Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

A Critical Thinking Wellness Contest: Win A Medal And Worldwide Fame And Help Bring The World To Its Senses

America and the world are besotted with foolish beliefs fostered by cultures that undervalue critical thinking, and I'm not refering only to the popularity of religions. 

Something has to be done about the huge disregard of evidence-based reasoning. I have just the thing in mind, given my own capacity for science and reason--a contest! I think a critical thinking wellness contest will stimulate a mass breakthrough to rationality.  Such a contest can bring the people of this country and elsewhere throughot the world to their senses.

So, I hereby announce a contest. An essay contest. A 1000 word limit. Anyone can enter, including my relatives and employees of this website, college professors, celebrities, high ranking politicians, even Republicans. It's wide open. The winner's photo will be posted at this website for a day and he or she will also receive a medal. The medal will be one of my own medals won in a prestigious race. Maybe merchants will also contribute valuable prizes as word of this contest spreads.

The contest is a simple, two-part process: A) Describe a foolish belief held by a group of people in a civilized jurisdiction (let's not pick on people in underdeveloped parts of the world, like Alabama) and, B) note how such a bizarre belief might be overcome.

Send your 1000 or less word essay for this context by May 1, 2009. Send by e-mail to me at DBA@seekwellness.com.

To get you in the spirit or mood for this, here is an example of what a contest entry might look like. First, I offer an example of whacked off insane thinking, then a solution.

PART ONE: A DESCRIPTION OF A FOOLISH BELIEF

Several major league baseball players and other popular athletes wear titanium-laced necklaces and wristbands. Why?  hey claim it brings them luck. Is there any evidence for this claim? None. Is it possible that they are paid to wear the bands in order that their celebrity-based modeling will lead innocent victims to buy this product, hoping for good luck? It is. More likely, they are not paid—they are just reason-impaired. More than luck is promised or at least held out as a benefit from wearing the titanium products—the necklaces and bands might also "alleviate discomfort, enhance circulation, promote relaxation, stabilize energy flow, reduce stress and soothe tension."

I'm not making this up. See Richard Martins story in the St. Petersburg Times entitled "Wear Titanium, Play Better," April 6, 2009.

The product is touted as a "micro-titanium sphere" and an "energy transport system." It is said (by the Japanese chiropractor who promotes it) to amplify some mysterious "energy management system" and thereby make all cells more efficient. The necklaces sell for $47 and are sold at "reputable" outlets in the US, including Sports Authority.

PART TWO:  HOW THIS NONSENSE MIGHT BE OVERCOME

Anyone seen wearing this bracelet should be showered with love and ridicule. These are not mutually exclusive. Be nice to the person, be courteous and think always of his or her best interests, but have playful fun at the individual for being suckered into buying or just wearing a ridiculous product sold under the most ludricrous of claims. This warmth of loving spirit does not apply to the major league ballplayers and others who might have been paid to model this item that is a blight on human intelligence and an offense against reason. These people should be humiliated, if not prosecuted. They give prostitution a bad name. Even if they are not paid to wear such things.

That's it. That's the contest. I eagerly await your contribution. Be well—and don't buy any necklaces with titanium or you'll be hearing from me—in a loving way, of course. 

I Demand That Wellnessism Be Taught In Science Classes In Texas Public Schools

Along with evolution, germ theory and creationsim, I want wellnessism introduced in biology classes in Texas public schools.  If the first two areas of scientific knowlledge are "just" theories to the school board leaders, well, then let's hear all the theories and let the little children decide what's sensible.  Isn't that what made America great? 
 
Christian Scientists believe disease is caused by sin, spiritual healers believe in the theory of auras, shamans believe in demonic possession, psychic surgeons believe in extracting defective parts without cutting, astrologers in birth periods and constellations and Republicans believe in the theory of small government and great fortunes.  I say let all these theories and wellnessism - the theory that healthy lifestyles will set us free of doctors, drugs and disease, be taught.  "Teach the controversies," I say.  That's what the Christian fundamentalists insist upon in Texas, and if it's good enough for Texas, it's good enough for me.  Yeehaa. 
 
Now I realize there is more going for the germ theory of disease and the theory of evolution, at the present time, than wellnessism.  However, wellnessism has a whole lot more going for it than creationism and the other theories noted above. So, fair's fair.  Teach the controversy, even if we wellnessism enthusiasts have not made a claim yet for our beliefs as theory.  We just want equal times with the intelligent design folks.

Wellnessism explains why people who exercise vigorously, dine more or less in accord with established dietary guidelines, take responsibility for their health and seek added meaning and purpose, happiness, support and all kinds of positive initiatives manage to boost the quality of their lives.  Wellnessism explains a few things and predicts a few others, and even gets it right now and then.  What can creationism explain?  Therefore, we want to be included, especially if the "Grand Wazoo did it" theory gets access to the science classes in Texas. 

Oh, and it's OK with wellnessism supporters if the Texas school board requires educators and textbooks to play up the "problems" with wellnessism, as they plan to do with the theory of evolution, provided they also list the "strengths and weaknesses".of creationism.  Good luck with that.  Who will be asked to provide the strengths of the latter - televangelists?
 
Since the Texas state board of education is composed of at least half a dozen and probably more creationists, I think it only fair to insist that half the board be composed of persons with healthy lifestyles.  It would not do for a group primarily consisting of overweight, chain-smoking rednecks who have no clue about the nature of the wellness movement or the lifestyle it entails to be making decisions that affect the lifestyles of Texas schoolchildren. 
 
Jerry Coyne, author of the best-seller "Why Evolution is True" (Viking), wrote an article entitled "Creationism in the Classroom" (guardian.co.uk, 26 March 2009) which inspired these demands for wellnessism.  In his essay, Dr. Coyne offered this parting observation"

"What happens in Texas doesn't stay in Texas. That state is a sizeable consumer of public school textbooks, and it's likely that if it waters  down its science standards, textbook publishers all over the country will follow suit. This makes every American school hostage to the  caprices of a few benighted Texas legislators.  Our children will face enormous challenges when they grow up: global warming, depletion of fossil fuels, overpopulation, epidemic disease.  There is no better way to prepare their generation than to teach them how to distinguish fact from mythology, and to encourage them to have good reasons for what they believe."

Just so. To show how reasonable wellnessism enthusiasts are, we will remove our righteous demands for equal time if the creationists (and the spiritual healers, shamans, psychic surgeons, astrologers and Republicans) back off and take their "theory" of intelligent design back to their churches. 
 
Not that such nonsense belongs there, either, but it will be far less harmful than introducing "intelligent design" in science classes.

Urge the President To Minimize Religious Interference In The Delivery Of Medical Care

Under the disastrous era of George Bush, religious zealots were able to convince the chief executive to create a provider refusal rule. This rule requires health care institutions receiving federal funds to certify in writing that they would allow health care providers to refuse services on religious and ideological grounds. It was an invitation to sectarian mischief.

Fortunately, it took a while to get into the system, but it has been in place since January 20th.  Already, the new president has directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind the provider refusal rule. However, this requires a period of public opinion gathering about the policy - and thus the purpose of this message is to urge you to do just that. Make a comment.

Here is my comment, which I plan to mail to HHS. Consider sending one of your own. You have until April 9th to do so.

Madam Secretary:

I join with other Americans who support the separation of church and state to urge that an end to the rule entitled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Humans Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."

As many have noted already, this Bush-era directive is driven by extremist religious ideology. It is an invitation to mischief and discord. It is vague and would almost certainly reduces access to health services and information for women seeking reproductive services. It could also lead to an interruption in the ability of anyone to gain assistance for a medical condition about which there is controversy based on religious dogma.

The conscience of a providers should not be given more weight than the health needs of patients. The danger is greatest in remote rural areas where alternative health care providers are few, but the situation would be intolerable anywhere. It is especially distressing in instances wherein a health care facility is funded in part by our own tax dollars.

Abortion is so loosely defined that the rule could tempt religious medical personnel to refuse to provide contraception, treatment for infertility or HIV/AIDS, information about end-of-life care or any medical procedure linked to a religious belief, however primitive.

I join with the Center for Inquiry and hundreds of other secular institutions in asking that you please rescind the provider refusal regulation as soon as possible.

Thank you very much. May the Constitution be our guide.

No Religion? A More Accurate Description Might Be That More Americans Than Ever Prefer Beliefs Supported By Science, Reason And Evidence

A new poll puts the number of "godless Americans" at 15%.  Those of us so grouped are said to be "without faith," "unchurched" or "lacking any religion."  While these descriptors are accurate enough, the terms are a bit like the word "atheist" - instructive enough in identifying what we DON'T believe, but of no value in indicating what does define or even describe us.  It would be desirable, I believe, to have a term for the 15% that is positive, not negative.

I suggest that a more positive and possibly more accurate way to express the latest poll data would be to note that 15% percent of Americans prefer reason, science and rationality to "faith" in that which cannot be shown to be true or false.  That includes all religions. 

Most of those who chose "none of the above" to the pollsters asking about which religion they embraced might agree that they do not LACK something (faith, etc.) - they possess something the others lack - a commitment to evidence.

As a fervent believer - science, reason and evidence, I consider myself a secular rationalist.  I think there are a lot of us.

What Rush Limbaugh Said When He Called Me This Morning

I put no more stock in the predictive value of dreams than I do in the so-called prophesies of Nostradamus, crackpot ESP con artists or religious zanies like Pat Robertson. Nor do I read much into images or episodes of any kind experienced in dream states. The latter may be rough guides to inner turmoil, or maybe not. Perhaps some revelations or scenarios, particularly those that are vivid and emotional, should be explored with trained professionals in therapy, aided by powerful drugs. I hope not, because I am definitely NOT so inclined, even if "we are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep." (Prospero, The Tempest, Act 4, scene 1.)

Therefore, I did not think much about a visit last night from Rush Limbaugh, who wanted to apologize for making such an ass of himself lately (i.e., at least the last eight or thirty years). Why apologize to me?" I asked Rush. "I don't care - tell your listeners. Tell Michael Steele.

I find you obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque and an abomination. I don't take apologies for others - tell the American people you are sorry for being such a wretch and reform your ways. But please, don't bother me - I'm a wellness guy. I look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times with compassion and love for my fellow man. Go away, you awful person.

When I finished, Rush looked at me in a melancholic way and said, “Don, you're the only one who can guide me. You understand REAL wellness. Please, don't reject me. I'm obese, unhappy, addicted to drugs; I have no real friends, except the lunatics who thrive on my unhinged rants. I want to reform my ways, change my life, make amends and become a decent person. I also want to shape a healthy lifestyle, have more fun, contribute to society in a positive way. I even want to help Barack Obama succeed, not fail. Won't you help me?

Well, let me tell you - I felt awful. Why had I responded so harshly? I was almost as mean and nasty as Rush - with Rush. Did I want to be like that? No way. So, like Michael Steele, I apologized to Rush. I said, “It's not too late. Don't worry about the past. Now that everyone expects the worst from you, you can be like Nixon in the 70's, opening up a dialogue with China! I'll help you. Start by telling everyone you no longer want to be the face or the leader of the Republican Party. You don't want to be obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque, an abomination or a wretch. From now on, you will promote REAL wellness - reason, exuberance and liberty. You're going to look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times (with rare exceptions) with compassion and love for your fellow man. You will even root for and help President Obama to succeed, not fail. You will be a new Rush Limbaugh person, thoughtful, kind and mellow, constructive and positive.”

Well, I can tell you, when I woke up I felt great. I felt full of energy, good will and passion - I wanted to go to work and write articles that would set things right. I looked over at my lovely wife, sleeping soundly and felt hugely amorous, I woke her up, put my arm around her - but I won't go into all of that here. I'll save that for my pay-for-view site.

Anyway, before long, I remembered I don't put much stock or read much into dreams, so all good will toward Rush was gone before I fired up the coffeepot. Then again, dreams sometimes augur moral lessons and those who ignore dreams (e.g., as in Macbeth) do so at some peril. Who knows, maybe Rush will change his ways. If he does, remember this tale. Maybe I'm psychic, have ESP or can see the future. I don't think so but if Rush transforms in the very near future, I might reconsider.

Why Skeptics, Doubters And Infidels Should Come Out Of The Closet To Express Secular Perspectives On Current Events

Some believers in a personal god want everyone, including non-believers, to be reverent and deferential regarding the deity they adore, the almighty one possessed of supernatural, unimaginable omnipotence. They want us to be respectful of their beliefs in a deity who rules over everything while exuding boundless love for all creatures.

Well, if I could wrap my brain around that idea, I could probably manage a mighty kowtow to the Glorious One. But, perhaps due to a gene deficiency, I find it impossible to generate much enthusiasm for the Grand Creator business.

Therefore, I don't empathize with Muslims who get all worked up about cartoons that depict their prophet in ways not of their liking, which includes any depiction at all. Likewise, I have zero concern for the sensibilities of those who chose to be offended by cartoons featuring the Pope, or any religious figure, real or imagined, living or dead.

To his credit, Denmark's prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded to demands for an official apology by Islamic religious officials after a local newspaper published cartoons that offended some Muslims as follows: "The government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech." Just so. Let us all marshal our energies in the months to come to see that things stay this way, in our own societies. Let's come out and declare our unwavering support for keeping separate church and state while ensuring that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and all that goes with it.

I saw the movie "Milk" the other day and heard Barry Lynn speak in Pinellas Park a few days thereafter. Both were inspirational, informative and fun. Both offered many important lessons, one of which is the value in being public about non-beliefs. In this fashion, the devout are more likely to realize that doubters or unbelievers are folks just like themselves, in most ways. They are just regular friends and neighbors, co-workers and even relatives.

In the life of Harvey Milk, the issue was discrimination against gays; in the present case, the group that needs to make its presence and ideas familiar is non-believers in any versions of god creatures.

In the UN, a sub-organization organization comprised of representatives of Islamic countries is demanding that the larger body adopt a speech code. The code would apply in all societies (not just Islamic countries) and give special protection to believer sensibilities, particularly Islam. It would make "off-limits" the "holy truths" of other religions, and identify offenses as "blasphemous."

Hopefully, the USA and other countries that prize freedom of speech as much as the Danes will defeat such a constraint on liberty sought by leaders of the very nations that have so little or none of it.

I had a personal experience along these lines just yesterday. A friend became quite ill all of a sudden and was hospitalized. To deal with the large number of friends calling for updates and in order to provide an opportunity for friends to express support, she created a website. At the site, she placed a description of her illness and treatment. The latter was highlighted by a condemnation of the medical system. She wondered how anyone rich could obtain medications she was given that cost over $1,000. She wrote, "Please say a special prayer for anyone without adequate health insurance."

As a non-believer, I wanted to enter a comment at the site that a person without insurance will surely need more than a prayer, special or otherwise. My dear wife, more diplomatic than me perhaps, put the kibosh on such a comment. She feared I would upset the patient, who did not need a reminder that maybe a Grand Wahoo of some kind was not "up there" answering prayers, whether for the uninsured or anyone else.

My wife is usually right about such things (I suppose nine out of ten is "usually") so I grumbled a bit and refrained from writing anything "blasphemous" at the site. I lit a candle and did a rain dance instead. Did I do the right thing? I don't think so - but I have caved before. I allowed my first-born to be baptized in order to keep the relatives happy. Another sell-out. Have I no shame? (Not enough, I can hear you saying.)

Which leads me to the suggestion that non-believers of all stripes do better than I did (above) and emerge from proverbial closets of polite silence on religious perspectives to do what Harvey Milk asked of gays - let everyone recognize that many of their friends do not buy into, share or positively regard supernatural beliefs. It would, I believe, lead to clearer communications and understandings and thus better relationships based upon genuine respect for varied perspectives.

And it might help you avoid acting diplomatically to a fault.

Someday, I will be brave -- maybe I should see the Wizard of Oz.

Come Out Of The REAL Wellness Closet - Declare Yourself For Some Actions Certain To Boost Quality Of Life For All

We all have opinions, whether we care deeply about REAL wellness or not.  That's why we have two viable political parties (a pity we don't have more) and all kinds of freedoms to express our individual tastes in politics, sex, religion and everything else.  The USA is not the only country that protects speech, but we do a pretty good job of it, most of the time, the last eight years excepted. 
Some of us have a need or just enjoy foisting our opinions on (well, maybe "sharing them with) others.  Generally, I don't think this is a good idea, unless we have reasons to think other people might have shown an interest in what we think. In that case, well, that's why people like me like to blog.   
Wellness promoters like me and many people who visit SeekWellness.com share strong opinions on many of the same issues, such as the value of vigorous regular exercise, good diet practices, personal responsibility, the importance of critical thinking, the vital role of a few key qualities of life (e.g., happiness, meaning, ethics and global awareness and environmental sensitivity) and we seek to enhance the physical and mental health of all, not settle on simply avoiding illness and preventing problems.  Exuberance is the watchword for us - life should be positive, joyful and filled with love and laughter.  For starters!

Therefore, if there is something we can do to help others experience REAL wellness or just not suffer unnecessary pain or worse (i.e., premature death), we want to speak out.  There are two forms this action can take:  1) join with others to encourage policy changes or new laws; and 2) take personal action, even if it only concerns your own behavior.   I favor both but the point of this essay is to urge the latter about a specific issue -- talking on a cell phone while driving.

Never again make or take a cell phone call while driving an automobile, or any other vehicle, such as a truck, bicycle, airplane or space ship.  It is dangerous, unnecessary and threatens not just your own life quality but that of others in the area where you are driving and talking or listening.  If you must take a cell phone in a vehicle with you for emergency purposes, keep it out of reach.  If you must take or make a call, pull over first to a safe stop area. 

The dangers of using a cell phone while driving are well documented (by more than 50 scientific studies reviewed by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  There is no debate.  The matter has been settled.  It might be "safer" to have sex while behind the wheel and negotiating your way through heavy traffic.  It's a very high risk thing to do.  Bad enough to jeopardize your health - it is unconscionable to do so to others.  How bad is this problem?  Accordingly to the National Safety Council (NSC),  2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year are attributable to the use of cell phones.  This danger is there whether your phone is a hand-held or hands-free.

So far, only six states (and DC) have banned cell use while driving - all should do so.  No need to wait, if your state in not one of the enlightened jurisdictions.  Ban your own cell phone and urge others to do the same.  This position has also been adopted by the National Safety Council.  It might happen in time, but you can take action on your own, now.

According to David Strayer, director of the Applied Cognition Laboratory at the University of Utah and a leading researcher on cell phone safety, talking on a cell phone produces "mental images that disrupt spatial processing needed to drive safely. While drivers look side to side when they are not talking on the phone, they tend to stare straight ahead when they are on cell phones."

Be wise, prioritize.  Sure it's convenient to use a cell phone whenever the urge strikes, but a consideration for the quality of your own life and the safety of others compels anyone who cares about wellness to choose not to do this - and, when the occasion arises, invite others to do the right things, as well - skip the cell when on the road or otherwise engaged in activities that compel your full attention.

All the best.

February 12, 1809 - An Extraordinary Day In Human History

As you might have noticed, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln are being much celebrated these days on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of their births - which occurred on the SAME DAY in 1809. That is truly amazing. More amazing is the gap that exists in America between reverence for the one and either ignorance or opposition to the ideas of the other. In the rest of the western world, both are celebrated, as seems appropriate. Why the difference? One reason - the mind-numbing ignorance that some religions foster among their adherents. Nothing else could possibly explain anything less than awe of and admiration for Darwin's contributions to human understanding. Because of Darwin, we better sense how we developed, where we fit, in brief, our origins as a species.

Fifty years after his birth, Darwin published his great work, “On the Origin of Species." This unprecedented breakthrough in human understanding described evolution by natural selection, a theory recognized almost universally as the most important principle in biology. Jerry A. Coyne termed it "the most revolutionary scientific idea in history." ("Seeing And Believing," The New Republic, February 04, 2009.)

Science was the beneficiary of Darwin's life work, and science, unlike religion, continually tests its assumptions, discarding those that prove false.

Why the opposition to science in America? As noted above, because of religious teachings. Consider the findings of science relative to Darwin's work and the knowledge gained since. Then try to reconcile all this science with the religious beliefs Americans overwhelming embrace.

* No less than 74 percent of Americans believe in angels.

* Only 25 percent accept that we evolved from apelike ancestors. (Some of these bozos are members of the US Congress; three Republican candidates for president of the United States raised their hands during the last campaign when asked if anyone on stage did not believe in evolution.

* One in eight of us think that evolution should be taught in the biology classroom without including a creationist alternative.

* Among thirty-four Western countries surveyed for the acceptance of evolution, the United States ranked a dismal thirty-third, just above Turkey.

* Throughout our country, school boards are trying to water down the teaching of evolution or sneak creationism in beside it.

* "Most people in America have a neighbor who thinks the Earth is ten thousand years old." (Source: Karl Giberson in "Saving Darwin.")

I hope you will find occasion to indulge in one of the many "DarwinFests" taking place around the world, even here in Darwin-denying America. Perhaps we should find ways, in our modest circle of influence (e.g., family, friends, co-workers) to express support for President Obama's goal of "restoring science to its rightful place." Maybe putting in a few (lots would be better) words for Charles Darwin would be a good start, thereby joining with the likes of Paul Kurtz, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers and so many other Darwin popularizers to fight against religious superstitions, supernaturalism and just plain cold stone ignorance.

This might be a nice alternative to singing "Happy Birthday, Dear Charlie." Darwin would like that, and I can't help thinking Abraham Lincoln would, too.

Sex And Vegetarianism: Is PETA Pulling Our Chain Or What?

Do you think vegetarians have better sex than carnivores?  What if they did?  Would that be sufficient reason to give up steak, hamburger and pork, not to mention shrimp, scallop, lobster and every manner of creature that slithers, grazes, bounds or swims.

The assumption that many would switch teams seems to have motivated the good folks at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)  to craft a commercial for airing during the Super Bowl - at a cost of three million dollars a minute.  Unfortunately, CBS network executives previewed the ad, a dazzling piece of work that proclaimed "Studies show vegetarians have better sex," and told the PETA folks to forget about it. 

I've seen the ad (you can look, too - click on http://www.slate.com/id/2210092/) and I can't see what the NBC censors got so uptight about. But, I am a little less squeamish about explicit sexual imagery than most people, so I might have missed something offensive. I learned about the controversy at the Slate website in an article by Nina Shen Rastogi entitled, "Debbie Does Salad," dated January 29, 2009.  I suppose NBC might have viewed this title alone a bit much for prime time viewers. 

All this aside, let's get back to the basic question raised by the ad that never aired.  Do vegetarians have better sex than carnivores?  Even if they do, in what way is veggie sex better?  Most important, would the most amazing level of difference be sufficient to turn Super Bowl fans into carrot heads or broccoli munchers and the like?

I can tell you it would not do the trick for me.  If being a vegetarian absolutely guaranteed that I would live 100 years without a day of illness while enjoying daily multiple orgasms that made me and anyone in my vicinity happy as a loon (or whatever creature is the happiest of all living things), this fact would not motivate me to surrender my great pleasure in devouring all manner of sea inhabitants.  (Steak, hamburger and other forms of land beasts I could easily do without, but never seafood.) 

However, that's just me.  Maybe you are not so devoted to eating fish and their watery companions.  Would you have made the switch if "Debbie Does Salad" convinced you that vegetarians have better sex?

Before deciding, let me summarize the pros and cons, or at least a few of the claims made for the health benefits of being a vegetarian, versus not being so restrictive in your dietary choices. 

On the plus side, PETA and other advocates of a non-meat diet make the following claims:

*   Eating meat makes people "fat, sick, and boring in bed."

*   Vegetarians are, on average, fitter and slimmer than meat eaters."

*  Meat and dairy consumption is associated with, if indeed does not cause, impotence, heart disease and obesity.

*  Vegetarians and vegans tend to weigh less and have lower body-mass indexes and lower cholesterol levels than omnivores. (All of these assertions are found in the Slate story quoted above.) 

Wow.  If all that's true, then you have to really love meat and seafood (and maybe hate plants as well) to NOT become a vegetarian. 

But, on the negative side, opponents of this vegetarian perspective argue that the main reason vegetarians have better health status than meat eaters is likely due to the fact that they are more health-conscious.  They have higher quality lifestyles and statistically are composed of people with better educations, more money and circumstances more advantageous than the meat-eater crowd.

To complicate matters for those who want to believe the promise in the "Debbie Does Salad" ad, critics note that many vegetarians have zinc deficiencies, which is not something you want to have if your goal in life is to be a high performer in the boudoir, or wherever else you choose to perform, if you get my drift.  If you are a zinc-impaired male, you have low testosterone levels, which means a depressed sex drive.  Like Debbie, such veggie-disposed guys might have to favor salads for sexual partners, which does not have a lot of appeal for most.  Debbie herself is at risk of amenorrhea.

It's odd that PETA would suggest (or would have, save for the prudish execs at NBC) that sex is better for vegetarians, since a meat-foregoing diet is historically linked with chastity, not prolific indulgence and even licentiousness.  Remember Dr. Kellog and Sylvester Graham and the other anti-masturbation purity promoters who viewed meat eating as a sure path to the "degenerating habits of luxury, indolence, voluptuousness and sensuality?" (Source: Nina Shen Rastogi, "Debbie Does Salad," Slate as above.) 

Well, as I mentioned, even the ad is accurate and vegetarianism makes a fellow, even at age 70, a total stud-muffin, I'm going to enjoy my "Frutti de Mare" and other such delights. 

I asked my scientific advisor, Dr. David Randle, about sex and vegetarians.  He replied: I am willing to test sex with a vegetarian and a carnivore - and I'll tell you which is better."  A short while later, my editor (who also doubles as my wife) came into my office after reading the first draft and asked, "Is that really true? You'd stay with your silly seafood even if you could perform daily like some kind of stud muffin?"  She did not appear amused. 

I started to say something about literary license and was tempted to bring up the notion of metaphors, but decided against it and assured her that if the ad "Debbie Does Salad" proves accurate, I'll never eat seafood again.

REAL Wellness And Health System Reform - The Need To Think Big And Exploit The Power Of Controversy

In urging companies to adopt policies and programs that raise employee understanding of the importance of lifestyle choices, wellness promoters often set their sights too low.  They assume company managers care mostly about the costs of medical insurance programs and that data showing dollar savings will make the sale.  Well, maybe, but I believe this approach undervalues the appeal of REAL wellness and the returns companies could obtain from setting higher expectations.  Instead of just saving costs from less illness, how about a prime goal of increasing profits via productivity boosts from initiatives that enhance employee performance and quality of life?  The former pays off for the company, the latter benefits the workers. 

Real wellness comes loaded with attractive possibilities but also is fraught with one perceived hazard.  This feared hazard causes many a health promotion leader to quake in his/her boots.  The hazard in question, of course, is the potential of controversy.  Controversy can be a problem, but if managed properly and explained as a dynamic of normal life, the negative side of controversy can be overcome - and that would open up REAL wellness issues.

When generating interests in REAL wellness, namely, meaning and purpose, critical thinking, ethics, happiness and the environment, the following hot topic barriers come into play:

*  The cultural wars. 

*  Resistance to and ignorance of scientific naturalism and humanism.

*  Parochialism and nationalism.

*  Assumptions about the limits of employee education and openness to stretching workers to engage grand ideas related to existentialism and analytic philosophy. 

Worksite wellness programs would be ever so much more attractive to all if key ideas about healthy choices were introduced in part by highlighting aspects of the works of such non-medical authorities as B.F. Skinner, Albert Ellis, A.H. Maslow, Carl Rogers, Thomas Szasz, Betty Friedan, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others outside the medical system. Also relevant to REAL wellness ideas are key ideas of the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington, and Franklin.

What are a few exciting questions to discuss that would fit as part of worksite wellness in the areas of meaning and purpose, ethics, happiness and other such matters?   Here are a few possibilities:

*  Is the nation more or less secular at present than in the past?

*  What are the implications of increased or decreased religiousity for key values, such as personal freedoms?

*  How important is separation of church and state for good governance, privacy, fair use of taxes and much else?

*  Is this nation still the preeminent scientific, technological, economic and political power of the world?  If so, do we want to see this continue and, if not, why not?

*  Should we promote democracy and human rights abroad? 

These are just a sampling of possible discussion topics.  Depending on the interests of the employees and/or the REAL wellness leaders, topics from hundreds of issue area could be addressed.  The focus would not be to convince anyone to follow a certain line of thought and consent, but to draw people out in order to encourage further interest in and reflection about matters of consequence. 

Personally, my priorities would be to have discussions about belief in the paranormal, pseudoscience and anti-science. Employees should have a chance to consciously examine whether they wish to be resistant to the advancement of science, a concern for human progress or the emancipation of humanity.  Is it healthy to believe in psychics and astrologers, monsters of the deep, UFOs and Republican tax cutting in the midst of a severe economic worldwide downturn?  I don't think so, but I would hide my conclusions while drawing everyone out on these kinds of questions.

REAL wellness must transcend the narrow focus at the worksite now devoted to lowering health costs and reducing high risk behaviors.  With elements of controversy welcomed, worksite wellness can provide a time and place for airing the pros and cons of defending democracy and open societies. 

This role would expand the wellness agenda to include protecting human rights, the autonomy of the individual, the right of privacy, human freedom, social justice and the rule of law.  Who would not welcome such an evolution for worksite wellness?  Well, some would.  What about you - what are your thoughts on the matter?

Be well.