What Arch Has been Doing on his Summer Vacation

.
Not a whole lot, that's what.

As you might know, I do a weekly radio show on WXPI 88.5 about classical music.  This weekend's show will be a retrospective of the past year, because I have been doing this show for just exactly 52 weeks.  I have 34 shows on my hard drive, so it must mean that I have created new material for two out of every three shows.  (The others were either repeats, or shows done automatically --from my own music, but at random, and without announcement-- by the Station computer.)

It just so happens that the Station's own Birthday Bash is going to be tonight, for which we have invited Rick Smith, whose syndicated radio show is a centerpiece of the talk show offerings of WXPI 88.5.  Rick has been interviewing everyone who has anything to do with our station, while I was away in Massachusetts, helping out with my retired Uncle and Aunt, who have trouble getting about and doing the things that have to be done even by Seniors in Massachusetts, such as recycling their plastic, hauling their own trash to the dump, doing the grocery shopping, getting back the laundry from the dry cleaners, etc.

You might not have realized that my wife and I do not have TV.  In our locality, there are practically no TV stations you can get off the air, and we don't have cable, so we do not get bombarded with the usual nonsense you get on cable TV.  But my relatives in Massachusetts do, so while I'm there, I am subjected to all the propaganda that I usually manage to evade out here:  America's Got Talent, and 700 Club, and Freedom and Faith Symposium, and Pledge Week for WGBH.  Beam me up, Scotty; there's very little intelligent life out here, especially when the Federal government cuts funding for Public Radio and TV.

I have been invited for a brief interview with Rick Smith, and I'm wondering what on earth I can talk about.  On my radio program, of course, I try to avoid talking about politics, simply because so much of the talk on our station is about local politics.  It is sad that today, very few voices on the radio talk politics with much sense.  Rick Smith is one of the few people who, with Jon Stewart (who is about to retire from The Daily Show) and Rachel Maddow, who are able to give good news analysis undistracted by media disinformation and misdirection.  For ordinary people today, who do not have a very strong background in politics or international news and information (unfiltered by US media), espousing a political position is rather a matter of faith and prejudice, very much like religious belief.  The problems with people of faith, both religious faith and political faith, is that it too often degenerates into prejudice and dogma.  Once your politics become prejudice and dogma, TV commentary, even if accurate and reasonable, only tends to confirm our political beliefs.  I'm a little less succeptible to this problem, simply because I have been politically aware for forty years, and the low-budget propaganda of modern TV and the Internet is easy to see through, though, of course, what's happening out in the world outside the US is hard to know, because all the news is filtered.  It is laughable for the US to oppose censorship in foreign countries, when there is effective censorship right here in River City.  (That's a 'The Music Man' joke.)

One fascinating thing I saw on TV was the gathering somewhere in Washington D.C. I believe, where the Republican presidential hopefuls got to talk about their religious beliefs.  Most of them talked perfect nonsense, but some of them were able to sound a little more intelligent than the rest, notably Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.  But even he did not make complete sense.  Bobby Jindal railed at Mrs Michelle Obama for her views about school lunches.  He said that he (B. Jindal) would be glad to supervise how many sweets his children eat —a dig at Michelle Obama's interest in children's nutrition— if the Obamas got behind Big Energy, and allowed them to expand their operations, to provide jobs for starving millions.

Unfortunately when Big Energy is allowed to do their thing, they provide jobs only for their own folk from Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, and other states where oil drilling has historically taken place.  The total number of sustainable jobs available for Pennsylvanians has been small; you can check out an analysis here:  Has shale drilling really created Pennsylvania Jobs?   Judging from the number of Texas, Louisiana and Alaska license plates we see, fellows from those states are certainly being hired to work on Pennsylvanian gas drilling sites.

So Brother Bobby is telling his own people what they like to hear.  It will be quite another thing to persuade swing voters, without whose votes no Republican can hope to be President, that the Democrats should be criticized for not supporting Big Energy.  Even such ostriches as Lindsey Graham have conceded that climate change is occurring, and that even if humans were not responsible for bringing it upon us, humans can certainly influence the rate at which it happens.

Why are conservatives waffling about climate change?  Because nobody pays attention in science class.  People have gotten used to only paying attention to things that they like already.  Starting from kindergarten, kids take a "OK, you may wow me now, or let me entertain myself with things I like already" attitude.  Of course, there are some young people out there who are more open to new ideas and information, and are able to assess the value of these things, but they are a minority.

Another thing that worries me is that few people are able to put themselves in the place of somebody else, to see something from the point of view of someone else.  This is a very basic kind of empathy.  It is easy to imagine the feelings of someone exactly like ourselves, in some painful circumstance, and empathize.  It is much, much harder to imagine what it feels like to be black in South Africa, or to be white in Alabama (unless you are white, in Alabama, of course).  It is almost impossible to imagine what it must feel like to be a black president in the White House.  It is education that makes this sort of empathy possible, and a thousand blessings on grade school teachers who go out of their way to encourage this kind of imagination among their pupils.

This is why education in the US is so important from so many points of view, and I mean K-12 education.  Unfortunately, K-12 education in the US suffers hugely, in turn, from the weaknesses of college education, which suffers hugely from lack of government support.  As long as the employment picture is bleak, parents will naturally cling to "Education as a means to employment", in contrast to "Education as a means to relate to society."  Society needs the latter, whereas individuals need the former.  As long as conservatives sneer at "losers who can't find work," and at liberals who "stand in the way of energy independence, which is the road to increasing employment for everyone," US society will spiral into uninformed paranoia.  Remember: making energy cheaply available is not the only way to increase employment; it is the most damaging way.  Fiscal conservatives always pursue that elusive principle of "Let's ignore the environment for just 5 years, and get the economy going; once Wall Street is up and away, we can take a look at the environment, when we can do it without raising taxes on those poor Wall Street fellows."  Observe that it has been possible to increase employment significantly without handing out free gasoline.  Of course if the GOP comes in, Big Energy will jump in to lower gas prices, to encourage the illusion that Energy = Employment, and employment will temporarily improve.  Then, with luck, the GOP will lose an election, leaving the Democrats to try to deal with the environmental and economic consequences (and any wars that the GOP decides to subscribe to).  By then, of course, some of the more feeble-minded of the Democrat rank and file congressmen will be happy to be whipped into action by Big Business lobbyists, and offer pro-energy, pro-Business legislation, which will be promptly criticized by the GOP as "too little, too late," whereas, of course, it will be too much, too soon.

Our first line of attack has to be to make our own kids open to new ideas.  Then to make the kids in all our neighborhoods open to new ideas.  Bringing up kids takes a village, truly, but most of all it takes parents who know how important it is to keep the imaginations of young people open and engaged, and to train them to resist falling into easy pessimism.  Bringing up a child who is a robust, responsible citizen is very difficult today, but it is an obligation nobody, and certainly no parent, can walk away from.

Arch

Show for June 27th: One Year of Archie's Archives

This weekend's show will be a retrospective of the past year, because I have been doing this show for just exactly 52 weeks.  I have 34 shows on my hard drive, so it must mean that I have created new material for two out of every three shows.  (The others were either repeats, or shows done automatically --from my own music, but at random, and without announcement-- by the Station computer.  I will write more when I have thought some more about what I'm going to do.

Archie

Self-made People

We, here where I live, seem to be surrounded by people who think they got where they were with sheer hard work, and without any help from anybody.

This is a frustrating attitude to be confronted with regularly.  I am known as a liberal, and my friends keep very quiet about political philosophies (when I'm around) because they take the attitude that Arch is an idiot, and he thinks, just because his family got a lot of assistance from ... various sources, that everybody needs a leg up.

People like Arch, they figure, must need a lot of help, because they are so helpless, and are so misguided, and ... yackety yak, blah, blah.  Well, back when I was in grad school, and making just about $360 before taxes, we were put on the WIC program, because my wife seemed a little anemic.  That's it.  I'm eternally grateful for the food assistance, and I'm sure our daughter benefited from the improved nutrition.  And, obviously, we would be less likely to have to get into medical trouble because of the improved nutrition.  Oh, and I mustn't forget: we attended the Well-Baby Clinic in Allegheny County, which gave free inoculations to newborns and infants up to three years old.  That was good.  Now some would take the view that everyone should be responsible for their own damn kids and their inoculations.  But listen.  If a kid gets sick with some preventable disease and spreads it around the school, it becomes everybody's problem.  Ah, but these people will reply, that is what we have lawsuits for.  So there you have the genius of American Society.  An answer to every question, which involves a delicate balance of personal financial resources, and legal recourse.  People who have never been in a lawsuit have a rosy idea of how effective the courts are at addressing problems that have not been taken care of by some sort of social safety-net.  Unfortunately, the American litigation process only works for the most wealthy.  It does not work for the average citizen, unless a lawyer can be persuaded to take the case on pro bono, with an interest in any resulting financial award.

Oddly enough, I was so successful in the areas in which I was successful, because (A) I was naturally musical, and I discovered that mathematics came easily to me, (B) my family encouraged me to be engaged in lots of extra-curricular activities, because they were both that way: music, theater, history, politics, psychology, education, social services, all these things were interesting to me, and I got to know a lot of people of different sorts, rather than being surrounded by people who thought exactly like I did.  I was also (C) encouraged to read widely, and in rational thinking, which is to say that philosophical positions based purely on prejudice were ridiculed.  Finally, (D) though my parents were deeply religious and in fact pillars of the church, they did not consider religion as having first position over science.

They are both dead, and so I am not in a position to query their take on Marriage Equality and things like that, and there is an even likelihood that they might object to it in principle, but then, they don't have to live in a world where that level of diversity has to be confronted daily, and so they would have had the liberty of disapproving of it.  We should support it, because such an enormous fraction of the population now has the opportunity to live happily with spouses of their choice, and so many among our friends would probably let us know that they have an alternate sexual preference if they were sure that we would support that.

This is the problem.  Insularity breeds insularity.  I live in Central Pennsylvania, and a few decades ago, few of my neighbors had ventured further than Altoona.  The few that have escaped the gravitational well of this area hate to come back, probably because they find the people back home impossibly insular.  In contrast, they love getting together with other Pennsylvanians-in-exile, because they do love the region.  They love the people, too, but in small doses.

But back to the main topic, namely that everyone should look after themselves, everyone should be given the liberty to keep the money they earn, and not have to pay taxes.  Some would prefer that all schools be private, so that those who can afford it can send their kids to better schools, which are not cluttered up with the children of poor people.

Some would prefer to live in exclusive neighborhoods in which they would build their own superior roads, have them plowed privately, after a snow fall, have their produce brought to their doorsteps by refrigerated private truck, have their own private militia to protect their homes and neighborhoods (so that they need not pay taxes for policemen), and have their own helicopter pads in their backyards, so that they don't have to take the public highways, rubbing shoulders with the masses, and using smelly public rest areas.

And the wildlife, of course, has to look after itself.  Bald Eagles have to pull their own weight; if they're endangered, it's their own damn fault.  If a species can't survive in the 21st century, it jolly well deserves to die out.

What about those African killer bees?  If the customs and the coast guard had been doing their jobs, we would not have them here.  Well, we just have to manage with however we can pollinate our crops using special tractors, or whatever; maybe we can breed some sort of artificial bee that can do it for us, or can't we spray pollen on the crops?  If we don't have to pay taxes, we could afford all this stuff.

What about gasoline for helicopters?  Well, see, the economy would take care of itself.  The company that can sell the most fuel for the least money would survive, and we would buy cheap gas from them.  The government is encouraging oil companies that should not exist, because they charge just too damn much.  (Swearing is something conservatives do only in private, so consider this rant a private one!)  Prices would go up if gasoline becomes a monopoly?  That's nonsense.  If prices get too high, someone is sure to start up a new gasoline company that sells it cheap, and the monopoly will crumble.

That's the problem with amateur conservatives: they don't know the principles of anything, really, because they have limited success with the little that they have the imagination to try, and they extrapolate that they know all that needs to be known about everything.  We can all go it alone in every sense, if only we were allowed to keep all the money we make without having to pay taxes.

The ordinary citizen often has very little idea of the myriad ways in which government subsidies and government programs protect them and facilitate services that appear on the face of it to be delivered automatically.

Mapping.  Zoning.  Water purification.  Cell towers.  Airport.  Weather reporting.  Developing new drugs.  Training doctors.  Keeping air quality good enough.  (Hah.  I'd like to see private citizens keeping their air clean.)  Keeping streams stocked with fish.  Maintaining the Internet.  Making sure restaurant food is safe, by and large, except for instances where the inspectors were bribed by your rich neighbors.  Making sure that fires don't break out in highly populated areas.  Making sure that zoning laws are enforced, so that there is no recurrent flooding (especially in freshly developed areas).

Ignorance rules in conservative areas, because many conservatives hate to be bothered by bad news, and like to live in ignorance.  When Democrats bring up unpleasant facts, the GOP folk tend to identify those unpleasant scenarios with the Democrats, because they'd never even heard of these things before Democrats started stinking up the place.

I'm going to blog about why I hate business so much very soon.  It's not that business is bad for us.  It's because business are not good at running everything all the time.  It should not be a basic principle that what's good for business is good for everybody.  That's an axiom that we must abandon, no matter how easy adopting that fallacy makes things.

Arch

Tenure and Wisconsin

.
A news report on the website of the (Minneapolis-based?) Star Tribune reveals that the Wisconsin state budget committee has recommended that the tenure system of Wisconsin colleges and universities be abandoned, and that the University of Wisconsin budget should be cut by $250 million.  (More details are on Huffpost here.)  I may have got the whole thing wrong, but it doesn't matter; in my opinion, this move is not unexpected.

That the sum is so enormous hints that the entire University of Wisconsin budget must be far more enormous.  The questions arise: why is tenure necessary?  Why must public colleges and universities have such enormous budgets?

I can imagine, perhaps several decades in the past, a world in which the ordinary expenses of a private citizen are lower than they are today, but where the government takes a proportionally greater responsibility for supplying the needs of the typical citizen than is common in the US today.  Public education is paid for by the government out of taxes, but in addition to their role of providing education for the citizens, (whatever that basic education may consist of,) it is understood that the public university professors also take on the right to disagree strongly with public policy.  This means that university administrators must not be given absolute carte blanche to hire and fire professors, because disagreement with official policy must be tolerated, and not be punishable by termination.  To put it in a cartoon-like way, the university is essentially a community of potential whistle-blowers, who are nurtured in the bosom of the government.  So tenure is a form of giving independence to faculty, once they have proven themselves as fit.

This only makes sense in that sort of world, where the expenses of the university are moderate, where salaries are small, and where the public does not feel the need to supervise the universities so closely because they are proportionately such a minor burden on the tax base.  In addition, the freedom of today's highly-paid university professors is much more odious psychologically, because the very nature of the political system is coming into question.  One sector of the population wants freedom from the shackles of a controlled economy, and views those academics --among others-- who disagree with them, as misleading their youth, and wants them silenced.  But they can't be silenced; tenure is all about resisting the forces of censorship.  The other sector of the population want a more controlled economy, where the level of government responsibility for the needs of the population (and the nature of those needs that are met by the state) is higher (and different), and this sector wants its ideas championed by those faculty who agree with them (and very likely wants the other faculty silenced!).

Why do Universities have such enormous budgets?  It is because in America today, only one thing is understood thoroughly: business.  Everything must be run as a business, from churches, to schools, to universities, to the postal service, and the Supreme Court, and the government itself.  Everything must pay its own way.  And everything must advertise, and the media has ensured that an enormous fraction of the budget of every business has to be devoted to: what?  Advertising.  So the razor edge on which the fate of universities and colleges are balanced is made even horribly sharper by the inflated budgets of these places, which must pay not only for the professors, but what are, from the point of view of academic curmudgeons such as myself, inessentials.

The discussion of tenure often takes the form as to what sort of disagreements should be tolerated; philosophical and academic disagreements are okay, but other disagreements must not be allowed, and so on.  Universities today are so large that faculty who want to bring their particular views to a wider public often need to indulge in a certain amount of theatre, which enrages a sector of the public, which precipitates more calls for the abolition of tenure.  In today's society, flag-burning and book-burning and occupying assemblies, and so on, are deemed necessary by some, while others take to public media, and highly orchestrated tissues of lies and misrepresentation and inflammatory remarks on television and the Internet (the entertainment of choice of the most feeble-minded among us) to persuade the most easily persuaded among us.

Our fellow citizens, unfortunately, have very little resistance to propaganda.  Resistance to propaganda comes from a certain sort of education.  But it is clear that our ability to spread this sort of education is weak; because the ability to benefit from education comes from, among other things, the environment of the home; and society, which is under the control of business, makes demands on its workers which preclude the sort of home environment that is conducive to growing engaged and thoughtful citizens, who are able to benefit from education.

So the questions of how education must be conducted, and whether and how academics should be given the freedom to disagree with government policy and social conditions, and even university structures, cannot be discussed comfortably, because they are so tightly entangled in the very ability of citizens to understand and to unravel the very questions themselves.

In addition, just as society is indignant at the abuse of social welfare by certain recipients of it, we are just as indignant about the abuse of tenure by certain faculty.  But in both cases, the abuse must be tolerated, and moderated by other means than withdrawing the service, or the right of tenure.  In the case of tenure, it is a much harder decision, as the Wisconsin legislature has learned.  In viewing university faculty as mere educational technicians, state employees as vulnerable as all other state employees, are they endangering the education of their future citizens?  Perhaps the mare has already escaped the barn; across the country it is becoming clear that, while a small minority of our youth are able to absorb a wonderful education from the schools they attend, the vast majority of high school students and college and university undergraduates merely acquire the tiniest fragment of knowledge from their experience.  Tragically, our future professors must be drawn from these pathetic academic remnants, so our future is truly dark.  Our kids will not be taught by the scumbags, if scumbags they are, who populate the halls of academia presently.  They will be taught by future scumbags, who are drinking and smoking their grey cells to death even as I write this.

I know that's dangerous rhetoric, but it certainly expresses my own dismay at the inexorable march of the entropy of education.  There is no doubt that some of the graduates who will burst upon the employment lines this summer can get their lives together, and will make admirable mentors for the kids currently in grade school.  But will they choose academia, which is so much the target of a hostile society, or will they choose instead to set themselves up as crooked Wall Street brokers, or used car salesmen, or lobbyists for Congress, or media spin doctors, where the money is better?

Arch

Is Cholesterol really bad for you? Is being overweight really bad?

.
The available information about the interrelation between heart disease, cholesterol, Omega-3 fatty acids, saturated fats, and high blood sugar is confusing, to say the least.  It is at least as confusing to medical practitioners as it is to laymen, because of the onslaught of vast amounts of information (some of it not very good) that physicians are regularly bombarded with.  Every doctor is constantly being given information from pharmaceutical companies, their alma maters, and medical agencies, and a significant proportion of this information is contradictory.  In addition, doctors are constantly under the threat of malpractice lawsuits.  Some of these lawsuits are frivolous and vicious, some of them are simply patients desperate to find financial resources to correct their medical conditions, because medical expenses are so high that not infrequently a lawsuit is the only way to obtain the means for pursuing treatment.  Not all doctors are quacks, and not all doctors are brilliant, and obviously a large number of doctors are just tired and jaded, and not as altruistic as we would want them to be.  Let's face it: we all suck, and doctors are no exception.  We have to be grateful that the health services in this country are not in worse shape than they are, given the conditions under which they operate.

Just recently, one Dr. Dwight Lundell, a former surgeon, was quoted as saying essentially the following:
(1) It isn't cholesterol that causes heart failure.
(2) Heart failure is caused by inflammation in the blood vessels.
(3) Inflammation is caused (among other things) by excessive amounts of processed foods, e.g. refined sugars such as corn syrup, lots of sugar generally, and Omega-6 fatty acids, such as found in Soybean oil.  (Omega-3 fatty acids are the good ones.)

This information, we find, was announced by Dr. Lundell as far back as 2007, though the information has begun recirculating once again this year.

On further examination, a sort of medical quack-hunting vigilante called Dr. Stephen Barrett has looked into Dwight Lundell's story, and has turned up that he has been in financial trouble with the IRS and has been on the brink of bankruptcy, and has lost his license to practice medicine in 2008 (though he has been practicing since about 1970).  He was also sued by at least two patients for incompetent post operative care.

Despite the hostility of Stephen Barrett, I find Lundell's analysis of the situation persuasive.  People are always looking for a silver bullet to remove the threat of heart disease once and for all.  Constantly consuming large quantities of polyunsaturated oils (Canola oil, for instance) is not the answer.  Lundell might be bad at managing his finances, and careless in his management of surgical patients (after-operation care is important, and intelligence on the part of the caregivers, the patient, and the patient's family is all needed for a good outcome), but he seems to be on the mark as far as his advice is concerned.

It is unfortunate that everyone wants the cure-all to solve all their problems.  To be healthy, you need to do a number of things.  I know what is needed, even if I don't do it myself!  Here is some obvious advice.  Bear in mind that (paraphrasing the immortal words of Robert Young) I'm not a doctor, though I play one on the Internet!

A.  Don't use poly-unsaturated oils exclusively.  Small quantities of Olive oil is good for most purposes; if you're stir-frying, Coconut oil is good.  Do your own reading; if you learn that this advice is not the best for you, act accordingly

B.  Don't consume too much fat.  A couple of slices of bacon once a week is probably fine, even if you're a seven-foot lumberjack.  Look up the ideal body weight for your height, and stay within a dozen pounds of that.

C.  Don't eat too much sugar.  The more you eat, the more you should exercise.  Don't eat too much of anything.  Don't eat too much white bread.  Don't encourage kids to eat sugar and white bread, because they will crave it when they're older.

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches made with wonder-bread might be a convenient soporific to administer to annoying kids, but in the long term they will pay the price.  Hopefully you won't be around to see when your kids become 300 pound couch potatoes.  All this propaganda that heavy is beautiful is a bunch of bull.  Nobody should weigh more than 5% beyond their ideal weight, even if they've been persuaded that they belong to a special "heavy" variant of the human species.  Especially kids should remain within their ideal weight, because heavy kids are at risk of turning into heavy adults.

There is general belief that a healthy self-image is more important than a healthy weight.  This is nonsense; both are important.  This trend of making the messenger feel guilty for delivering an unpleasant message is the creation of some idiot, and if I get my hands on him or her I will not be responsible for what I'll do.  Of course an overweight child is not entirely to blame for his or her condition: it is the family that must take the responsibility.  Occasionally it is some genetic or thyroid condition that is to blame.  But often thyroid conditions, I'm reading, are triggered by psychological factors.  I don't know how to deal with people who are eager to have their families classified as dysfunctional.

D.  Do eat unprocessed, or natural foods, which have a certain amount of fiber, such as oats, salads, green vegetables, whole wheat bread.

E.  Eat locally-grown produce.  I have started buying locally-grown lettuce, and it is awesome.  We also live in an area that has more than its fair share of Pennsylvania Dutch.  Now, PaDutch are not the healthiest people in the world; they do tend to eat a richer diet than will work for most of us.  But there's no faulting their produce.

F.  Choose your meat carefully, if possible.  Cold cuts in the summer months are difficult to avoid, but a healthy mix of meats is better than eating only chicken, or only turkey, or only beef.  Smoked meats should be eaten sparingly, i.e. once a week at most, and in small amounts, like a slice or two of bacon or ham.  It appears that eggs are not bad for us, if we stay under an egg a day.

G.  Do exercise in moderation.  Do not put too much stress on your feet and your knees.  If you're past the age of 50, consider wearing knee braces when you walk or row, or whatever.  This is to stave off problems later on.  Take your advice from your doctor; I don't want to contradict the doctor if he insists that knee braces are unnecessary.  (Check around, to see whether his other patients have bad knees.)  Avoid running, unless you run on padded surfaces, or run carefully on grass.  Do not run on asphalt or concrete.  Even if you don't exercise every day, try every other day.  Failing that, at least once a week.  Failing that, every other week.  Walk to church, if going to church is one of your vices.  Take a backpack, and put your jacket in it for the return walk, if you don't want to perspire in it.

H.  Prepare your own food.  Eating out should be an occasional thing.  Teach your kids to cook, starting early.  Kids of eleven and older can learn to fix simple food, and can certainly help with more complex food preparation.  Don't be intimidated by their reports of what their friends do or don't do.  Just because junior's buddies can't even slice bread for themselves doesn't mean junior should be just as inept.  Don't take klutziness as an excuse.  Klutzes are learned, not born.

Finally, be objective when judging how competent your family physician is.  Find a good one.  Keep an ear out for who your friends think is a good doctor, and switch when the opportunity arises.  Be a full participant in your health; learn the facts about any condition you have, and be a full partner when you or someone in your family falls ill.  This is good general advice, just as you must be a full participant in your child's education.  I'm not suggesting that you debate things with your child's teacher; I simply want to encourage you to take an interest in the material, help with preparation, give positive feedback, and be sensible about criticism.  Don't outsource important things like health and education, as if you're handing it over to H & R Block.  Even your taxes, for that matter, deserve your full participation.

I'm sorry to come across as being preachy.  It is important to be unambiguous about certain things which people like to misunderstand in the direction of taking it as an endorsement of bad habits.  "See, Barbara, it says here that it is okay to be overweight!"  No; I only said that 5% overweight is the most that you should allow yourself.  Don't misunderstand this sort of advice.

Arch