in process's in the world Archives

This morning I caught up on the debate regarding the Frost family that the Democrats used as a poster child for the need for government sponsored health care. The event started a flurry of activity in op-ed columns and blogs.

If you can find the truth wandering around somewhere in this argument, feel free to let me know. Because to my eye's it's been lost.

Posted by charity at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2007

an undecided vote

After dutifully ignoring the '08 presidential election hype up to this point, my ears are starting to warm up to the candidates. It seems like an odd match, but right now the candidates who have a chance of receiving my vote are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (who even some of my liberal atheist friends like) and Senator Hillary Clinton (who some of my conservative Christian friends are afraid of).

I never thought Hillary had a chance in the election, let alone that I would consider voting for her. But I have to tell you, I have been impressed with her realistic view of the war in Iraq (it's gone sour, but we can't pull out), her willingness to call Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, her openness to free trade, and her ability to work across party lines -- I found this op-ed piece this morning interesting.

Since I moved to North Carolina, I can't remember if I registered as a Republican or an Independent, but I definitely have Republican leanings. And I have to tell you, I am not impressed with the group of Republicans trying to gain our attention. Folks from Arkansas that I know have all had nothing but positive things to say about Huckabee and the video and audio clips show him as a likeable, articulate man. But I don't feel I know much about him yet. I watched a video clip of his speech at a church talking about how America was founded as a Christian nation and a clip from the last debate that made both Andy and I look at each other oddly -- though for the life of me I can't remember what it was about.

In my mind, the biggest issue is the war. I can't vote for Obama because he has very little experience and am afraid of him being Commander and Chief. I like McCain because of his military experience and think he could be a good Commander and Chief, but he definitely doesn't feel like a diplomacy kind of guy.

I'm still looking for the Republican candidate who can have a good running against Hillary. But right now, I don't see it.

Posted by charity at 09:47 AM | Comments (2)

October 31, 2006

a late response

To the UNC undergraduate who came to my door at 7:45pm last Monday soliciting my help for her cause:

I would encourage you to rethink the prepared speech you gave me. When knocking on the doors of complete strangers you never know who might be on the other side. I am, in fact, a Christian. I shy away from associating myself with the "religious-right", though I may agree with them a lot of the time. I shy away because liberals like you have made the assumption that the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world represent Christian voters. I have not elected them. They do not represent me.

Therefore, I take offense at your not-so-veiled inference that religious people are not "fair-minded". If I were to come across you again I would ask you in for a cup of tea and we could talk about your cause. You would share your position and I would tell you mine. One or both of us may learn something about the other, though neither of us may be persuaded.

Alas, I missed out on a chance to love my neighbor and instead of inviting you in when you asked to show me your materials, I said, "No thank you."

Maybe next time.

Posted by charity at 10:02 AM | Comments (1)

October 15, 2006

the catch-22 of food regulations

Michael Pollan showed up in the New York Times again today. Being the loyal reader I am, I read his article on the effects of the E. coli breakout in bagged spinach. The interesting catch-22 is that the breakout was a result of industrial food practices and will induce government to invoke new regulations on the vegetable industry (as they already do in the beef industry), increasing costs to producers and making it more difficult for local producers to survive. Here is an excerpt:

Heavy burdens of regulation always fall heaviest on the smallest operations and invariably wind up benefiting the biggest players in an industry, the ones who can spread the costs over a larger output of goods. A result is that regulating food safety tends to accelerate the sort of industrialization that made food safety a problem in the first place. We end up putting our faith in RadSafe rather than in Blue Heron Farms — in technologies rather than relationships.

I guess I wonder if all it would take to accelerate a decentralization of our food system is two or three more outbreaks or just one terrorist attack aimed at our food supply.

Posted by charity at 02:21 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2006

retreat

Another way of insulating ourselves and the message of redemption?

Posted by charity at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2006

food philosophy

The Omnivore's Dilemma - The first 400+ page book that I've read in its entirety (or very close to it) in a long time!

It isn't much of a secret that I love food. I love growing it, preparing it, serving it, consuming it and sitting back and reveling in the finished meal. I enjoy long lingering meals with a number of courses, flowing wine and conversation with old and new friends.

I've written about my thoughts on food before. What I just realized tonight is that the article I referenced in the blogpost is also the author of this book.

I've never been zealous about food needing to be organic, free-range or grass-fed, but now I'm wondering if I shouldn't be. I've always liked going to the farmer's market, but normally would buy a potato or tomato, more for the experience than the actual need. My general thinking was that limiting pesticides and the better treatment of animals was a good thing, but still looked for the least expensive price and the best deal.

But this book has me rethinking my food philosophy. The book follows four meals that each represent industrial agriculture, big organic industry, small organic industry and hunting and gathering.

One of the biggest reasons for rethinking my food philosophy comes from the book's challenge to the assumption that a chicken is a chicken or a tomato is a tomato no matter how it's grown. In recent months I've definitely tasted the difference between an industrially grown tomato and an organic tomato in a basil and tomato recipe where the organic is head and shoulders better than the industrial. But the book goes beyond taste and looks at nutrition. Depending on how food is grown, the nutritional content is different, especially in reference to polyphenals - "a group of secondary metablites manufactured by plants ... Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing or fighting cancer." According to new research:

The reason plants produce [polyphenals] in the first place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenals a plant will produce ... The [University of California-Davis] authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make their own polyphenal pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their resources in mounting a strong defense.

The nutrition question is also addressed in animals. Did you know that cattle cannot digest corn (which is a major portion of their diet in industrial agriculture) on their own? For a variety of reasons, not the least of those being the overproduction of corn in the U.S., industrial cattle farms use cheap corn for feed. I won't go into the details here, but in general the cattle's high corn diets lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, rumenitis, liver disease and general weakening of the immune system. In addition, "corn-fed meat is demonstrably less healthy for us, since it contains more saturated fat and less omega-3 fatty acids than the meat of animals fed grass. A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with corn-fed beef."

There are tons of other interesting things in the book such as the predominance of high fructose corn syrup in American food products, butane in Chicken McNuggets, the perils of the "big organic" industry, and the question of cost for alternative food systems.

I finished the book feeling like Michael Pollen was a friend. I wanted to have him over for dinner when it was finished. The book takes a relatively unbiased look at where our food comes from and the tradeoffs we've made to have cheap food when and where we want it. It's a must read that will only take a couple of days.

Posted by charity at 09:04 PM | Comments (5)

May 21, 2006

New School spirit II

If students and faculty at Liberty University had booed, heckled and turned their backs on presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton as a graduation speaker, they would have been branded as intolerant and closed minded.

As a friend of ours would say: this is why people hate democrats.

Posted by charity at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2006

the New School's spirit

Students at The New School have signed a petition to remove Senator John McCain as their commencement speaker.

Brian Lehrer interviewed a student senate and faculty member who support the petition. Here's a snippet:

Student: We're just extremeley disappointed to have someone like McCain who is very conservative in his voting record... our graduation is supposed to be a day of celebration and to have someone like that as an implicit endorsement from the university is really a contradiction to our education.

BL: What if the New School had invited a democratic presidential hopeful with whom you agree on some issues and disagree on some issues?

Student: That was actually the original idea was to have a speaker who was going to be Barack Obama who actually had to decline because of a scheduling conflict. I think that people would have been excited to hear the speaker... We're not always necessarily going to agree with any senator, because people who are politicians do run in the mainstream, but they wouldn't have necessarily completely contradicted most of our views and that of our education... Almost everyone in the New School, not in their individual views, but what the university was founded on in progressive views and questioning authority has really been instilled in us."

BL: What's the point of a university education if you come in with a political orthodoxy and are determined to leave with the same one?

Student: I don't think it's necessarily about indoctrinating students... It's very common that students at the new school have more left wing politics, but at the same time I don't think that is what our education is about. We are taught to question authority and that's what we're doing here.

You can listen to the whole segment here.

Posted by charity at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2006

Hagel 2008

Keep this article in your sights as the 2008 presidential elections draws near. I like this guy.

The Heartland Dissident

Posted by charity at 10:51 AM | Comments (3)

December 19, 2005

tis the season, revisited

My original "tis the season" was an annoyance, but think Kristof's seasonal writing is better food for thought:

"Let us all pray for Bill O'Reilly.

Let us pray that Mr. O'Reilly will understand that the Christmas spirit isn't about hectoring people to say ''Merry Christmas,'' rather than ''Happy Holidays,'' but about helping the needy..."

Posted by charity at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)

November 30, 2005

a lesson on goals and objectives

I've read two strategic plans today. One from the White House regarding Iraq and one from Nicholas Kristof regarding Darfur. Both attempt to enumerate goals and objectives for their respective conflicts, but only one seems to be able to decipher between the two.

As a planner, I've been taught that the distincion between goals and objectives is imperitive in being able to evaluate any plan. The easiest way to distinguish between a goal and an objective is to understand that a goal is the end and an objective is how you're going to reach that goal. Often times, the goal is fairly intangible, therefore in order to evaluate the progress towards reaching the goal, measurable objectives need to be laid out. Here is an example:

Goal: To speak French fluently
Objective: Take two college French courses
Objective: Work with a language tutor once a week

While it is difficult to come to a point where I can say I speak French fluently, I can clearly tell you when I've finished coursework and whether or not I meet with a tutor.

As I perused the strategic plan laid out for Iraq, it seemed like 38 pages of goals with no measurable objectives. The plan is summarized into "The Eight Pillars", which are said to be eight objectives to obtain the goal of victory in Iraq. For example:

1 - Defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
2 - The Government of Iraq provides for the internal security of Iraq, monitors
and controls its borders, successfully defends against terrorists and other security threats.
3 - Iraq evolves into a free, federal, democratic, pluralist, and unified state
representative of all Iraqi citizens.

As learned earlier, one recognizes that these are not in fact objectives, rather they are goals. To be clear, the reason they are not objectives is because there is no clear way of measuring when they have been achieved. How do we conclude when the Iraqi government successfully defends against terrorists? How do we conclude when Iraq is a "free, federal, democratic, pluralist and unified state"?

In contrast, I read Kristof's plan for US engagement in stopping the genocide in Darfur. This plan has a clear goal with measurable objectives. Kristof lays out the following:

Goal: Help end the genocide in Darfur
Objective: Pay $50 million for African Peacekeepers
Objective: Impose a no fly zone
Objective: Pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act
Objective: Get a Darfur lawn sign for the White House
Objective: Appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks

So why am I harping on this distinction? Because when you have objectives that are in fact goals, there is no way to evaluate the progress of the plan or hold the implementers accountable. While the Iraq document gives progress indicators, there were no set objectives to measure those indicators by. For example, the report says that 116,000 Iraqi troops were trained in the last year. But given the constraints and resources of the US military training operations, is this a high number? a low number? Without clearly laid out objectives that have examined the resources and constraints to carry out these objectives, there is no measurement for evaluation. Perhaps given the resources and constraints, the objective would have said 500,000 troops and when that objective is not met, there would be investigation of why and improve efficiency and understanding.

Conversely, someone who implements Kristof's plan would be evaluated by the achievement of the five objectives in hopes of reaching the goal. It is clear on what is expected.

I'm not asking for a detailed timeline with no room for incremental change. I'm asking for measureable objectives to aid us in evaluating how far we've come in reaching our goals in Iraq and holding the implementers (both in the White House and in the field) accountable for their actions.

Continue reading "a lesson on goals and objectives"

Posted by charity at 05:32 PM | Comments (11)

November 04, 2005

Duke mind games

From the Herald-Sun:

A Carrboro police report filed Monday was the second occurrence of a community member reporting he was under brain-wave control by Duke University.

The first report, by a different person, came in more than two months ago. In this week's report, a man said he had already contacted the FBI, and that the brain-wave control from Duke University was encouraging him to commit felonious acts.

Posted by charity at 11:45 AM | Comments (1)

September 27, 2005

airfare wars

I've recently been frustrated with published airfares that don't exist. For example, the other day my fare watcher on Travelocity said I could fly from Raleigh/Durham to Paris, France for $285 plus tax. Wow! That's a great price! But as I worked my way through the different menus to actually look at specific dates, I was prompted by an error message that said: "British Airways does not provide service between Raleigh/Durham, NC and Paris, France on the selected date." So, I tried another date, and another, and another. All the dates I tried were highlighted as "Fare Available" dates. But still no luck.

Since this had been happening often in my searches, I sent a complaint to the Travelocity service center. Their response was:

Please note that although an airline has published a fare for your routes, it may not service them. Our reservation system pulls the fares as they are published by the airline. While airlines are able to publish fares in the market, they may not fly between the cities. We apologize for any confusion caused by this.

Publishing fares for routes they don't service. There's something wrong with this picture. And something down right cruel. Could British Airlines be sued for false advertising?

Posted by charity at 01:27 PM | Comments (1)

August 18, 2005

manor house

While watching the PBS reality show Manor House, which takes present day personalities and places them in the early 20th century Edwardian era, I was fascinated to see 21st century egalitarians being thrust into a world where each person stands on a different step of the social ladder. You are restricted to who you can talk to and what you can do depending on which part of the ladder you stood. Each rung has its own privilages and constraints, with little place for changing one's situation.

The house was broken into "Upstairs" and "Downstairs". Living as a servant downstairs meant long hours, back-breaking work, and submission to those above you. Yet it also meant being part of a community of people that you worked and laughed with. Living upstairs as an aristocrat meant roaming the house with leisure, wearing beautiful clothing, and dining with dignitaries. But it also meant spending very little time with ones children and being restricted in discussion and pursuits depending on gender, age, and marital status.

It seemed that the two highest ranking members of the household, Sir John and Lady Olliff-Cooper, took most easily to their roles in the house. In Lady Olliff-Cooper's reflections on her experience she wrote:

"Our experience in the house showed me that if you want to get a project off the ground quickly and efficiently then you need to impose a hierarchy. This is not to say that such a hierarchy is necessarily fair. I don't think I was any more worthy than Morrison to be the mistress. But if everyone has a place and everyone pulls together, a huge amount can be achieved. So even if it is unfair it may be better for everyone than the anarchy of egalitarianism."

Even when coming from an egalitarianism-minded society, it is easier and more desirable, to step into the role of master rather than servant. Lady Olliff-Cooper isn't completely wrong, it does take each person playing a designated role to accomplish great things. The value of egalitarian society she is missing is the recognition and compensation for the work each person does and the ability to take advantage of opportunity and ambition. In short, each person being able to chose their own path by having equal rights and privileges.

The influences of an egalitarian-minded society couldn't be completely suppressed in this project. For example, the 21st century female servants were in a less vulnerable position of being taken advantage of than true Edwardian female servants who didn't benefit from 21st century values of the rights of women.

I've been trying to be honest with myself about which role I would desire to play. A master or servant? I have no doubt that if I in fact lived in Edwardian times, I would desire to be the aristocrat. But what about as a role in this project? The comaraderie of the servants is appealing, the working as a team is appealing, the clear purpose of work is appealing. But would I rather spend my three months working hard and building community or eating delicious meals, roaming around a beautiful manor house, and having time for all the leisure I could think of. Would you believe me if I said it's a difficult decision?

Posted by charity at 12:56 PM | Comments (2)

August 14, 2005

gone employed!

There are points in the job hunting process where you are excited about the world of possibilities. Could I do something completely different? Could I get a job in my field? Could I get paid enough to save?

Then there are other points when you just want to throw up your arms, sink into bed, and cry. I was at this point two weeks ago Tuesday as I left a defeating interview where I felt inadequate for a simple part time job in a city planning office. I came home and cried, ready to give up.

But I couldn't completely give up. I had to prepare for another interview the next day where they had asked me to give a presentation on "the state of science and technology in the south." Hadn't they read my resume? I had no experience in science and technology and had just moved to the south! I hadn't even applied for this job, rather my resume had been forwarded to them by someone else.

I wanted to call in sick.

Of course, I knew I had to do it anyway and I arrived at the interview only hoping to walk away without looking stupid. But by the time I left, I actually had hope of getting the position! It was a small organization with friendly people who seemed to enjoy each other and their work. I appreciated their philosophy on economic development and their desire to hire a fitting team member whether they be an expert in science and technology or not.

The following day I headed to Lincoln for Renae & Jason's wedding and prayed that whenever I did get a job I would be able to call Andy with excitement instead of resignation. Two days after the interview my future employer called and made me an offer as I stood in Target(!). I got to call Andy with that desired excitement in my voice.

Every time I tell this story, I am amazed at my whiney-ness versus God's faithfulness. We have been extremely thankful for social policy benefits, but are even more thankful for the provision of fulltime work in my field that will allow us to save. Many thanks to those who have walked and prayed through this process with us. Praise God!

Posted by charity at 12:20 PM | Comments (4)

July 29, 2005

7 weeks of paid vacation please

Krugman finally gets it right. My eyes got teary with the thought of seven weeks paid vacation.

French Family Values

Posted by charity at 09:51 AM | Comments (8)

July 18, 2005

gone unemployed

By the laws of the State of Nebraska I am officially unemployed and a thankful recipient of social policy benefits. I've been surprised by two things during this whole process. First, that the people at the unemployment offices in North Carolina and Nebraska were so nice. Second, that I don't have the line, "I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me" running through my head.

I actually feel quite good. Good by having less financial pressure to find a job immediately. Good in knowing that I don't have to take a seven dollar an hour job. And good in knowing that since I don't have to take that seven dollar an hour job, I'll have more time to look for better paying work and finish [hopefully!] my master's project. Unemployment insurance is good. Thanks to all my past employers who've paid their taxes faithfully to make this day possible.

Posted by charity at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2005

the problem of poverty

You can give people mosquito nets to prevent malaria, but they might use them instead to catch fish.

- David Brooks, Liberals, Conservatives, & Aid

Posted by charity at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)