Awhile ago I came across some information that just floored me because I find it so repulsive I want to scream. The topic is a book called To Train Up a Child, written by Michael and Debi Pearl. It’s supposedly popular with religious homeschoolers, and most people that interact with homeschoolers say they know someone that uses the book’s methods or advocate for it. Indeed, this is how it ended up the focus of an article in a secular homeschooling magazine that I happened to read online.

As the author outlines in her piece, at times the book reads more like a primer in brainwashing, torture or animal training than it does parenting advice. The majority of the tactics are repulsive. I found myself repeatedly cringing and sometimes near tears as I thought about the children that are being subjected to these methods.

Examples of the Pearl’s advice:

Dealing with an angry child

“A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain. If he should tell you that the spanking makes him madder, spank him again.” … “If a child flees, don’t chase him. Wait and allow time for the tension to go out of the air. Slowly pursue him, explaining that he cannot win. If it takes a long time, that’s fine. Go to his hiding place and laugh at his frail attempts.”

On breastfeeding and biting

“My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for bald-headed babies).”

Attitude training

“Use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender — no compromise.”

Water safety

“On a warm spring day I followed the first set of wobbly legs to the inviting water. She played around the edge until she found a way to get down the bank to the water. I stood close by as she bent over, reaching into the mirror of shining color. Splash! In she went. I restrained my anxiety long enough for her to right herself in the cold water and show some recognition of her inability to breathe. When panic set in…I pulled her out and scolded her for getting close to the pond.”

The book’s authors advocate pushing in children that are too cautious or coordinated to fall in on their own, and a similar technique can be used for fire safety!  Whipping, beating, and bullying are recommended to obtain obedience by kids of any age. Children should be battered into submission to the point that they recognize there is no chance of escape and stop trying.  And sadly, I am not exaggerating in the slightest. They really do advocate doing these things and openly label them that way.

I can think of no other description for their methods than disgusting. Absolutely and utterly revolting. Any yet, the people commenting on their online articles praise them and thank them profusely for their helpful advice. How can this be?? Are people that interested in having an excuse to beat their children into compliance? Using their religion (spare the rod) as an excuse? Simply lazy and can’t come up with a better way to handle their children??  I just do not get it.  The closest I can come to understanding is to speculate that people would appreciate the compliance it creates in their children. After all, I’m sure it easier to deal with them when you don’t have all that pesky childhood exuberance to deal with.

The article’s author gives examples of deaths that have happened with parents accidentally taking the Pearl’s techniques to extremes. She attributes it to the parents being unable or unwilling to think for themselves and in their inability to realize that they have taken things too far in letting someone else tell them what to do, often far past their personal comfort zone.

I think that speaks to a major area of concern with the Pearl’s approach. In addition to physical abuse, the book’s authors are out to make sure that people do not think for themselves, including the parents following their methods. There is no mercy, no discretion allowed. You must be unwavering in your position and recognize their  approach as the only way to do things.

The focus of the Pearl’s instruction is to create reliance on them (the authors) and only them as the single authority on parenting. They advocate that you extend this control into your parenting, creating this same level of dependence in your children, and suggest taking elaborate measures to make sure that kids are not exposed to outside influence.  This is where homeschooling comes in for them, but also the avoidance of media, close friends/family, and any others that don’t share your views. This includes making sure that the kids do not even have the personal time to contemplate an alternate position.

“[Your children] should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.”

And so it goes, on and on and on.

Reading about these types of things helps to solidify for me what I do and don’t want to do as a parent, forces me to think about how we want to raise our son. To be honest, I don’t want absolute compliance from him, especially not when it’s gained through fear.  I want him to be able to think for himself, to develop problem solving techniques, and question authority – up to and including the things  we ask him to do.  I don’t want to beat back his spirit with control techniques, ridicule him, or teach him lessons by injuring him. I want to guide him as best we can towards becoming an independent and self reliant person.

Where are the compassion, empathy and understanding for others in the Pearl’s approach? Isn’t that one of the principles of their faith?  If the parents following this advice don’t show compassion for their own children, and are willing to inflict this physical and mental pain on them, then what hope is there for their children to learn these skills?  I want our kiddo to develop into a person that has compassion for others, a man that would not use physical violence or coercion to get what he wants.  I want him to question his own decisions too, realize that it’s OK to rethink your position sometimes (and especially in situations that endanger others), and know that there is no absolute truth that should guide your thinking.

The article made me wonder, as the magazine article’s author did, What can I do about this?  Just like she, I decided to try to make others aware of these people and their repulsive work. I’ve also checked to see if our local libraries stock the book (they do not) and am prepared to discuss it should it come up with anyone I talk to in future. In a way I hope it never does.

I find myself outraged at something I heard on the radio this morning, yet it’s not entirely surprising. The proposed leader of the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gen. James Mattis, has publicly come out in past bragging about how much he loves killing the enemy, and what a joy it is to shoot and fatally kill another human being.

“Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight,” he said in a 2005 speech in San Diego about killing members of the Taliban. “It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I like brawling.”

Fun?!? It’s fun to shoot people? I find this attitude disgusting. And while I realize that this is part and parcel for the military, I am appalled that it is mentioned so openly and casually.

With all the talk about how he has the qualities of a good leader, all I could think was how is it possible that one of the things we’d celebrate about a person is that he loves to kill? I don’t care if it’s the enemy; in my head this does not set the right tone at all for the conflict, any conflict.

Perhaps I am deluded, but I would say that one of the qualities I would look for would be a person that respects and acknowledges the value of life. If they don’t, I expect they will have no qualms about overstepping their bounds and making decisions that risk lives (innocent, enemy and soldier). A true leader would not view people as expendable, let alone enjoy dispatching of them. What a callous, horrible, outrageous attitude.

I’m a self admitted information junky and the Internet fuels this obsession. I spend a good portion of every day reading news, articles and generally doing a lot more non-work related research than I’d care to admit to my boss.

As part of this obsession, I have about a million email newsletters, lists and RSS feeds that I subscribe to. My email boxes are bursting at the seams with hundred of unsorted messages, a lot of them unread. I continually end up with a dozen or more tabs open in my browser with content I fully intend to read.

Lately, the signal to noise ratio has seemed overwhelming. In addition somehow when online I lose track of time, time that could be better spent reading books, cleaning up actual clutter, or undertaken any number of other more useful or interesting pursuits. So how to weed through the information clutter and otherwise get myself back on track?

As a first step I’ve started to unsubscribe. There were some sources that were easy to eliminate. For instance, why get emails about Delta Sky Miles when I fly very rarely and have never flown Delta? Some are harder to eliminate, since I know the topic is of interest to me if only I had the time to read it!! However, 25 back issues of the Organic Bytes newsletter tell me that it’s unlikely I’ll make it a priority. I’m hoping that cleaning up my mailboxes will be a start and if nothing else will help ensure I don’t miss something important. It’s all about balance, something I think we could all use more of in our lives.

Any suggestions for me? I’m afraid if I look up the topic I’ll get started down a bunny trail leaving me with another ten tabs worth of material to read.

For some time now, I have had been having allergic reactions to the fragrance found in products such as perfume, soap, candles, etc. Early morning meetings and trips in the elevator are hard for me to handle, with perfumes and colognes competing to make my nose itch and eyes water. Recently while walking through the mall, I walked by the Bath and Bodyworks store (not even that close to it) and got an instant headache! It seems like it’s gotten worse since I gave birth to our son.

Curious to know how prevalent this reaction is, I looked it up online and found that fragrance sensitivities are common. WebMD offers an excellent article on the topic, that includes fascinating information such as:

• Some 5,000 different fragrances are used in products today.
• The fragrance may not be the real problem, as it’s just one part of a mix of chemicals (sometimes as many as 200 or more!) used to create the smell or that act as the masking agent in unscented products.
• How our bodies respond to a particular fragrance lies in our individual physiologic makeup.
• Women, particularly during their reproductive years, have the ability to detect odors much more vividly than do men, and they become more sensitive with repeated exposures
• Doctors don’t agree on what’s behind any fragrance reaction, and whether it’s even a true allergy or simply a response to an irritant.
• As a health problem, this sensitivity alone affects more than 2 million people, and studies suggest that sensitivity is on the rise.
• Sensitivity to one fragrance or odor can snowball into a crippling disorder known as multiple chemical sensitivity.
• There have been several recent legal actions taken on the topic of fragrance, relating exposure to second hand smoke.

So it’s not just me!

In related news this week, a study conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group found that 17 of most popular fragrances contained 38 secret chemicals, including alarming things like hormone disrupters. I’m wondering if there’s a way I can subtly bring this up to coworkers to get them to tone down the scent use, perhaps post it on the mirror in the bathroom?

All joking aside, I really believe that consumers have a right to know what’s in the products they buy, whether it be the food they eat or perfume they wear. By taking advantage of the loophole that allows chemicals to be lumped together as fragrance, it makes it hard for consumers to truly assess the product and identify potential allergens. While true that most would not read it anyway if all listed out, there’s something to be said for making the information available for those that do care and/or need the info.

The FDA has the ability to restrict or ban any ingredient they consider unsafe, should they desire to do so.  Perhaps they may reconsider the role of fragrance and other related chemicals in light of the landmark report by the President’s Cancer Panel?

It concluded that the government has failed to prevent unnecessary exposures to carcinogens, potentially causing cancer, and suggests that the challenge for the Obama administration is to intensify research efforts into environmental toxins. “Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.” Obviously, more studies are needed to determine the effects of pollutants all around us.

It also includes the suggestion that America must rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals. Instead of solely focusing on self screening and preventitive care visits to the doctor, they are finally making other practical recommendations such as to avoid microwaving food in plastic and get your house tested for radon!

Perhaps I’ve reading into things, but this article on the BBC web site alarmed me just a little bit.

Some UK researchers looked up child health related topics on the Internet and then vetted their findings. If the story were that not everything you see on the Internet should be believed, I would buy that. However, I question whether the point of the piece is to tell people that the only credible source of medical information comes from the government, with statements like, “Government-run sites were the only completely reliable source, they found” and “In total, 11% of the 500 results gave inaccurate information, and 39% gave the right answer.”

I can see why doctors might be concerned that people are relying solely on Google for medical diagnosis, and rightfully so. But while they have a point that not all information found online can be considered credible, I am hoping this is not a push towards censorship. 

When I search for information on a problem, I want to see the alternative viewpoints. I like to see the CAM techniques for solving a problem, as well as the allopathic options. It’s useful for me to know that a doctor would recommend antibiotics for a UTI, but also that some would have you cure it with cranberry.

In addition, several of the topics they looked up are controversial. Even within the mainstream medical community, there is no one single answer or diagnosis.  For example, we don’t know what causes autism. That’s a fact right now. There is no medical conclusion as to why it happens. So how can they say the government has the only credible advice on that topic?

This brings me back to something I touched on in a previous piece. Isn’t it a cornerstone of science that we are always testing new theories, trying to find the answers for why something is the way it is? Then why is it that the medical community and the government insists that theirs is the one and only correct viewpoint? Why aren’t we welcoming additional theories into the fold and investigating those to in order to see if they have merit? Much easier to dismiss something out of hand I suppose.

There was one takeaway from the piece that I did appreciate, and it was also highlighted on the web site. “Healthcare professionals should continue to strive to be the main source of information for patients but we should be aware that most will continue to use the internet to gather information.”

While I’m not sure that I’d agree that healthcare professionals should be the ONLY source of information for patients, and I highly advocate being an informed consumer, I do believe that medical staff need to know that many of their patients do and will continue look things up online. Doctors need to be aware of what’s out there and be willing to look at information a patient brings to their attention. Combining knowledge to tackle the problem seems to be a smart solution.

Another study on corporal punishment has been issued that shows that physical discipline is not the ideal when considering the overall well  being of the child and can lead to long term consequences, including aggressive behavior and bullying.

I’m very happy to see the story getting lots of mainstream press. There were some excellent quotes and statements in this version such as that physical discipline, whether wielded by a parent or another authority figure, “fails to teach correct behavior in the long run.” and  “…consider discipline as an opportunity for education — to teach your child impulse control, understanding of cause and effect, and effective ways to manage difficult situations”.

It makes sense to me that kids will model their parent’s aggressive behavior. They imitate everything else!  In my opinion, what physical discipline often shows kids is that the biggest, strongest, or most coercive person or entity gets their way. When you don’t know what else to do to control the situation, hit! So when they’re frustrated or upset, it should be no surprise when kids use similar coping techniques to those they’ve seen their parents use.

I was very disappointed to see the reader comments that followed that same story, and others across the web. Many, many people stepped in to defend hitting their kids, or their parents for hitting them.

Quite a few jumped into the discussions using the rationale that it must not be that bad because they turned out OK. I guess that definition is relative! Some flat out said the study was wrong, or that it couldn’t possibly be  accurate because -insert example here- was spanked and turned out to be a productive member of society.

Whether or not the kid will go on to get an engineering degree or lead the country is not the point of the study or the article!! The children in this study (and others) showed aggressive and bullying behavior with a direct correlation to how often they were spanked.

Several others chimed in to point out that there is a difference between types of spanking said of course that they only do the “appropriate”  kind. You know, not beatings — just a good old fashioned whooping or a slap when their kid just won’t comply.

It makes me sad to know that there are so many kids out there getting hit on a regular basis, but also to know that they are not learning more  appropriate coping strategies and may not even know what they did wrong, let alone how to correct it. Fear is not an effective parenting technique, at least not in the long term. Logical consequences make a whole lot more sense.

This being said, I recognize that every parent has different strategies for raising their kid, and similar to how I don’t want others to make decisions for me on things like mandatory medical treatment, it’s not my job to make discipline related decisions for others. Unlike the issue of corporal punishment in schools, something I also wrote about recently, this issue is not one for government or the masses to determine.

That doesn’t mean I condone it, not at all. Maybe all this information in the press will show some that there is an alternative? As mentioned in that previous post, children reflect the treatment they receive.

When I started to see the various stories and alerts roll in saying that Ajinomoto had re-branded aspartame as AminoSweet, my first thought was Ajinomoto- who’s that? The next was concern that consumers might be duped into consuming aspartame again after finally coming to the realization that it is just not good for you.

The PR spin on this one is that, “Ajinomoto believes that the time is right to remind the industry that aspartame tastes just like sugar, and that it’s made from amino acids – the building blocks of protein that are abundant in our diet.”

In other words, they have figured out that consumers are wising up to the fact that their product may be harmful. They’ve decided to switch their name in an attempt to avoid the ill effects of past bad press and other attacks on their reputation (boo hoo!) and convince people anew to buy items containing their chemical concoction.

Ajinomoto doesn’t just say that their product is safe, they actually call it healthy! I don’t know how they dare say it’s beneficial, but they do. Claims on their web site include that it it can help you achieve a healthy diet, that its role in this area is increasingly important, it’s tooth friendly. Apparently it does not bring anything new into your diet because it’s “just like those found in everyday foods such as meat, fish, cheese, eggs and milk” and is digested by the body the same way as other proteins. To that I saw pfffffht.

Aspartame is about as far away as one can get from a healthy ingredient, simple construction or not. The fact that it is “constructed” and not found in nature should be the first red flag. Then consider that aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Combine this with studies showing aspartame as carcinogenic, the possibility it is an immune system disrupter, responsible for seizures, vision loss, etc. and you can easily see why consumers are shying away from their product. There are other reasons that aspartame has been under attack since the 70s too, and the story includes corrupt FDA officials, fabricated lab results, and more.

(Before people bring it up, I do realize that there are studies showing that it is OK  to consume aspartame in moderation. It’s sometimes said that it’s one of the most studied products in history. However, I look at this similar to other things the FDA has approved for use that are also harmful, such as BPA, mercury, fluouride, etc . When you add in the history behind the FDA approval, and look at how many of the positive studies have industry ties,  I am just not comfortable with the product.)

Add to this that I know lots of people that have problems with aspartame, myself included. Years ago before I stopped consuming soda, every time I had a drink containing it I got a headache. Other diet products, or other sodas from the same manufacturer were not a problem for me, just the ones containing aspartame. There are many such stories, and even some books, that lay it all out.  It seems particularly harmful when given to kids (which is probably why it is banned from children’s products in Europe).

And a final minor point, but as far as the actual name goes from a marketing standpoint, I disagree with their contention the name AminoSweet is either appealing or memorable. It’s not like the average person even knows what an amino acid is, let alone considers it a positive thing.  I think they’re overestimating their audience’s ability to make that association. And it might become memorable to those downing their several diet soft drinks a day, but that’s only if their memories aren’t compromised by the affects of the ever-so-healthy protein!

Let’s hope the mainstream media decides to inform consumers of this name change so people can continue to make educated decisions.

Ahimsa is a Sanskrit word that means “to do no harm”. I’d like to think that I live by this concept, but what I’ve determined is while I’m doing a good job of making sure cruelty doesn’t touch my plate, I’ve been doing a poor job of consistently applying this principle to other spheres of my life.

As I read recently, “Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature, either by thought, word, or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand.”

My vegan status goes a long way towards the avoidance of killing other living beings, however there are other ways to inflict harm. My consideration needs to extend to treatment of others as well. I seem to have little problems exhibiting willpower when it comes to food, but I need to gain some mastery over my mind and mouth. Unkind or villifying behaviour, things like dishonesty, hate and gossip, are all incompatible with the ideal.

In order to become more consistent with what I believe, I’m going to try my best to improve in this area– focus in on the positive and try to avoid the negative thoughts and speech. I’ve got some ideas on why I slip into injurious behaviours and need to consciously make an effort to cut back and quit.

Self improvement is never ending, a vast continuum.

We buy  a lot of beverages that come in cardboard containers. For some reason milk alternatives (soy, hemp, almond, rice, etc.) rarely come in plastic or glass like cow milk does, and instead come in boxes similar to those used for juice. At our previous residence they took these types of boxes along with the rest of the recycling, but when we moved here just a few miles away, to my surprise they did not.

Not wanting to just throw the containers away, I collected them and hauled them to the local recycling center, figuring our city just didn’t want to handle them curbside. Despite the fact that the bin says right on it not to throw in containers that are coated, lined, etc. one of the workers told me that it was OK to put them in there. For over a year I’d been hauling the containers there on a regular basis and dumping them in the bin, somewhat stealthily at times since I still wasn’t sure if they belonged in there or not.

After doing some research into shelf stable products recently, I’ve found that they most definitely do not belong in with the rest of the cardboard! The boxes used for liquids are also known as aseptics. (Some people call them Tetra Paks, as that’s the most recognizable brand.) Aseptics are made from several layers of different materials – including paper, plastics and metals – and are thus somewhat harder to recycle.  See diagram.

Aseptic containers, and other coated or lined containers like those used for juice,  must go through a completely different processing method called hydrapulping. Hydrapulping facilities are rare and thus the packages are rarely recycled. My main go-to for locating recycling facilities, earth911.org, shows no place in our state that will take these containers. Only 26 U.S. states have access to a facility that can handle them.

As of last week I started throwing the containers away and I cannot believe how much our trash load has increased as a result! I really, really don’t want to send them to the landfill but feel I don’t have a choice. I would avoid buying those boxes outright if possible, but some of the products we purchase don’t come any other way and are staples in our diet.

There are efforts underway to expand recycling for these types of containers. The Carton Council and four leading carton manufacturers have teamed up to improve U.S. availability. Last year Tropicana joined forces with Waste Management to increase the recycling opportunities for their boxes. I’m hopeful that it will happen quickly so we’ll soon have a proper way to recycle our drink containers.  Countries like Canada and Germany are already doing it well; there’s no reason we can’t too.

A couple of recent NPR radio pieces talked about the state of medicine in the late 19th century, how doctors were educated largely by private medical schools that let anyone in that could pay tuition. Those doctors were not trained in the scientific method, had no labs, and did not necessarily study anatomy or physiology. Going to them had about a 50% chance of being beneficial for the patient!

It was after the automobile, the airplane, the telephone and other discoveries that people begin to see the value of science and started to believe in the use of a learned medical professional. Doctors eventually became ingrained in our culture and known as respected members of a community rather than as snake oil salesmen.

One of the main things that started to change medical schools for the better was the Flexner Report. This was a comprehensive report commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation that reviewed all the major American medical schools at the time. It was a game changer. It brought curriculum that was based on science, created standards and pushed medical education to the realm of universities.

I think lately we’re seeing the reversing trend. After 100 years faith in experts many people are increasingly skeptical of those who claim to know it all. (I find myself among that group.)  Medicine seems to be based on science less and less, with business influence and profit taking a lead again. A negative outcome from going to the doctor is still a very real possibility, with an increasingly likely chance of picking up some nasty bug at a hospital or getting the wrong dose of prescription drug.

On the 100th anniversary of the Flexner report, academics are wondering what the focus would be if a similar study were underway today.  I surmise a new report might include information on how doctors should deal with patients who disagree with them or bring them research they find on the Internet. There would be a recommendation for training on complementary and alternative therapies (if nothing else but to better converse with their patients on these topics). There should also be a major focus on wellness and prevention rather than just treatment. Good science would take precedent over the recommendations of professional organizations, lobbyists or big business.

A rethink of medical education is in order and I’m remaining hopeful that we’ll eventually see a trend towards better care  that takes a holistic approach to health.