includes new revenue to support these critical programs in our communities (which can be achieved by a 2% tax increase).

When considering the breadth of the budget cuts, here are just a few of the numbers (and their sources) to give you an idea of how this budget vote could affect the every day lives of Illinois citizens. The budget cuts would result in:

• the lose of $271 million in child care assistance, thus eliminating care for over 142,000 children (who are members of over 80,000 low-income working families) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services; Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of preschool for 100,000 children (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of $251 million (a cut of 40% in rates) for providers who serve children and adults with developmental disabilities (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a $108 million reduction in funding for community mental health programs (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the closing of 6 of the 9 state-operated psychiatric hospitals (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a 50% cut to the stipend received by foster parents, meaning that many parents may no longer be able to afford to care for their foster children. Approximately 20,000 children could lose their foster families. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois; Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• the tripling of DCFS staff workers' foster care caseloads from 15 children to 50 children and the doubling of active investigative caseloads from 11 to 20 cases per investigator (Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• a 75% cut in community health programs (including teen, family, and domestic violence programs) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the elimination of all community care program services for 20,000 lower-income seniors not eligible for Medicaid and reducing benefits for 55% of the remaining 35,000 Medicaid eligible community-care clients (Governor's Office - Department on Aging)
• the elimination of the Communities of Color Prostrate Cancer Initiative and Communities of Color HIV/AIDS Initiative, together providing services to over 375,000 people (Governor's Office - Illinois Department of Public Health)
• the cutting of $247 million in MAP undergraduate grants and college book stipends for 147,500 low-income students (Governor's Office - Illinois Student Assistance Commission)
• a 75% cut in state family planning funding, resulting in nearly 6,500 women not receiving their annual medical exam, pap smear, or supply of oral contraceptives. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• a lose of $9 million in funding to the YWCA, which would lead to the closure of 1/3 of their facilities (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the forced layoffs of more than 10,000 state workers (Governor's Office)
• the estimated lose of $2 billion in federal matching funds to the state of Illinois (Governor's Office)
  
• the endangerment of up to $3 billion in federal stimulus funds over the next two years (Governor's Office)
  

Brutal. And the potential to be utterly devastating. And, it can't go without noting the ways in which these budget cuts unproportionately affect folks already dealing with issues of systemic inequality: the poor and working-class, people of color, women, children, the elderly, and those will mental or physical disabilities. The budget would pile additional hardship and discrimination on those who already carry its heaviest weights.

And to make it a bit more real, if you need even more concrete evidence of the budget's destructive potential, every week for the past two and a half years I've hung out with three and four year olds at the St. Vincent DePaul Center, which provides (in addition to other things) NAEYC-accredited child care and early childhood education. We have 25 classrooms, serving infants through kids in full-day kindergarten, plus before- and after-school care for school age children. The proposed budget cuts would entirely eliminate the child care and youth programs, affecting more than 800 Chicago children and families at this one site alone. Plus, all of our education staff will be cut, contributing to the statewide increase in forced layoffs. Many families the Center serves will literally be forced into the position of choosing between buying food for their family, paying rent and utilities, or paying for child care.

The proposed budget cuts would destroy our Center, spit in the face of our 94 year history, and devastate the lives of families with whom we partner.

But such tragedy is not the only option. With the passing of an as small as 2% tax increase, the citizens of Illinois can save the programs that support our communities. A 2% tax increase would raise our taxes from 3% to 5%, which for the average Illinois family is roughly $14 a week. While $14 a week, and thus $56 a month, adds up, it is a worthy sacrifice to maintain the programs that support the health and well-being of all Illinois citizens. This budget cut stands to hurt all of us and together we must be willing to tell our elected officials that we won't stand for it, that we believe alternatives to the budget cut are possible, and that we rely on their leadership and ability to represent our views by funding education, health care, and human services across the state.

To take action, you have numerous choices. You can:

Call your state representatives and voice your opposition to the “General Assembly’s 50 Percent Budget Cut.”

To locate your state representative, visit here. (It's easiest, I think, to provide your zip+4.) You can also call the Illinois State Board of Elections Chicago Office at 312-814-6440. Let the operator know that you need contact information for your state representative. You will need to provide your home address.

Before calling your representative, consider visiting Illinois Action for Children for suggestions on what to say to your state representatives. You may also want to see how your representatives voted in the original budget vote, which you can do by looking at the "House Roll Call on the Tax Increase" (pdf). IMAN has also provided a nice telephone call protocol you could use. Here's their suggestion:

Call your representative and senator along with the governor and say:

"Hi, my name is ______ and I live in ______. I would like to speak to Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn."

You will probably be told that he/she is not available. If so, ask to leave a message:

"I am calling to ask Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn to work with others in Springfield to resolve the current budget crisis. I support an income tax increase from 3% to 5% and an expansion of the sales tax base in order to fund education, health care, and human services across the state. I am counting on your leadership in this important effort! Thank you for your consideration."

Please call your state representative (Illinois House) first and then call Gov. Quinn (217-782-0244) and your state senator all this week. Ask five other people to do the same.

You can also utilize a number of online email formats to voice your concern. Planned Parenthood of Illinois has an editable form letter that focuses on the budget cuts' consequences for women and children.

And the National Association of Social Workers Illinois chapter is sponsoring a more general but still editable email in which they use your address (or zip+4) to pull up all your elected officials' contact information. Then they allow you to choose to whom you would like to send your email. They also give you the option of sending a copy of your email to a large number of media organizations. It's a quick and easy way to go.

Please take action. Immediately. You can do it. It's important that you do it. It's makes a huge difference for the future of our communities.

(photo credits: These are some of my kids from the Center. These are the kids who stand to lose childcare if the budgets is implemented next week. The consequences to their families may be dire.)

Food Inc. - "You'll never look at dinner the same way again!"

So, in the last month or so I've been bombarded with info about the film Food, Inc. Whether I'm just hooked in to all the right info feeds or what, I don't know, but I'm pretty jazzed about seeing this film, which is now showing across the country. (To find out if/when it's playing near you, check the listings here.)

The film is described (on IMDB) as "An unflattering look inside America's corporate controlled food industry." And it seems to address the food industry from a number of angles: animal conditions, worker conditions, food safety/quality, human health consequences, legislation and national food policy, and the general workings of agribusiness. A broad scope, surely, but integrally connected.

I was first introduced to the film by a message on the packaging foil that seals my yogurt tub. I'd never seen Stonyfield (or any other yogurt company) advertise for a film, and while I was a bit suspicious, I also trust Stonyfield to make conscious choices about their packaging. (Maybe I'm delusional, but at least I'm hopeful.) With a little investigation I realized that Stonyfield Farm President and CE-Yo (you know, YO as in yogurt) Gary Hirshberg is featured in the film; thus the connection and cross-promotion. But, Stonyfield's website features some great stuff about the film, including the trailer and an exclusive (and really good) interview with the film's director Robert Kenner, in which he talks about the film's intention to promote informed consumer choices. He says,

"[The film is about the] freedom to know both what's in the food, what we're eating, where it's coming from, and what we're allowed to say about this food. I realized this is a film about our rights to know as Americans."

Then, I heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition by Steve Inskeep, in which he talked with Kenner and food advocate and author Michael Pollan (who is also featured in the film) about the film. (Web-info and a link to the audio is available here.) Inskeep takes them to task to explain in detail each phrase from an single line early in the film which says, "Our food is coming from enormous assembly lines where the animals and the workers are being abused and the food has become much more dangerous in ways that are being deliberately hidden from us."

And, talk of the film is making its way around the blogosphere (for example, this) and numerous news sites, including reviews on Variety and indieWIRE and interviews Kenner did with The Washington Post and The New York Times.

And the film's website itself is a wealth of good information. These folks have built bridges -- laying out the issues point for point, creating rich resource lists for information-seekers, offering suggestions for getting involved, particularly in the area of children's nutrition, and building alliances with important advocacy organizations. They even have their own blog called Hungry for Change which looks to be regularly updated and pretty informative.

But not everyone is happy about the film's release. Monsanto is so pissed they've go their own anti-Food Inc. webpage up and running, which I find hugely interesting because most of the time big agribusiness just ignores films and books that have the potential to discredit them. Perhaps we're getting near some point of critical mass and they're nervous... (Kenner talks about the film's efforts to work with Monsanto in The Washington Post article.) (Also, I'm not a fan of Monsanto, so I won't talk about them anymore, but Deborah Koons Garcia did a nice job making them look like asses in her 2004 film The Future of Food, another great documentary worth checking out.)

All that said, I'll stop talking about the film and hopefully see it soon. If you see it before me, let me know what you think! Here's the trailer:


(photo caption & credits: Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin is an organic farmer and an agribusiness critic featured in Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures)

UPDATE:
I watched Food, Inc. last weekend at my local indy film theater and earlier this week a friend emailed asking what I thought of it and whether it was worth seeing. An edited version of my reply is below. (It may be of value to note that my friend is a farmer living and working on a very new, organic, family-owned farm in New England, so he knows way more about food than I do and has spent considerable time really thinking about the importance of food and our food industry.)

The film was decent. I didn't learn much that I didn't know before. Very little, actually. But I think the film would be a decent introduction for folks new to thinking about the role of corporations in U.S. food culture and food industry. The film hit on a number of issues – food labeling, foodborne illness, health consequences of our current food choices, factory farming, corporate influence on family farms, animal rights, worker rights, environmental impact, law and governmental policy, and so on. And I think the filmmakers made an effort to give voice to a number of viewpoints, though they didn't pretend to be entirely ‘objective’ in their response and analysis. (And why should they?) Interestingly, they made a point NOT to villainize big business, using interviews with Greg Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farms, and Wal-Mart buyers (meaning product purchasers, not public consumers) to talk about the power of public opinion and consumer demand. Long and short, I think the film has the potential to rattle mainstream folks who haven't thought about where their food comes from.

Plus, the film spends a good chunk of time talking to Joel Salatin, a mighty spunky farmer for Polyface Farm in Virginia. The farm seems to deal mostly in meats – beef, pork, poultry – but in all the ways you wish meats came to market – organic, local, free range birds, grass fed cattle, and so forth. Joel serves as a powerful voice in the film, but I wonder if the audience 'got' it, because most of his talking was done while he was doing farm work, including slaughtering chickens and preparing them for market (as compared to most of the other interviewees, who have the backdrop of their kitchen or office). With the typical consumer/film-goer so removed from the origin of our food, folks watching the film with me seemed unsettled and/or shocked to see animals slaughtered. (There were numerous audible gasps and lots of uncomfortable squirming in the theater.) While I’m glad folks had this response, I’m also really afraid that they won't think about why they felt that way, but will rather push it to the corners of their mind, ignore it, or – worse – consider Joel and farmers like him 'heartless' – which is about as far from the truth as you can get, but that is a mental jump I can understand when folks have never seen an animal slaughtered before. Mind you, the film also shows animals in factory slaughterhouses, but not at the moment of death and often as animal parts rather than whole creatures, which makes it easier, I think, for folks to distance themselves. I wished there was a bit more explanation in the film about what was going on in both of these situations, such that film-goers would have guidance to better understand what they were seeing. (For example, for folks who’ve never seen or read anything on slaughtering poultry or beef, they wouldn’t recognize or understand what the most humane, painless way to go and why. They just see slitting throats and freak.)

I also went back to reread Monsanto’s retaliatory website after watching the film. Comparing their views and those in the film is one of those "nobody's lying, still the stories don't line up" situations (Ani lyrics). The film, I think, sought to question the ethics of Monsanto and their influence – on food policy, with GMOs, with patenting, on farmers, and so on. Monsanto doesn't address these ethical concerns, instead highlighting that they are obeying the law (which they helped frame and influence) and justifying litigation between themselves and farmers featured in the film as an effort to ensure that that others are following the law as well. Personally, I’m not convinced. This is a situation where I think it’s of importance to question laws that put the well-being of corporations ahead of the well-being of people, which is what I believe these laws do. For example, I believe in the importance of seed saving (Dr. Vandana Shiva is a great resource about this issue in India if you’re interested in reading more), and knowing the workings of Mother Nature and how seed spreads from field to field, I think Monsanto's patent infringement politics are shady. Monsanto's website also went out of its way to say that the film demonizes farmers, which I think is utterly untrue. I thought the film demonstrated how many farmers are trapped in an unworkable system under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto.

But that's just my two-cents. All in all, I was glad I saw it. It’s one more piece of media to add to the repertoire. But also nothing ground shattering. As to whether or not you should go watch it, that's your decision. In the meantime, that’s enough rambling from me for one day...

-7/3/09

Green Festival 2009

Chicago's 2009 Green Festival was this weekend. This is the third year a Green Festival has been held in Chicago and the third year I've gone. I dig 'em (as you can see from my post about it last year). Organized as a collaborative project between Green America and Global Exchange,

Green Festival [is] a walk through a sustainable community. It begins with finding solutions to help make our lives healthier—socially, economically and environmentally. Individuals along with business and community leaders come together to discuss critical issues that impact us at home and abroad. Organizations and businesses showcase programs and products that restore the planet and all that inhabit it. Neighbor-to-neighbor connections are formed, and skills are shared to empower people to create positive change in the world.

I wanted to share a couple of my highlights from this year's festival with you. (And this is in addition to my joy at being able to eat a delicious organic, vegan lunch from Soul Vegetarian, a restaurant on 75th to which I was introduced a few years back in celebration of a friend's birthday. They make soul food like you wouldn't believe. Yummy!)

First, I had the privilege of hearing damali ayo speak. She's probably best known for her website/art piece Rent-A-Negro.com and the related book How to Rent a Negro. She's a multi-talented woman who uses art, comedy, and a "stand up/smack down" style (her words) to fight racism. Her talk was titled "Are you ready to fix racism? (Or are you too busy pretending it doesn't exist?)" and was based on her "I Can Fix It!" guide to improving race relations in the U.S. (Download the guidebook in PDF from the website to get the full presentation.) She's a bad-ass chick on the path to recruit any and everyone to the rebellion. I'm in.

Second, I went to a talk by Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a organization

Seeking economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers - partnered with consumers - in support of ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.

They are doing amazing work on a number of fronts, but I was especially impressed with their efforts to make sure products marked as certified organic live up to the label. Their Organic Dairy Brand Ratings Scorecard is based on a

national survey of organic products in the dairy case [and serves to] showcase ethical family farm producers and expose factory farm producers and brands that threaten to take over organic dairying. With this Web-based rating tool, you can see which brands and dairy products found in your region are produced using the best organic farming practices and ethics. Based on a year’s research into the organic dairy business, the scorecard rates 68 different organic dairy brands and private-label products.

The benefit of such an effort is to inform consumers of organic providers who fail to honor the faith put in them by consumers. (For example, Aurora Farms, the brand that produces 'O' Organics for Safeway and Dominick's has been charged by the USDA with willful violation of 14 tenants of organic certification, which essentially means that products we purchase labeled "organic" might not be.) The Report helped me to see how some of the "organic" brands I've purchased in the recent past (including Horizons (Dean's), 'O' Organics (Safeway), Wild Harvest (Albertson's), and Trader Joe's) are not maintaining the organic standards I expect, while other available brands (including Organic Valley (CROPP), Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods Market - 365 Organics) do much, much better. Good to know. And, apparently, the Institute is launching a brand new scorecard on Monday rating soy products -- everything from edamame and tempeh to tofu and soy milk. Exciting stuff. I'll add a link as soon as the new report goes up.

Third, I went to a panel discussion that was supposed to feature Alice Waters, founder of The Edible Schoolyard, but, sadly, she was ill and unable to attend. However, I was able to hear a number of folks speak about the importance of edible education policy and practice. Filmmaker Chris Taylor screened portions of his film Food Fight: A Story of Culinary Revolt which features Alice, as well as Michael Pollan (who I'm hearing speak tomorrow at the Chicago Public Library!), Wolfgang Puck, and the amazing, amazing, amazing Will Allen and Erika Allen of Growing Power, an AMAZING organization committed to urban agriculture, environmental stewardship, and edible education grounded primarily in Milwaukee and Chicago. The whole point is how food practices are foundations for social activism! Here's the trailer (and for more clips, visit the film's YouTube channel):


On the whole, the Festival was a pleasure, as always. Each year I walk away having learned new things and with a renewed energy to continue diligently down a path of sustainability and justice -- both social and environmental. If you can't get to an upcoming Green Festival, you can always check out Green Festival TV and radio (make sure to check the archives too) for recorded talks, presentations, and podcasts.

UPDATE: The Organic Soy Report and Scorecard is posted over at Cornucopia Institute for your perusal. Also, very sadly, I wasn't able to hear Michael Pollan tonight because the venue sold out. It was a first come, first serve gig, and while I got there early, the poor woman trying to manage the masses said some folks started lining up at noon (for a 6pm talk). What's with those folks? And why didn't they save me a seat?! Maybe next time... Eat happy, y'all. - 5/18/09

Meatless Monday!

I was just reading about the Meatless Monday Campaign, a non-profit organization working in association with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and with the support of 28 other public health schools and all sorts of knowledgeable folk (including Michael Pollan).

Meatless Monday is a national public health campaign to help prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer -- four of the leading causes of death in America. A simple way to prevent these diseases is to eat a diet lower in saturated fat, found mainly in meat and high-fat dairy products. If Americans cut out meat and high-fat dairy just one day a week, they would meet the government's dietary guidelines.

Our goal -- consistent with recommendations made by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the US Dept. of Agriculture, and the American Heart Association -- is to help Americans reduce consumption of saturated fat 15% by 2010. That works out to eliminating saturated fat one day a week.

The intent of Meatless Monday is not to turn folks vegetarian (though that's not necessarily a bad choice either), but to support Americans' efforts to live and eat healthier. The website offers all sorts of health research, vegetarian recipes (as suggestions for yummy, no-meat meals), info on CSAs and organic foods, and a weekly digest of news snippets about health and food issues.

Here's their newest offering, a video called "Meatless Monday - Inspiring a Movement":

Not Yet Rain

If you've got half an hour, watch Not Yet Rain, a short film by Lisa Russell, produced in association with Ipas. (Yes, you can watch it online.)

In their own words:

[The film] explores abortion in Ethiopia through the voices of women who have faced the challenge of finding safe care. Through their stories, we see the important role that safe abortion care plays in the overall health of women and their families.

Every year, millions of women around the world risk their lives to end unintended pregnancies. While a law enacted in 2006 marked great progress toward reproductive freedom in Ethiopia, Not Yet Rain shows that changing the law is just the first step; much more needs to be done as women continue to die from unsafe abortions. Training for health workers and increased availability of care could save the lives of women in Ethiopia and around the world.

Spring...

Greetings, friends!
Friday marked the calendar end of winter and beginning of a new season. Spring has technically (though perhaps not materially) sprung, and I, for one, welcome the change. Winter offers a stark beauty worthy of awed appreciation and perhaps reverence, but I was built with a temperamental body that struggles in the cold, sometimes making a love of the brisk air and heavy snow difficult. As such, spring is a welcome addition to my days.

I made it through another quarter of graduate school -- a space of mixed blessings. I'm on "Spring Break" which, for me, is a pseudonym for "Catching Up." It'll be a week of cleaning, laundry, bill paying, taxes, answering 3 months worth of email, that sorta stuff. I don't really mind. I feel free, which can be a fleeting feeling. I was reflecting on just that this past Saturday. I was on the sun porch reading, which I often do on Saturday mornings, but this time it was a book of MY choosing that can be begun and completed on MY schedule. And that freedom of choice makes all the difference. That sense of control, even if small, over my own life. In the larger picture, that's a silly sequence of logic. I chose to be a grad student; I chose my classes; I chose to approach my work with a commitment to doing the best I can. So, this 'absence of freedom' is self-subscribed. Even so, the immediate ability to structure my own time, and take pleasure in the small things that I so often choose to overlook because 'I have no time!' is a joy.

This past Saturday was in the mid-50s, a pleasant break from the chill we've been moving through the past five or six months. I decided to take a walk -- a pleasure I can rarely indulge when school's in session. I made my way the 3.5 miles to the Lincoln Park Conservatory, a favorite spot for forgetting the winter cold, swung through the Regenstein African Journey portion of the Lincoln Park Zoo (always free to the public!), made my way to the Lakeshore, and walked the 3 or so miles north along the lake before cutting back west towards home. It was a lovely afternoon and I was free to enjoy the weather and the city and my own space to reflect, to contemplate, and to be inspired but the vastness of beauty that exists in the everyday, but is too easily overlooked as I(we) rush from thing to thing.

For me, when I feel lost and out of control of my own day-to-day living, I'm drawn back to the natural world -- flora, fauna, landscapes -- places that bring me back to myself. I've lived in big cities for the past seven years, and perhaps the most difficult thing about it -- despite all the advantages I gain -- is the distance from nature. So I have to find places that let me reconnect. In Boston, I'd make my way out to the Arnold Arboretum - 265 acres of land where I would often lose myself in the pine forests, stop to sketch or read or take a nap in the sun, far from the sights and sounds of the city. Chicago's different. Similar spaces are far enough away that they're difficult to reach on public transportation. So, here I just look for green, and often find myself on the Lakefront Trail, an 18 mile trail that stretch along Lake Michigan from Hollywood Ave. on the northside to 71st St. on the southside. While I'm in easy sight of the city I can at least hear the birds, smell the lake, and see green. A girl's gotta take what she can get.

In my reflections over the weekend, I started organizing some of my digital photography, pulling out images of flora, enraptured by the rich variation in color, shape, texture, size. Everything of beauty being offered by nature itself. I started working on a number of large collages (roughly two feet square) that perhaps in time I'll see about framing, but I thought I might share one here. It is very much a work in progress, but you get the idea. Most of the images are from the Lincoln Park Conservatory or my mother's garden in northeast Ohio, but I'm working on another one that includes images from the Garfield Park Conservatory, rural Nebraska, Maine, Manhattan, Kyoto, Mexico City, my own neighborhood, and my own backyard. It's good to remember that there is natural beauty everywhere, when I remember to look.

Happy spring!


















(ps - Please don't use this image without permission. That's stealing and makes me sad.)

Cognition-enhancing drugs & why I'm not convinced they're a good idea

I read a very interesting article in Nature recently that got my brain going (which, ironically, is kind of a joke once you hear what this article was about). Essentially, the authors -- a team of 7 scientists in the U.S. and U.K. -- are advocating for the rights of healthy adults to boost their brain power through the use of pills and are in support of the continued science that would support such a cultural shift.

The commentary opens with a discussion of growing trends on college campuses for students to buy and sell drugs like Adderall and Ritalin (you know, the stimulants typically prescribed to folks with ADHD), not to get high, but to get better grades -- to enhance their brain functioning in a way that gives them a leg-up in the academic rat-race. (On a side note, I also often hear stories of upper/middle-class soccer moms (and many others) becoming Ritalin junkies as they try to keep up with the pressures of day-to-day life, but the authors don't talk about these folks.)

Overall, the scientists say that "We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function" and that doing so with pills is the moral equivalent of undertaking a healthy diet, regular exercise, or ample sleep. They say:

"The drugs just reviewed [Ritalin, Adderall, Provigil], along with the newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology -- ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself."

Brain scientist Martha Farah, one of the article's authors, said that once such brain-boosting pills are developed and marketed, "Almost everybody is going to want to use it."

Okay. Uh. I have to stop here. 'Almost everybody'?! Are you kidding me?! If that's true, you're talking to one sad girl who is losing faith in humanity by the second. For argument's sake, let me try to explain myself. First, my gut is saying that we as a culture are looking at all of this from the totally wrong perspective. If so many people are in situations in which they feel such an extreme pressure to perform -- whether the context be grades, jobs, or day-to-day duties and responsibilities -- and they are turning to brain-altering drugs to 'keep up,' why is our cultural response to 'fix' normal, human (and apparently 'slow') brain functioning rather than to 'fix' a culture that demands greater than human abilities of us? Do you see what I'm saying?! These scientists seem to go along with the assumption that the 'problem' to be solved is human inefficiency, rather than unrealistic cultural expectations. So rather than change the system, we try to change the individual, with mind and body-altering medical intervention. That does not sit well with me. At all.

Anticipating my potential disdain for their pro-cognitive-enhancing banter, the authors try to derail three common arguments against brain pills (my word, not theirs):
1) They're cheating.
2) They're unnatural.
3) They entail drug abuse.

My thoughts and responses:
1) Brain pills are cheating. I care little about this argument. I'm not a fan of cheating. I think it sucks. But in my personal interests, I care less about HOW folks are cheating than WHY they feel they have to do so and addressing those issues first, working to eliminate the desire to cheat rather than punishing those who do. Even so, these scientists argue that brain pills aren't a form of cheating at all. Rather, they suggest, that all forms of intervention modify brain function -- be it getting a good night's sleep, finding a good strategy for relieving stress, getting a private tutor, or drinking a double shot of espresso. And I agree. Yes, all the actions of my life have the potential to affect my brain function, some for the better and some not so much. My concern comes with the manipulative, 'unnatural' way in which brain pills screw with my body. Moving on to argument 2...

2) Brain pills are unnatural. The scientists confront this one directly saying that:

"the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food -- to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy -- bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state."

So, if I understand correctly, humanity is no longer 'natural' so why be concerned about what is natural or unnatural behavior or what is a natural or unnatural product to put into my body? Uh, what?! Is humanity so far removed from Nature that none of the warnings of living in the natural world still apply? Because I don't live in a home built by my own hands, because I don't wear clothes I made myself (from growing the cotton to sewing the garment), because I have a guilty love of Doritos, which surely are no where close to 'natural' -- I have no right to be concerned about the way that naturalness is defined within humanity and within my own life?! Um, yeah, I don't accept that. And even if scientists tried to appease me with a brain pill full of 'natural' stuff (aka - non-synthetic, unaltered, unengineered) that doesn't mean I would accept such a product without concern either. For example, I get freaked out by those advertisements for fancy, 'all natural' vitamin packs or 'health shakes' that promise to make me a super woman. (Maybe it's the 'natural' combined with corporate marketing that I find unsettling and untrustworthy...) Similarly, gasoline is 'natural' but that doesn't make is safe for me to huff. You know what I'm saying? I guess my concern on this whole 'naturalness' conversation is a sense of arrogance I perceive on behalf of these scientists (actually Science, in general) that we (humans) are somehow superior to Nature in knowing what is 'best' for us. How many times do we have to be proven wrong before we gain a little humility? (Uh, global warming comes to mind...) Call me stupid, but I feel pretty confident in the idea that if my brain was meant to function faster than it is, then I would have been born that way or have a natural disposition for it naturally, without the intervention of drugs. Just because my brain CAN work faster or function differently does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA. Ya dig? Just because you can does not mean you should, and in this case doesn't mean it's good for you. We don't know the consequences of altering brain function long-term, and like I said, if my brain was meant to work that way, I think it would. So the "'humans aren't natural' plus 'brain pills aren't natural' equals 'humans shouldn't worry about taking brain pills'" argument doesn't work for me.

3) Using brain pills is drug abuse. The scientists argue that society already addresses drugs along a wide spectrum of social acceptability: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, and heroin all have their place of acceptance/outlaw along a social continuum, and the scientists argue that there is no reason to place brain pills immediately alongside drugs that have been outlawed. I can understand this argument, but I am really hung up on the idea of medicating otherwise healthy persons. When one of my personal goals is to be as careful as possible about what I put into my body and its effects, really aiming to allow my body to function as 'naturally' as possible, this flies in the face of the expectations I have set for myself. I do not believe in holding others to expectations I set for myself, so the best I can offer is a series of questions: What are the connections between brain pills and addiction? What are the long-term effects of brain pills on the body? Are the pills addressing a concern that could be dealt in a different, less brain-altering way? What motivations are leading people to the use of brain pills to begin with? At the end of the day, I'm not interested in telling anyone what to do with their bodies, so from that perspective, I wouldn't suggest outlawing brain pills or criminalizing those who use them, but I certainly have concerns about persons' health and well-being and apprehensions that pills are not the best means by which to meet those needs.

In fairness, the authors are not flippant about the use of cognition-enhancing drugs, but I am unsatisfied with their suggestions for dealing with probably ethical concerns. First, they site concerns over issues of human safety, which they say can be addressed with study. I agree; study is needed. Lots of study. Though, I would suggest that some of that study include a questioning of the larger cultural contexts surrounding brain pills, rather than just an examination of brain pills themselves.

Second, the authors site a concern for supporting individual freedom from coercion to use brain-enhancing drugs. They recognize both structural and individual sites of coercion and suggest that 'policy' (for which they provide little concrete suggestion) could prevent these problems. I think they're wrong. If we look at their own examples of the percentages of college students already taking brain-enhancing drugs, which is currently an illegal act, you can't tell me that making the drugs legal and then enacting 'policy' -- against what?! peer pressure? -- will provide individuals with truly free choice about taking the drugs. I think the 'freedom' they are talking about is a cultural fluke; that level of true freedom is not possible in the context of our culture. Even if policy says folks are free to make their own choices, cultural pressures will always take their toll. Such is life.

Additionally, the scientists suggest that not all people should be offered the choice to drug up or to refrain. They highlight professions such as those in the military and some in the field of emergency medicine as contexts in which exemptions from policies supporting freedom to refrain are valid. So, even if some people might be protected from forced pill-popping, what does it mean when people holding important, valued positions within society are required to take these drugs? How would this influence the common citizen's attitudes towards the drugs? It seems to me that such acts would support wide-spread drugging up. Is that who we as a culture want to be?

Similarly, the authors support the continued, non-consensual drugging of children -- which is a common practice today anyway, particularly among children diagnosed with ADHD and raises continued questions of children's rights and autonomy (which I'm not going to address further here and now).

And third (and I find this most interesting), the authors highlight their concern for fairness when it comes to use of the drugs. Essentially, they are discussing questions of socioeconomic access and distribution, suggesting (accurately, I believe) that these drugs have the potential to deepen social inequalities, particularly between class groups, if action isn't taken to prevent such gaps. Such inequality already exists. We see it everyday. Who is likely to get the best education? (Answer, in case you need it: white, middle/upper class folks with a history of education and sustained funds to pay for education and all its auxiliary costs.) Obviously, issues of availability and issues of cost will affect how brain pills shift social dynamics in our culture. The authors suggest that 'policy' (again, pretty vaguely addressed) could help address these concerns. For example:

“If cognitive enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free access to cognitive enhancements, as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing field.”

So, to solve the problem of unequal access, institutions can give away brain pills to anyone who wants them... Awesome. I found it pleasantly surprising that these scientists considered the social contexts of introducing such drugs into society (perhaps I owe them more credit), but I'm unsatisfied with their solutions for addressing potential social concerns.

When it comes down it, I think the authors suggest -- quite accurately -- that a pivotal key to cognition-enhancing drugs' acceptance is an ongoing questioning of the definition of 'medicine.' On one hand, medicine can be viewed as a field devoted to healing -- a defensive, responsive approach to health. On the other hand, medicine can be viewed as committed to helping people live better lives (though I think the definition of 'better' is up for debate). While I am a happy proponent of preventative health care, I wouldn't place brain pills into the category 'preventative' because I am uncertain what it is preventing. It seems that I trust my own body to function in healthy, live-supporting, and enhancing ways more than these scientists do. And I think that is very scary.

I can't help but think of those "This is your brain on drugs" PSAs from the '80s. (Yes, you can laugh at the thought. I did too.) Apparently their warnings no longer apply.

What are your thoughts? If you’re interested in joining the debate, hit me up here or visit Nature’s public forum on the topic.

Video Spotlight: Roe v. Wade 35th Anniversary

March is Women's History Month, so as a little shout-out to my fellow sisters, I wanted to post up a video tied to a relevant women's issue (so many to choose between). (And, really, women's issues are everybody's issues. Just as a reminder.) So, I'm posting a video that just came out in January celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which was decided in January of 1973 (NOT all that long ago, really). With all the political talk intent on overturning Roe v. Wade today, it should be apparent the controversy and relevance this issue still holds. Put together by Naral Pro-Choice America this video speaks to the complexity of real women's lives. Women's decisions concerning choice are anything but simple and emotionless, and the video does a nice job of placing that complicated reality in the social, historical context of our world. As a woman, I want to know that my actions, my body, and my reproductive rights are MY choice, not the decision of lawmakers who know nothing about my life, my journey, or my needs. It is my responsibility to protect that right for myself, my friends, and my loved ones.

(And if you're interested in Faith Pennick's film, which is mentioned in the video, go here.)