Lady Fingers

Darn you, Orson Scott Card!

Lady Fingers — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:39:19 GMT

There's an author whose writing I like a lot. It's not just a fun read, there seems to be a lot of societal wisdom in his writing. However, when I went back and read some of his earliest books, right in the middle of his best known novel, there was an extremely bigotted passage which really did nothing to advance the plot. The bigotry in this section related to a category of people to which I belong.

I forgave him--it was 20 years ago, after all. I would like to think he has matured some since then.

So today I read a blog of his. To be truthful, I read a reaction to his comments first, and then tracked down what he had written. I found it extremely insulting, not to my group (the group I felt he had attacked in his first book) but to a different category of people.

I'm feeling less than forgiving at the moment. But I also have to examine my own motives. Is my indignation greater because this blog was written now rather than in the fairly far past? Or is it my own prejudice which leads me to defend the (weak) others more vehemently than I defend my own (strong) group? Or is it because once twice bigoted shows a trend, where once doesn't.

I don't know. But I don't think I'll be reading any Orson Scott Card books for a while.

Green Money

Lady Fingers — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:10:08 GMT

Saving energy makes sence. We all know that. But we're conditioned to believe it costs too much money. It does cost money to change how we do things, but no always "too much." Not when you look past the initial cost outlay.

I live about a mile from a small town. My husband recently got a bicycle. We outfitted it with some baskets, and now he can run to the library, post office or grocery store (for up to 3 bags) on the bike in about the same time it would take by car. No gas expense. Sure, he comes home winded and sweaty but then, he doesn't need a gym membership. More money saved. Yes, the bike costs money, but I think we'll have recouped that expense in a year.

That's something we're doing on a personal level, and I recognize that it would not work for everyone. So how about a public effort:

I work in a large city--a forest of tall buildings with mostly flat roofs. If those roofs were each tiled in solar panels, they'd have free hot water and reduced electricity expenses. For some buildings, depending on location, a wind turbine on the roof might make sense. Yes, putting those improvements in would take an initial cash outlay, but I think it's a place where a tax break would be justified. This proposal would not have been efficient 10 years ago, but solar panels have gotten much cheaper, and become much longer lasting since then.

I look at it this way: If most new roofs were energy generators, then the government would not need to spend as many tax dollars on building and maintaining power plants. That money can go to the tax breaks. Less polution abatement expense. More for tax breaks. Meanwhile the businesses which own or lease office space will have lower overhead expenses for power, and those savings should slow the pace at which they raise their prices to us.

This proposal does not costs jobs--power stations would still be needed. Roofers would still be needed; they'd just be putting on different roofs, made by new workers in the expanding solar roofing industry.

So that's my idea. What do you think of it, and what ideas do you have to make our private and public moneys go farther and greener?

Uncivilized Nutrition

Lady Fingers — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:59:09 GMT

Uncivilized Nutrition

For hundreds of years, so-called Western Civilization has been exploring distant parts of the globe and trying to bring the “primitive natives” up to our standards of life. We teach them to wear our type of clothes, even if their weather does not require it. We teach them to live in our type of houses, even if their type can be built from free local materials. And we teach them to eat like us. I’m not sure we’re right about that either.

I am no anthropologist, but I’ve read my share of National Geographic magazines, and watched perhaps more than my share of sociological documentaries, and I’ve noticed something in common among hunter/gatherer societies: not everyone eats the same thing.

Often, the hunter whose successful throw brought down the beast gets a choice piece of lean protein, generally the heart. Then the rest of the hunters get their share, and again it tends to be taken from the lean muscle. The rest of the community then shares the fattier meat and the more mineral-rich organs, like the liver and kidneys. The tougher cuts of meat, if there is any left over, get dried or stewed for later use, along with the fruit, vegetables and seeds gathered by the women and children.

Oh, says Western Civilization, this is so unfair! Why should the women eat liver while the men eat steak! We must teach them equality.

I suspect this is wrongheaded of us. The tribe members do not all have the same physiology, and they do not all pursue the same activity; why then should we assume they all have the same nutritional needs? Same is not the same as equal.

In fact, Western Civilization knows this. Not from our sociologists, but from our nutritionists.

The hunters are young to middle-aged men, getting a large amount of physical exercise. People on an intensive exercise program benefit from extra protein.

The gatherers are mainly the women and children. They engage in less muscle-building activities, and so don’t need quite as much protein. They do need lots of iron though, which they can get from organ meat. (Too much iron can be poisonous to adult men.) Healthy women and children can safely carry a higher fat level than healthy men, so eating the fattier meat is not as much a hazard to their health if they are also living a fairly active lifestyle. They also need more vitamins than men need, so the fruit and nuts they snack on while gathering supplies for the tribe are a benefit to their health.

And what of the elderly and the frail? They also benefit from the extra minerals in the non-hunter diet, and from the mix of fresh fruit and greens brought in by the women and the tender, simmered, marrow-rich meat cooked down from the bones after the hunt.

It looks to me like the uncivilized diet is more balanced than the civilized one. It is balanced in a way which respects the different roles and needs of different people. Same is not the same as equal. And as any good teacher will tell you, when you are trying to teach people, you really should pay attention to what you can learn from them too.

Fairytale Nutrition

Lady Fingers — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:23:03 GMT

When I was little, I read a lot of Gaelic fairytales, mostly from anthologies given to me by an elderly neighbor. For a sampling including some of my favorites, read these: http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=macmanus&book=donegal&story=_contents

Recently I got to thinking about the heroes of some of these stories. The poor heroes, we are told, labored in the hot sun all day, and came home to naught but a bowl of bean soup or oat porridge. Meanwhile, their wealthy but heartless neighbors and relatives lived lives of indolence and supped on the finest fat calves. And yet somehow, presumable due to their pure hearts and good souls, Cinderella grew lovelier every day, while her stepsisters grew ever more hideous, and Donal that was rich grew ever more nervous, while Jack that was poor grew to be clever and spry.Now look at these tales again, from a health and nutrition viewpoint. Cindy and Jack are getting fresh air and exercise; their unkind and cheerless relatives are not. Cindy and Jack are eating low fat whole grains and legumes; their bloated relatives are sucking down fatty food and pickling their livers in the wine cellar.

Really, is it any wonder that the peasant hero is stronger and sharper than the snobby villain? Should we be surprised that our heroine is more beautiful and cheerful than her makeup-caked, overfed sisters?

I guess if we eat right, and get some exercise, we can be the heroes of our own stories.