Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Norman Walker disciple...to be or not to be?

SO (my mom pointed out how often I begin statements with this conjunction) I have been reading some propaganda in favor of a raw foods diet. A couple of friends and I recently delved into conversation about nutrition, health and the problems with Western medicine. They recommended that I read Norman Walker's books...he's totally their dude and they've been following his diet and health methods for years. One of them used to have bad acne and after a few months of raw foods and fresh juices she saw improvements. She now has completely clear skin. The other used to suffer from fatigue and headaches a lot and now doesn't deal with these symptoms and says she doesn't get sick.

The thing is, I've started reading some of Norm's stuff and I must say it seems shockingly radical upon first hearing. He basically advocates only eating raw fruits, vegetables, seeds and nuts, which isn't all that different from many other nutrition articles I've read as far as these things being beneficial. His books talk about how processed foods are deplete of any nutritional value (which is also nothing new) as well as how cooking above 120 degrees Fahrenheit kills off the necessary enzymes and organic properties of living foods. I knew before that the more vegetables were cooked the more nutrients they retained, which is another thing that seems sort of intuitive. But, from this angle, cooked foods are not only lacking nutrients but they are detrimental to one's health.

Another huge point of his, though, is drinking lots of fresh vegetable and fruit juices. He talks about the specific benefits of the juice of each plant as well as mixing them for the purpose of helping certain problems or promoting the health of specific areass of the body. Juicing is important, he says, because some of the nutrients in foods are expended in order to digest the food and takes a long time, whereas the nutrients in the juices can be absorbed within minutes. It is important to juice and drink them fresh, though, because they lose much of their value 30 minutes after juicing.

A major thrust of his teachings are promoting colon health. Walker (not to be confused with Texan law enforcement) argues that 80% of disease finds its origin in the colon. According to his argument, when waste isn't moving through the colon normally, it ferments and putrifies, releasing toxins into the body which cause all kinds of ailments. He talks about how many people's normal diet is largely inorganic and leads to the build-up of slime on the walls of the colon which not only stays there but can block absorption of nutrients. The fibers of raw foods act as an intestinal broom, cleaning this out. He also advocates regular colon irrigations, which is essentially washing out the colon with water to remove waste that has accumulated.

Sounds bizarre, huh? I mean, even besides the colon irrgations, it seems hard to think that the way most people have been preparing food for hundreds of years is actually detrimental to human health. Then again, it make sense that although the human body is very adaptable, we reap what we sow in our old age as all the abuse the body has taken over the years starts to show. We naturally link old age and poor health, but I have heard from a couple places that this is not necessarily true and that a lot of cancers, senility, vericose veins, arthritis and other problems associated with old age are because of poor health choices throughout life. A natural death would then be seen as a short, peaceful death without degeneration over tens of years.

My jury is still out but I am very thoughtfully considering making some diet changes. Norm Walker made it to 99, which is pretty good, seeing as the average for males now is 74.7. I'm interested to hear your reactions.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Progress

If you have a moment, please answer the following question:

What is progress?


(this question was provoked by this art exhibit I heard about in February.)

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Israel’s policies. Israelis do it all the time in blistering debates. But criticism crosses the line into classic anti-Semitism when it exhibits what Natan Sharansky called the “Three Ds.”

Delegitimization: The Jewish State has no right to exist. Israelis do not belong in the Middle East.

Double Standards: Israel is condemned harshly for self-defense measures and social problems that are seen as acceptable or inevitable in other nations.

Demonization: Through distortions and lies, Israel is depicted as the world’s most evil and dangerous country, and the claim is made that if the Jewish State ceased to exist, the Middle East’s—and the world’s—main problems would be solved.

The Link: Anti-Semitism is hatred for Jews, their communities and their way of life. It includes demonizing and dehumanizing Jews as a group. Anti-Zionism is hatred for Israel, the modern center of Jewish life and continuity. This is why many people claim that Anti-Zionism, or hatred for Israel, is a modern variation of classical anti-Semitism. “Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism,” according to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.1 People of goodwill must try to see through anti-Israel propaganda in order to foster reasonable dialogue.

1-“Findings and Recommendations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Campus Anti-Semitism,” U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 3, 2006.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Gravity

The red balloon floats placidly away
Palms empty, open boldly to the sky
The mournful breeze blows soft across this face
Silent eyes pressed closed, not asking why

Followers