Caleb Murdock

What's Wrong with Mitt Romney

2012-01-30T02:12:00.000-05:00

There are many reasons why Mitt Romney would not make a good president.

Romney Doesn't Have a Clear Ideology. Romney started out as a liberal Republican in a liberal state. He supported abortion, gun control, gay rights and universal health care. But then, when he decided to run for President, he morphed into an ultra-conservative in order to get the Republican nomination. What that means is pretty simple: He lacks integrity. It also means that he doesn't have a clear system of beliefs, and that he lacks an ethical or moral center. No one knows what kind of president he would be since he changes his mind to suit his political ambitions. However, once he became president, he would probably cleave to the conservative party line in order to get re-elected.
Romney Is Too Ambitious. Mitt Romney is one of those politicians who wants to be president, not because he has a clear vision to offer the country, but because he is simply an ambitious man, and becoming president is the ultimate achievement. Politicians who have nothing to offer but ambition are dangerous because they are more concerned with advancing their careers than coming up with good laws and policies. Both presidents Bush were ambitious men who had little to offer the country, and neither was a particularly distinguished president -- indeed, the junior George Bush was a disaster.

If embracing liberal ideas was what Romney had to do to become governor of Massachusetts, then he was glad to do it. If embracing conservative ideas is what he now must do to become president, then he is glad to do it. Romney doesn't seem to understand that, as a public figure, the positions he takes have consequences for other people. In his mind, taking a particular position to advance his career seems naturally right. Promoting himself is Romney's No. 1 job.

Romney Doesn't Have the Right Experience. Romney would have us believe that being a successful businessman equips him to be president, but I don't see the connection. Just because he knows how to make money as a venture capitalist -- buying distressed companies and revitalizing them or liquidating their assets -- doesn't mean that he knows how to lead a nation. The skills needed to do one have nothing to do with the other. If Romney wanted to help the nation, he could do that best by writing a book about business, or by becoming a financial advisor. The best preparation for the presidency is to be a U.S. Senator or the governor of a state.

Romney Has the Insensitivity of the Super-Rich. Romney has been so rich all his life that he doesn't understand what it's like to be poor or middle-class, and thus he has no sympathy for the average working American. That becomes clear when he says that people who are concerned about income inequality are just "envious", or when he says that the foreclosure crisis should simply "play itself out". Romney believes in a merit-based society. Thus, if you have the ingenuity to make it in the competitive business world, or if you have a high skill-set (such as doctors and lawyers have), then you can expect to do well. But if you aren't highly skilled or competitive, you should expect to be poor all your life. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that all hard work should be rewarded with a livable wage. That's not to say that a janitor should make as much as a doctor, but a janitor who works hard should expect to make enough money to support a small family.

Romney Doesn't Have the Right Ideas. As with all conservatives, Romney wants to weaken the social safety net, and he also wants to scrap most government regulations. But both the safety net and government regulations were created for a reason. Social Security was created because large numbers of elderly citizens were living in poverty. Medicare was created because the elderly could not afford the end-of-life medical care that they needed. Medicaid was created to provide health-care for the poor. The food stamp program was created to prevent hunger among the poor. Housing vouchers were created to house the hard-core unemployable.

As for regulations, the Great Depression occurred because there was no regulation of the stock market, and fraud was rife. The housing crisis in 2008 was the direct result of a lack of regulation of the mortgage market. Regulations are needed to keep businesses honest.

Romney, like all Republicans, thinks that the rich should be taxed at a lower rate because they are "job creators". This is a variation on Reagan's "trickle down" economics theory in which the benefits given to the rich supposedly trickle down to the rest of us. But there is a serious flaw in this idea. One of the definitions of being rich is that you already have everything that you need. If the government gives a $20,000 tax break to a wealthy person, that money will probably go into the bank. The likelihood is that the wealthy person already has all the maids, clerks, secretaries, chefs and pool boys that he needs.

Large companies don't tend to create jobs when they come into more money. Most large companies are very careful not to hire more employees than they absolutely need -- and indeed, they will lay off workers at the drop of a hat in order to save money. Small businesses, on the other hand, do hire employees when they come into more money. However, very few small-business owners are wealthy enough to benefit from the tax breaks to the rich that the Republicans are so fond of. Thus, tax breaks for the rich don't do much to help small businesses, and they don't result in the creation of many jobs. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that tax rates were higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, yet our economy was in better shape back then, and the middle class was doing better than it is today.

[As the campaign progresses, I will expand this article.]

Unilever, Get with the Program

2012-01-21T02:16:00.001-05:00

For years I have kept Slim-Fasts in the refrigerator and drunk them as a quick meal when I was short of time. The Slim-Fasts came in a heavy metal can -- heavier and thicker than it needed to be, but I didn't worry about it because all metal is recyclable. Well, in 2011 Unilever switched to a plastic container made of no. 7 plastic. The no. 7 category is a catch-all category for plastics that don't fall into any other category, and no. 7 plastics are not recyclable.

What I want to know is, what the hell is wrong with Unilever? The importance of the environment has been front and center in our society for several decades now, so why are manufacturers coming up with new, non-recyclable containers? We live in an age of waste and pollution in which mankind is rapidly destroying the environment. Recycling is one of the very few things that consumers can do to mitigate their negative impact. Why haven't food manufacturers been listening? Don't they care about society and the environment AT ALL? Is making money the only thing that matters to them???

Unilever had lots of better choices. They could have continued using the heavy metal containers, or they could have switched to aluminum soda cans. Frankly, I don't know why they weren't using the soda cans all along, since they are lighter and obviously cheaper. They also could have used plastic bottles made of no. 1 or no. 2 plastic, both of which are recyclable. But no, they apparently wanted a curvacious, sexy-looking container, the kind of container you can only achieve with hard plastic (no. 1 and no. 2 plastics are flexible). And so, for the small amount of marketing advantage that they will get from a sexy container, Unilever is going to trash the environment for years to come.

As I write this, I have Slim-Fasts in the fridge that I can't return because I got them from Peapod, an online grocery delivery service. I'll drink them up, but I will never buy another Slim-Fast. Instead, I'll get powdered Carnation Instant Breakfasts and stir them into milk. The envelopes that C.I.B. comes in are not recyclable either, but they are lighter and will produce less waste.

Of course, Nestle, which makes C.I.B., also produces lots of non-recyclable plastic bottles. What is wrong with these companies??? Don't they feel any responsibility to society at all? Such companies are bad citizens, in my opinion. The only thing that matters to them is money.

Instructions for Taking Insulin for Type-2 Diabetics

2011-12-23T01:59:00.017-05:00

When I was prescribed insulin in March, 2011, neither my doctor nor the nurse told me much about how to take it. I was a very knowledgeable patient, so I wasn't entirely in the dark. However, if I had been less knowledgeable, the entire experience could have been a nightmare. I have typed up here the information sheet that I wish I had been given, and which would have saved me a lot of confusion.

* * *

You have been given this sheet because your doctor has just prescribed insulin for you. This sheet will answer most of your questions.

When to Take Your Insulin

Glargine (Lantus)

Lantus is a newer long-acting insulin. You can inject it once a day, but its action will be smoother if you divide your dose and inject it twice a day. It is best to inject it in the mornings before eating breakfast. If you inject it at bedtime, it may not last as long in your system.

Lantus is a "basal" insulin. It is designed to keep your basal or fasting blood-sugar levels under control. It is not designed to handle the surge of blood sugar that occurs after meals. If Lantus is the only insulin your doctor has prescribed, it will work best if you keep your consumption of carbohydrates low (100 grams per day or less) so that your post-prandial (post-meal) blood-sugar levels do not rise too high. Lantus remains in your system for 18 to 20 hours after injecting.

Detemir (Levemir)

Levemir is also a newer long-acting insulin. It must be injected twice a day. The best times are before eating breakfast, and then again twelve hours later.

Levemir is a basal insulin. It is designed to keep your basal or fasting blood-sugar levels under control. It is not designed to handle the surge of blood sugar that occurs after meals. If Levemir is the only insulin your doctor has prescribed, it will work best if you keep your consumption of carbohydrates low (100 grams per day or less) so that your post-prandial blood-sugar levels do not rise too high. Levemir remains in your system for about 12 hours after injecting.

NPH (Humulin N, Novolin N)

NPH is an older basal insulin. NPH remains in your system for about 8 hours after injecting. Its action is not as smooth as Lantus or Levemir (meaning that it has more of a curve or peak). It is not designed to handle the surge of blood sugar that occurs after meals; but since it has a peak, it is better at that than the newer basal insulins. NPH remains in your system for about 8 hours, so you should inject it two or three times a day, depending on when you eat and how much carbohydrate you are consuming. Most doctors do not prescribe NPH by itself, but as part of a mix of basal and fast-acting insulins (see below).

Regular insulin (Humulin R, Novolin R)

Regular insulin is a fast-acting insulin which is identical to human insulin. You should inject it 30-60 minutes before a meal. Once it takes effect, it lasts for about 5 hours in your system. During that time you should be able to eat two small meals, or a meal and a snack, separated by two or three hours.

Since the amount of insulin you need is proportional to the amount of carbohydrates you eat, you can avoid taking three injections a day if you eat little or no carbohydrates at one of your meals, before which you would not take a shot.

Fast-acting insulins are called "bolus" insulins. They are designed to handle the surge of blood sugar that occurs after meals. If you inject enough bolus insulin to handle your meals, you may find that your fasting blood-sugar levels are reasonably low, so you may not need to inject basal insulin also.

Aspart (Novolog), Lispro (Humalog) and Glulisine (Apidra) are very-fast-acting insulins which are not likely to be prescribed to a diabetic who is just starting injections, so they won't be discussed here.

Insulin mixes (Humulin 70/30, Novolin 70/30)

NPH and Regular insulin come mixed together in proportions of 70:30. Mixed insulins should be injected 45 to 60 minutes before a meal. You can eat more carbohydrates on mixed insulin than on basal insulin alone, but you should still try to keep your carbohydrates relatively low. Mixed insulins remain in your system for about 8 hours after injecting. The best times to inject are before breakfast and before dinner. On the first injection, you can eat breakfast and lunch; on the second injection, you can eat dinner and a bedtime snack.

Testing Your Blood Sugar

Using your personal glucose meter, you should test your blood-sugar at different intervals. You should always test your blood-sugar in the morning before eating. You should also test 90 minutes after your largest meal, and then 90 minutes after that. On some days you should test after lunch, and on other days you should test after dinner, just to get an idea of what is happening with your glucose levels. You should strive to get your blood-sugar levels as close to normal as possible, as follows:

Time	Normal (mg/dl)	Good Control	Moderate Control	Poor Control
After rising	85-90	120 or less	140 or less	160 or more
60 to 90 minutes after eating	90-130	150 or less	170 or less	190 or more
2:00 to 3:00 hours after eating	85-90	120 or less	140 or less	160 or more

Dosage

Your doctor has started you out with a low dosage of insulin, a dosage which is probably less than you need. This is necessary in order to avoid the possibility of an overdose. Unless your doctor has asked you not to, you may gradually increase the size of your insulin shots until your blood-sugar numbers begin to look more normal. You should not increase your dosage by more than 2 units per day. There is no upper limit to the amount of insulin you can take, but you should consult your doctor before you exceed about 60 units per day. You should return for a follow-up visit within 30 days to discuss your progress.

The Role of Carbohydrates

The size of the injections you take will be largely determined by the amount of carbohydrates you eat (i.e., starchy foods and sweets). That is because blood sugar comes mainly from dietary carbohydrates. Thus, the fewer carbohydrates you eat, the less sugar will enter your blood, and the less insulin you will need to inject. If you take very large injections of insulin so that you can eat large amounts of carbohydrates, you will probably gain weight (just as a non-diabetic would gain weight if he or she overate on carbohydrates). The upper limit that any diabetic should eat is about 200 grams of carbohydrates a day. 150 grams are better, and 100 grams are better still.

In your quest to reduce your carbohydrates, you should not eliminate low-carbohydrate vegetables from your diet, which are needed for a balanced diet. The starches that you do eat should be whole-grain and high-fiber. Desserts should be kept to a minimum.

You should try to eat a consistent amount of carbohydrates from one day to the next. That way you can inject the same amount of insulin every day. This will allow you to figure out a workable insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. A common ratio is one unit of insulin for every three grams of carbohydrates eaten, but the ratio that works for you may be lower or higher.

In order to count your dietary carbohydrates, you should pick up a book that contains carbohydrate values (most calorie-counting dictionaries list carbohydrates also), or you can use either of these internet sites:

http://caloriecount.about.com/

http://www.carb-counter.org/

Most commercial foods give the carbohydrate count right on the label.

The Action of the Liver

Blood sugar can be stored as glycogen (a form of starch) in various parts of the body, especially the liver. This stored blood sugar can complicate matters when you start a diet or start taking insulin injections. For the first one to six weeks, your liver may release sugar into your blood every day, keeping your blood-sugar numbers frustratingly high. If you are eating a very low-carbohydrate diet (50 grams a day or less), it may take only a week for this effect to stop; but if you are eating a high-carbohydrate diet (200 grams a day), it may take more than a month for these "liver dumps" (as they are informally called) to stop. Thus, during the first month or two of taking insulin, you need to be patient if your blood-sugar numbers are not as low as you hoped.

Because of the action of the liver, you do not want to increase your insulin too rapidly in the beginning (lest the "liver dumps" stop and your blood sugar suddenly drop too low). If after six weeks of taking insulin, your blood-sugar numbers are not close to normal, it is safe to make significant increases in your insulin dosage. Remember, however, that a high-carbohydrate diet will work against your efforts to lower your blood-sugar levels. If you continue to eat a high-carbohydrate diet, your liver will continue to store blood sugar, and liver dumps may be an ongoing problem, giving you high blood-sugar readings at unexpected times.

The Dawn Phenomenon

You may find that your blood sugar is higher in the morning than it was at bedtime. This is due to the "dawn phenomenon". As the morning approaches, your liver releases glycogen, which raises your blood-sugar (presumably to help you wake up). A non-diabetic's pancreas will then release insulin to prevent the blood sugar from going too high, but this doesn't happen in a diabetic. If you don't take insulin or eat something small after waking, your blood-sugar will continue to rise.

How to Inject Yourself

You should move your injection site by at least one-half inch every day so that you do not inject in the same spot more than once a week. If a previous shot left a bruise, do not inject in that spot again until the bruise heals.

If you have a large belly, you may have developed large veins in your fat. In that case, it's not a bad idea to palpate (feel) any location where you intend to inject yourself, and to avoid any lumps. A lump under the skin might be a large vein, and you want to avoid those.

It is not necessary to swab the injection site with alcohol if you believe your skin is clean, but doing so may reduce any possibility of infection (infections from shots are rare to nonexistent). If you use a swab, swab the top of the insulin vial as well as your skin.

Insert the needle in the top of the insulin vial, turn the vial and needle upside down, and press the plunger to release any air in the syringe into the vial. Gradually pull the insulin into the syringe using the plunger. If air bubbles get into the syringe, push the insulin back into the vial and start pulling again. You may find that it is impossible to avoid all air bubbles, but a small bubble will not hurt you as long as you do not inject the insulin into a vein.

You should always inject yourself in a pad of fat that is at least one inch thick. Injecting yourself in a vein or a muscle will cause the insulin to be absorbed too quickly, which may cause an episode of hypoglycemia (very low blood sugar). Aim the syringe at a pad of fat and insert it quickly from several inches away. A quick insertion of the needle will be far less painful than a slow insertion. Modern needles are very short and thin, and you may not feel any sting at all. The amount of sting you feel will probably vary from one spot to the next.

If you are very slender and can't find a pad of fat that is 1" thick, then insert the needle sideways so that the insulin is injected right under the skin.

In addition to the sting of the needle, some people feel a sting as the insulin is pushed in. Injecting the insulin slowly will minimize the sting. If either the insertion or the insulin proves to be painful, you can pull the needle out and try another spot.

Where to Inject

The best places to inject are:

- your belly under the ribs (avoid the area around the navel)
- your hips
- the sides of your thighs (the front of your thighs may be painful)
- your upper buttocks
- the underside of your upper arms, if they are very fatty

Do not exercise or sit on the area where you make your injection. For example, do not do sit-ups after injecting in your belly, and do not inject the area of your buttocks where you sit.

What Kind of Syringe to Use

You will use disposable syringes. The smallest needles currently available are 8mm long and 31 gauge thick. The syringe should hold 30 units, 50 units or 100 units of insulin, depending on the size of your injections. BD is a good brand of syringes; Easy Touch syringes are cheaper but flimsier, and -- in some people's experience -- hurt more. Some states require a prescription for syringes, but most do not.

How to Handle Your Insulin

Insulin should be kept between 40 degrees and 75 degrees (Fahrenheit). It is best to store it in a warm part of the refrigerator, such as the door. If it freezes, it will lose all its potency. If it is allowed to rise above 80 degrees, it may lose some or all of its potency, depending on how warm it gets and for how long it is warm.

If you are travelling with your insulin, you should keep it in an insulated case (and in a special cold case if you are travelling during the summer).

Where to Buy Your Insulin

If you do not have insurance, Walmart has the lowest prices for insulin. As of this writing, the price at Walmart is about $25 for a vial of Regular, NPH and Humulin 70/30 (at most pharmacies, you can expect to pay $60-$75). In most states, Regular insulin and NPH are available without a prescription, but Lantus, Levemir and the insulin mixes require a prescription. Some pharmacies carry only Novolin 70/30, and some carry only Humulin 70/30. Walmart carries only Humulin 70/30, so please make sure your doctor has made your prescription for that brand if you expect to purchase it at Walmart.

Keeping a Diary

You will have the greatest success if you keep a diary in which you record the foods you have eaten, your carbohydrate intake, your blood-sugar numbers, and the times and sizes of your injections. The diary will allow you to see patterns and to make adjustments to your regimen.

Dealing with a "Hypo"

"Hypo" is an informal term that refers to an episode of hypoglycemia (very low blood sugar). If you accidentally inject your insulin into a vein or muscle, the insulin will enter your system too fast, and -- depending on the size of the shot -- your blood sugar may fall to dangerously low levels (low enough to cause unconsciousness). As your blood-sugar drops, your body will release epinephrine (adrenaline) to alert you that something is wrong. The epinephrine will cause you to sweat, and it will make your heart race. You may also feel faint. If you experience these symptoms within 30 minutes of taking an insulin shot, immediately eat a glucose tablet or a SweeTart candy (SweeTart candies are mostly dextrose, which is the same thing as glucose). (Take two tablets or candies if your insulin shot was 20 units or more.) If you don't have either of those tablets, eat a half-teaspoon of sugar. Then take a blood-sugar reading. If it is very low, take another tablet and then test your blood again ten minutes later. Continue to do this -- testing your blood and taking a tablet -- every ten minutes until your blood sugar normalizes. It is not necessary to take tablets until your symptoms disappear. That's because it will take longer for the epinephrine to leave your system than it will for your blood sugar to normalize; it is the low blood sugar that may harm you, not the symptoms.

From the Seth Material: The Evolution of Personality

2011-12-20T04:18:00.005-05:00

To give my readers a taste of the Seth material, I am excerpting below the portion of the Material that I find the most interesting. As I have said in so many other articles, Seth was a soul or spirit who was channelled by the psychic Jane Roberts from 1963 until her death in 1984. The readings (called the "Seth material") form the basis of my religious views, and I think there's a chance that the Material will become the next great religion. Seth didn't want his remarks to form the basis of a religion (since religions always degenerate into ritual and dogma), but the fact is that the Material was all about God and our place in the universe.

This portion of the Material was also excerpted by Jane Robert in her first book about Seth, The Seth Material. When I later read the early sessions from which this passage was pulled, I found that it was actually spread over several sessions, and that Seth spoke about other things in those sessions. Roberts edited out those other topics, and I have kept her edits just as they are.

In this portion of the Material, Seth seems to be talking about the evolution of personality from "action". Now, I need to explain what "action" is. In the later Seth books, Seth explained that everything in the universe is formed from mental energy that flows from God. In the early sessions -- before he started talking about God -- he simply called that energy "action". He called it "action" because it is always in motion, always in a state of becoming, always doing something or creating something. It is never quiescent. Since it is always in a state of activity, "action" is as good a word for it as any. Seth also referred to it as "inner vitality".

It seems that various stages of personality are achieved as this "action" forms ever more complex structures. Thus, consciousness and identity come first, consciousness of self comes second, and the ego is the last to emerge. Seth also reveals that existence is possible only because there is an imbalance in the universe.

* * *

[Taken verbatim from The Seth Material. Italics, ellipses and brackets in the original.]

Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms 'action' and 'identity' must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself – and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed.

The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity, then, is action's effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.

Once more, action is not a force from without that acts upon matter. Action is, instead, the inside vitality of the inner universe – it is the dilemma between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so.

This first dilemma results in action, and from action's own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is our second dilemma.

It is the dilemma, between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.

We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

Consciousness, therefore, is not a 'thing' in itself. It is a dimension of action, an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas.

It should be fairly easy to see how the second dilemma evolved from the first. I have said that the second one resulted in – and constantly results in – consciousness of self. This is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.

Again: consciousness of self involves a consciousness of self within – and as a part of – action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action – an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object ... and to perceive action as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego's own existence.

These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner vitality can experience itself. And here also we have the reason why inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of vitality itself.

Action [i.e., inner vitality] can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, it at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of it is needed to seed a universe.

In line with the statement made earlier that action necessarily changes that which it acts upon [which is basically itself], then it follows that the action involved in our sessions changes the nature of the sessions. I have spoken often of consciousness as the direction in which a self focuses. Action implies infinite possibilities of focus.

* * *

From the editor: I have one observation to make about Seth's comments. Seth didn't say this explicitly, but it is clear that the ego is based on a falsehood (the falsehood being that the ego is the cause of action and not the result of it). When you think about it, people's egos do more to screw up the world than anything else. Calling someone "egotistical" is an insult. Not only that, but the people that we like the best are generally the ones who are not very egotistical. Yet, from Seth's description it would seem that the ego is a normal facet of personality, one which evolves naturally. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but I find it highly interesting.

Seth and Science

2011-11-23T20:54:00.007-05:00

PBS has recently been airing a lot of shows about physics -- and more specifically, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory. When I watch these shows, I often feel somewhat frustrated because Jane Roberts, the psychic who channelled Seth, frequently spoke of the concepts that scientists keep "discovering". However, many scientists are atheists, so it is probably expecting too much for them to be interested in the ramblings of a psychic. Nonetheless, the God concept that Seth set forth was one that many scientists and atheists might find acceptable. Furthermore, if Seth truly was a non-physical being, and if he really did have access to knowledge that is off-limits to human beings, then it behooves us to see what he had to say. He answered all of the "big" questions that man has about his existence.

As a spirit who was channelled by a psychic, Seth wasn't able to do double-blind studies, and he also didn't use the same terminology that scientists generally use (he was limited to Jane Roberts' vocabulary), but it is clear that he was talking about the same things. Here are some of the concepts that Seth set forth that parallel current scientific thinking:

- Seth said that time and space do not actually exist but are illusions or "root assumptions" of this universe. This is similar to (but not the same as) Einstein's theory that time and space are relative.

- Seth said that space can grow or shrink, and that time can run faster or slower. These ideas are also part of Einstein's theory. However, Seth said that time and space vary according to the emotional state of the person experiencing them, which is not something that Einstein said. (It's clear, then, that Seth wasn't just mimicking Einstein.)

- Seth said that all things exist simultaneously, and that the past and future can be accessed for those beings who are able to do that (but not human beings). Relativity also says that all things exist simultaneously.

- The theory of relativity suggests that time can run backwards as well as forwards. Seth said that there are universes in which time runs backwards.

- Seth said that there are multiple universes within the greater universe, or "megaverse" (Seth didn't use the term "megaverse", but I like it). The concept of multiple universes is part of quantum mechanics and string theory.

- Seth said that every possible or, especially, probable outcome of an event will take place in some universe or plane of existence, if not in this one. This concept is part of quantum mechanics and string theory.

- Seth said that the universe -- indeed, everything in existence -- is composed of particles of living mental energy which form all things. These particles are comparable to the "strings" of string theory, or to the "God particle" that scientists are looking for.

- For quite a while now, scientists have believed that the universe originated from a "big bang" which, it would seem, had its origin in some location within space. Seth's theory is a little different. He said that the universe is being created continually, and that it arises from a non-physical realm of thought.

- Scientists have recently theorized that our physical universe is a projection (like a hologram) from a two-dimensional plane. They apparently arrived at this concept from mathematical calculations done on black holes. Seth also said that the universe is a projection, but it is a spiritual projection from the realm of thought that I just mentioned (or what Seth referred to as the "mental universe"). Once the pattern of the universe is projected into space, it is then filled with the aforementioned particles of mental energy, which give it substance.

The Entaglement of Particles

2011-11-18T04:21:00.015-05:00

I am not a scientist, but I hungrily watch every show about science that PBS airs. On a Nova show about quantum mechanics, they discussed the fact that two particles can become entangled with each other. Once entangled, the particles then behave as if they are in communication even when they are separated by great distances. Thus, when one particle emits a red light, the other particle will always emit a blue light. Before they were entangled, this behavior didn't exist. And this will happen even if one particle exists on earth and the other particle is moved to the moon.

The Seth Material provides a possible answer to this, but it is a metaphysical or philosophical answer that can never be tested by the usual methods.

Let's start by lookinig at a couple things that Seth said. He said that our minds exist in a separate mental universe from our bodies, and from the physical universe in general. Obviously, the two universes -- physical and mental -- are closely related (scientists might prefer the word "dimension" to "universe"). Seth also said that everything in the physical universe is alive, that there is no such thing as dead or lifeless matter or energy. Since thought is the quality that makes something alive (according to Seth), all matter has awareness or consciousness. Human beings are not able to perceive the life of physical matter, but Seth said that it is there.

Now, in discussing our entangled particles, let's compare them to a married couple. There have been many known instances of couples who seemed to have a psychic connection. If one spouse was in trouble, the other would have a feeling or premonition. Scientists might dispute this, saying that random coincidence or hindsight can explain such things. Nonetheless, I believe it is true; indeed, such instances have made their way into our folklore. (If scientists don't dispute it, then they certainly don't have an explanation for it. I find it interesting that science avoids metaphysics at all cost.)

If we accept that a married couple can have a psychic connection, then they must be connected via the mental universe, where there is no physical space. Similarly, entangled particles -- which, according to Seth, have a rudimentary mind or consciousness -- could be connected to each other in the same manner. In other words, entangled particles are in a sense "married" and have a connection through a mental dimension.

The problem is that the mental universe can't be perceived by any kind of physical investigation, so it can't be tested by science. Seth said that our minds are the more real portions of ourselves, more real than our bodies. It is in our minds where our personalities, memories and identities exist. Also, it is our minds that survive death in the form of our souls. Seth said that our souls are "diffused" into our bodies during physical existence, and that they separate at death. A particle would experience this same state of diffusion.

Seth said that physical reality is the dressing of our universe. He called it "camouflage", and compared it to the stage sets of a play. Scientists who spend their entire lives studying the physical universe are focussing on the stage sets, and not on what really matters -- i.e, the story or the psychology or the meaning of the play. Seth said that physical matter has a mathematical reality. Encoded within it is information which will eventually lead science to the truth of our existence (as is now happening in quantum mechanics); but studying physical reality is an indirect method of discovery. Seth said that we would make much faster progress if we all developed our mental and psychic abilities. (But investigating our physical surroundings is a safer activity. It is comfortable, and it doesn't require us to confront our mental demons, as many mental disciplines do.)

There is another possible explanation for the behavior of entangled particles. Seth said that physical space is an illusion. He called it a "root assumption" of this physical universe, and said that it doesn't really exist. When two particles are separated, they may not really be separated at all. But that's another article, one which I am not ready to write.

The Uncensored Seth Material Article from Wikipedia

2011-10-31T22:13:00.024-04:00

Note: The term "Seth Material" refers to the readings given by the psychic Jane Roberts from 1963 until her death in 1984 in which she "channelled" a spirit who called himself Seth.

In mid-2008 I took information from the Jane Roberts article on Wikipedia, and I spun it off into its own article called the Seth Material. The idea was that the Seth Material (as a subject) was important enough to stand on its own. However, it wasn't long before the article was attacked by other editors, mainly atheists and Christians. In late 2008, when the attacks began, there were other editors who liked the article, and the article came through mostly unscathed. But in 2010 there was another round of attacks, and the Christians and atheists gained control of the article. The primary attackers were editors named Verbal (a Christian) and BullRangifer (an atheist). In the process of gaining control of the article, Verbal enlisted the aide of a biased administrator named EdJohnston to get me banned from the article. Once I was out of the picture, they promptly cut the article down by about 75%.

While doing a search recently, I found my original article, intact, in two locations on the internet. It occurred to me that since I have my own blog now, there was no reason not to put the original, uncensored article here. Before I do, let me say a few things about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the internet that anyone can edit. The original idea was noble enough: There is a huge amount of knowledge in the general public, and this was a place where the public could share that knowledge. Jimmy Wales, the founder, once said that Wikipedia could become the repository for all the information in the world. But the idea didn't really work. At first everyone excitedly wrote articles and shared what they knew, but problems arose pretty quickly. There was no requirement that an editor actually know something about the subject he was editing. Editing wars erupted, and the editors who won the wars weren't always the ones with the most knowledge. Rather, the editors who won the wars (and still win them) were the ones who fought most persistently, and who had learned how to bend Wikipedia's rules to their advantage. Eventually, a class of editors evolved who were more interested in censoring the encyclopedia than expanding it. At the same time, a new standard evolved which said that a good article is an article which is brief and concise. But if all the articles are now concise, who decides which information gets included and which information gets left out? The self-appointed censors do.

If you decide to get involved in Wikipedia, it is important to know something about the self-appointed censors (or "deletionists", as they've been dubbed by some editors). The deletionists are people who have made Wikipedia their hobby. They spend hours making edits every week, sometimes as many as 30, 40 or 50 hours. For some, it has become their full-time job. But what person has so much knowledge that he or she can make 40 hours worth of contributions to an encyclopedia every week? The answer is: no one. After exhausting their knowledge on the few subjects they are familiar with, there is nothing for them to do but to start changing and deleting other people's writing. To feel like they are doing something worthwhile, they spend their time conforming articles to Wikipedia's rules. The problem is that Wikipedia's rules are vague and can be interpreted in many ways. Thus, if one of these wiki-addicts (as I call them) has a bias for or against some subject (as many of them do), the rules can be twisted to support that editor's biased edits. Sadly, these censors, deletionists and wiki-addicts are now the largest contingent on Wikipedia. Authors like myself, who have a lot of knowledge on a few subjects, are being driven away. What's left are the editors who have little knowledge to share, but who know what they don't like. All of the administrators (none of whom are paid) fall into this group of wiki-addicts. Instead of protecting the encyclopedia's knowledge base, the administrators spend their time refereeing the editing wars, and few of them care whether the information in the encyclopedia is accurate or complete.

Let me add that there is a struggle going on to determine the "world view" of the encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia freely available to the public, many editors have come to see it as the de facto world "standard" of knowledge. And since mankind loves to do nothing more than to fight over ideas, the fighting on Wikipedia can be fierce. You see, if Wikipedia is the first place where most people go to get information, then editors can control the opinions of readers by controlling the content of the articles. In my estimation, the deletionists are mostly conservatives. This isn't surprising since censorship is a well-known tool of conservatives all over the world. Thus, if a Christian editor believes that a person must be "saved" to get into "heaven", that editor may feel threatened by, and may try to censor, an article which describes a theory that says that everyone is "saved" by default (as the Seth material does).

Clearly I am biased towards the Seth material, but I nonetheless did my best in 2008 to write an article that was informative and impartial. The article that I wrote included all the basic tenets of the Seth Material (a logical thing to do since the article was about the Material), but the Christians and the atheists didn't like that. Thus, the article was eventually cut down to a stub. As I write this, the articles about Jane Roberts and the Seth Material have very little information in them, whereas the article about the Amazing Randi (a debunker of psychics and a favorite of atheists) is longer and more complete. Yet Jane Roberts' contribution to the world was much more important than the Amazing Randi's contribution.

In short, if you get involved in Wikipedia, you can expect it to be a frustrating experience. You can expect to end up in a lot of fights; and if you actually make positive contributions to the articles, you can expect to see your writing changed or deleted (often by writers who are less skilled). As a reader, you should be aware that many articles are incomplete (having been censored), and that some articles may be biased in subtle ways. When Wikipedia started, the original idea was that all points of view should be represented (and identified as such). Now, however, points of view that are not mainstream are routinely expunged from the articles, and the point of view that remains is the one that is the most conventional.

In reproducing my original Seth Material article below, I have eliminated the footnotes (which I didn't have time to verify), and I have also fixed some of the language. In addition, I have added back blocks of quotes from the Seth material which probably don't belong in an impartial article, but which I think convey the flavor of the Seth material very well. Since the article is now mine alone (on this blog, at least), I see no reason to bend over backwards to be impartial. Thus, the article here may be slightly more biased than the one that originally appeared in the encyclopedia.

* * *

The Seth Material

The Seth Material (sometimes referred to herein as simply the "Material") is a collection of metaphysical texts dictated by the American writer and psychic Jane Roberts (May 8, 1929–September 5, 1984) from late 1963 until her death. The Seth Material is one of the cornerstones of New Age philosophy, and has been described as the most influential channelled text of the post-World War II "New Age" movement. The Material was purportedly dictated, not by Roberts herself, but by a discarnate entity who called himself Seth, whom Roberts "channelled". Roberts would enter a trance state during which Seth would assume control of her body and speak through her. These episodes are variously referred to as "readings" or "sessions". Roberts also purportedly channeled other personalities, including the philosopher William James, the painter Paul Cézanne, and the painter Rembrandt; but she is best known as the psychic who channeled Seth. In addition, Roberts wrote poetry, plays and novels under her own name, as well as her own non-fiction thoughts on metaphysical subjects.

In late 1963, Jane Roberts and her husband, Robert Butts, experimented with a Ouija board as part of Roberts' research for a book on extra-sensory perception. According to Roberts and Butts, on December 2, 1963 they began to receive coherent messages from a male personality who eventually identified himself as Seth. Soon after, Roberts reported that she was hearing the messages in her head. She soon began to dictate the messages instead of using the Ouija board, and the board was eventually abandoned. For 21 years until Roberts' death (with a one-year hiatus due to her final illness), Roberts held regular sessions in which she went into a trance and purportedly spoke on behalf of Seth. Butts served as stenographer, taking the messages down in home-made shorthand, although some sessions were recorded. These messages from the Seth personality, consisting mostly of monologues on a wide variety of topics, are collectively known as the "Seth Material". The Material through 1969 was published in summary form in The Seth Material, which was written by Roberts with substantial excerpts from the Seth personality.

Beginning with the 511th session in January, 1970, the Seth personality began to dictate his own books. Roberts claimed no authorship of these books beyond her role as medium; and according to Roberts and Butts, these "channelled" books were published verbatim with only minor editorial corrections. This series of "Seth books" eventually totalled ten volumes, although the last two books appear to be incomplete due to Roberts' illness. The list of titles includes Seth Speaks; The Nature of Personal Reality; The Nature of the Psyche, Its Human Expression; The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events; The Unknown Reality; and Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment. Robert Butts contributed notes and comments to all the Seth books, and thus was a co-author on all of them.

The Seth personality described himself as an "energy personality essence no longer focused in physical reality" who was independent of Roberts' subconscious, although Roberts herself expressed skepticism as to Seth's origins. The Seth personality said that he had completed his earthly reincarnations and that he was speaking from an adjacent plane of existence (or "system of reality" or "universe", all terms which Seth used). He described himself as an educator whose task was to impart the principles set forth in the Material to the current generation of human beings.

The Seth personality's demeanor was notably different from Roberts', as reported by witnesses who included Butts, friends, acquaintances and students. He was at times stern, jovial or professorial, and he frequently assumed a distinct accent which was not identifiable. Unlike the psychic Edgar Cayce, whose syntax when speaking in trance was antiquated and convoluted, Roberts' syntax and sentence structures were modern and clear when speaking as Seth.

Sessions were held at regular intervals, usually two per week. For a period of years Roberts conducted one, and then two, ESP classes in addition to the regular sessions. With the exception of the classes, Roberts gave few readings to the public and was mostly focused on publishing the Material in printed form, as well as on publishing her own work.

Tenets of the Seth Material

The Seth Material covers a wide variety of topics, including the nature of physical reality, the origins of the universe, the theory of evolution, the Christ story, the nature of God, and the purpose of life. The Seth personality made the following assertions, among many others:

* The physical universe is one of a multitude of universes or "systems of reality", some physical in nature, some mental or spiritual, and some completely foreign to human concepts, each with its own natural laws, and each as valid as any other. As in the "many worlds hypothesis", our physical universe has multiple "probable" renditions. Any event or action which is likely to occur in one probable universe will be actualized in that or another probable universe, or will be actualized in the dream universe or in some other system of reality. There are, as examples given by Seth, probable universes in which the dinosaurs are still alive, and probable universes in which Christianity did not develop. Each individual has many counterparts within the probable renditions of the universe, not all of whom have the same name, occupation or personal relationships. All systems of reality are, to some extent, camouflages since all beings have an existence which is independent of any system. The number of systems is infinite since new systems come into existence constantly. No system of reality is closed or finite; energy and information pass through all systems.

* Each human being has many spiritual layers, most notably an "outer ego" which interacts with the physical world, and an "inner ego" or "inner self" which is concerned with the mechanics of constructing the physical world, and which existed prior to any incarnations. The entire self (which Seth referred to as an "entity") is a gestalt consisting of the inner self, the various selves that the entity has been through past existences (physical and nonphysical), plus all the currently incarnated selves, and all their probable counterparts. According to Seth, human beings are generally unaware of the inner self, although it comes through as intuition and the "inner voice" that many people believe they hear. At death, the outer ego lives on and continues to develop; it takes its place as part of the gestalt that forms the entire entity, but it is free to evolve and to develop new associations.

* Each human individual exists in four universes or "planes" simultaneously: the physical universe, which is the result of coordinated mass mental projections on the part of its inhabitants; a dream universe, which is created in the same way but has less rigid natural laws; an adjacent electrical or mental universe, where all mental activity occurs; and an anti-matter universe of which Seth said very little. The various portions of the self, and the various universes, are all aspects of a single whole, though Seth referred to them separately for the sake of explication. Ultimately, there are no boundaries to the self just as there are no boundaries to any system of reality. All portions of the self contribute to dreams, which continue when the outer ego is awake.

* The physical environment is constructed and maintained by the inner selves of the individual occupants (including the animals). The inner selves project, en masse, a pattern for physical reality which is then filled with energy, as needed, by each individual. The energy which is used is the inexhaustible energy which emanates from God. Because all things are composed of energy, and because energy must always be active, change and transformation are constants in the universe, and nothing remains the same from one moment to the next. Identity, however, seeks permanence, so there is a constant struggle between the desire for permanence and the necessity of change. Time, which is essentially illusory (see below), has the effect of slowing the perception of experience, and thus creates the illusion of permanence or gradual development. Even amidst constant change, however, identity is never lost.

* All individuals create their own circumstances and experiences within the shared earthly environment, similar to the doctrine of responsibility assumption. The phrase "you create your own reality" was frequently used by Seth and may have originated with him. As stated above, the inner self is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the individual's physical body and immediate physical environment, but the unfolding of events is determined by the expectations, attitudes and beliefs of the outer ego, that portion of the self that we know as ourselves. There is, in a sense, a feedback loop between the two in which the expectations of the outer ego are actualized by the inner self. Both productive and unproductive attitudes are translated into reality, and thus one of the tasks of the individual is to learn how to direct his or her thoughts in positive directions. In a private session given to a friend of Jane Roberts, the Seth personality said:

"You must watch the pictures that you paint with your imagination, for you allow your imagination too full a reign. If you read our early material, you will see that your environment and the conditions of your life at any given time are the direct result of your own inner expectations. You form physical materializations of these realities within your own mind.

"If you imagine dire circumstances, ill health, or desperate loneliness, these will be automatically materialized, for these thoughts themselves bring about the conditions that will give them reality in physical terms. If you would have good health, then you must imagine this as vividly as in fear you imagine the opposite.

"You create your own difficulties. This is true for each individual. The inner psychological state is projected outward, gaining physical reality -- and this regardless of the nature of the psychological state. ... The rules apply to everyone. You can use them for your own benefit and change your own conditions once you realize what they are.

"You cannot escape your own attitudes, for they will form the nature of what you see. Quite literally you see what you want to see; and you see your own thoughts and emotional attitudes materialized in physical form. If changes are to occur, they must be mental and psychic changes. These will be reflected in your environment. Negative, distrustful, fearful, or degrading attitudes toward anyone work against the self."

* Reincarnation is the rule, although many misconceptions abound. For example, human beings never reincarnate as animals; cause-and-effect does not operate from one life to the next (although all lives are interrelated in various ways); and reincarnation does not end in a state of nirvana. Each individual must experience fatherhood, motherhood and childhood, and thus must incarnate at least twice; the maximum number varies, depending on the temperament and needs of the individual. There is a period of rest between incarnations, and sometimes individuals will occupy other planes of existence before returning to the Earth. When an individual's reincarnational cycle is over, the individual moves on to other systems of reality. There is no heaven or hell, only continued existence in various environments of the individual's choosing.

* The majority of souls who are reincarnating enter the fetus shortly before, during or after birth. If the mother is considering an abortion, the soul will be aware of that and can choose not to incarnate. If the soul enters the fetus and the fetus is then aborted, the soul continues on to other lives. Some souls seek the in utero experience and do not wish to be born. According to Seth, there is no actual death in the universe; even the cells of the fetus reincarnate.

* Time and space are "root assumptions" of this plane of existence; i.e., they are essentially illusory, and both the past and future coexist with the present in what Seth referred to as the "spacious present". Therefore, a person's incarnations in different time periods are actually lived simultaneously, as opposed to consecutively. Communication among the various past, present and future selves occurs during the dream state. Time appears to exist in a linear form because of limitations inherent in the physical human brain. Development, expansion, growth and change do not require time in order to occur.

* There is a God, whom Seth referred to as "All That Is" and described as a "primary energy gestalt". God is composed of self-replicating and inexhaustible mental energy; this mental energy permeates the universe and forms all things, including all individuals. As it does so, it carries God's consciousness with it. Thus, God's consciousness occupies all things and is omnipresent. God is therefore a gestalt of all existence, as in pantheism (a gestalt is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts). For this reason, it can be said that only one individual exists in the universe, and all other individuals are contained within the greater Whole. Seth said, "All faces belong to God." Since God's consciousness occupies all things, God experiences each life that is lived. God wishes to experience existence in all its forms and ramifications, and through its creations is able to do this. God is therefore dynamic and ever-changing and shares in the failures, triumphs, perfections and imperfections of its creations.

* According to Seth, the individuals who exist within God, though part of God, have free will and self-determination. They also have God's creative powers, though those powers are masked by the root assumptions of physical reality. Since God's mental energy forms all things, all material things have life and consciousness, though of an order that is not perceptible to human beings in our present state of development. The atom is a means by which God's mental energy can be materialized into objects. According to Seth, God does not know of any others like itself, but assumes that something -- possibly another "primary energy gestalt" -- came before it. If God sprang from another like itself, then the possibility exists that there are many Gods, each presumably aware only of its own existence.

* God had a beginning, and there was a Creation, though it differs markedly from the Christian version. In God's early stages, the universe existed in a state of potentiality within what Seth referred to as God's dreams. The agony of knowing the potential of the universe, yet not being able to express it, compelled God to find the means to actualize its dreams. Additional impetus was provided by the individuals in its dreams, whom God had imbued with life and consciousness, and who clamored to be made real. In a passage of the Material addressed to Robert Butts (who was an artist), Seth said:

"The first state of agonized search for expression may have represented the birth throes of All That Is as we know It. Pretend, then, that you possessed within yourself the knowledge of all the world's masterpieces in sculpture and art, that they pulsed as realities within you, but that you had no physical apparatus, no knowledge of how to achieve them, that there was neither rock nor pigment nor source of any of these, and you ached with the yearning to produce them. This, on an infinitesimally small scale, will perhaps give you, as an artist, some idea of the agony and impetus that was felt.

"Desire, wish and expectation rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within All That Is, therefore, the wish, desire, and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations then became in your terms so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them.

"In other words, All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this 'period' of contracted yearning, All That Is could concentrate Its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."

* Christ is a highly evolved entity who has existence in many systems of reality. However, Christ has the same relationship to God that all other individuals do -- i.e., he is part of God. At the time of Christ, the Christ entity incarnated as three individuals -- John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul or Saul of Tarsus -- and each was to some degree aware of his role in founding a new religion (although Paul/Saul was not aware of his role until after his conversion to Christianity). Seth said that Jesus was not crucified, and that it is not in the nature of enlightened individuals to sacrifice themselves. Rather, a willing and deluded surrogate, who believed himself to be the Messiah, was substituted in Jesus' place, and it was this surrogate whom Judas betrayed (and who was then crucified). Jesus was then able to be "resurrected" because he had not actually died. Seth said that the crucifixion of Jesus did occur as a shared psychic event, but it did not occur as a physical event.

* Paul/Saul will reincarnate in the 21st century to correct mistakes that he made that set Christianity on the wrong course, and a period of spiritual awareness will ensue. Paul/Saul will not identify himself as Christ, and some will view him as the anti-Christ since his appearance will hasten the decline of traditional Christianity, along with other organized religions. Paul/Saul will be known as a psychic; he will strive "to straighten out Christianity, which will be in shambles at the time of His arrival", and he will form "a new system of thought when the world is sorely in need of one". The events surrounding the return of Paul/Saul will substantially be complete by the year 2075, but the ensuing changes to society will take a century to unfold.

Posthumous Publications

In 1996, sessions 1 through 510 of the Seth Material (the "early sessions" which preceded the dictation of the Seth books) were published posthumously by Robert Butts in nine volumes, along with seven volumes of previously unpublished personal messages which accompanied the later sessions. Roberts' and Butts' manuscripts, notes and recordings were donated to the Yale University Library. Robert Butts remarried and lived in Sayre, Pennsylvania until his death in May, 2008.

Since Roberts' death, others have claimed to channel Seth. At least one person has claimed to channel Roberts herself.

What Is Evil? Losing Faith in the Face of Tragedy

2011-09-09T07:53:00.035-04:00

As I write this, we are coming upon the tenth anniversary of the attacks on 9/11/2001. I watched a show on PBS about the struggle of faith that many survivors had (and continue to have) after those attacks. They don't believe that a merciful God would have allowed such a thing to happen, and they can't comprehend the evil that has come into their lives.

I don't believe that evil actually exists. Having said that, I nonetheless recognize it when I see it: Evil always takes the form of principles over compassion. Thus, the man who killed 78 people in Norway (most of them children) was clearly evil because he sacrificed lives in the name of social and racial purity. Osama bin Laden, who killed 3,000+ people in the name of Islam and Jihad, was clearly evil. Hitler, who believed fervently in racial purity and the superiority of the Arian race, was evil when he put those principles into action by slaughtering millions of people. But Hitler, bin Laden and the Norwegian killer all believed that they were doing the right thing. It's important to remember that principles can be right or wrong, and when we adhere to them despite the suffering they cause, we are committing evil. Principles should always yield to reality.

By the measure I have just laid out, I consider Republicans to be evil. They believe in certain principles -- small government that provides few social services, low taxes on the rich, absolute economic freedom, freedom from regulation (regardless of the harm to the environment), survival of the fittest, etc. -- and they adhere to those principles even though the full realization of them would result in a society with huge economic and social inequities (well, we already have huge economic and social inequities; but with Republican policies in place, we would have even more). The Republicans in Congress are more than willing to sacrifice any and every social program, no matter how much good it does, for the sake of smaller government. In their view, small government trumps everything. That is evil because it elevates a principle above the welfare of the people.

Just about every religion in the world has an evil side. That's because almost every religion adheres to strict principles, and proclaims itself to be the absolute truth. In doing so, it positions itself against the rest of the world, and it encourages its adherents to be intolerant and prejudiced. Islam may have its Jihadis, but Christianity had its inquisitors and crusaders.

My very best friend from childhood is now a Christian minister who believes that I will go to Hell because I am not a born-again Christian. He is a person with naturally good and generous instincts, but over the years he has repeatedly repressed those instincts because they conflicted with scripture (scripture as he interprets it). Repressing his natural instincts in favor of the absolutist principles of his religion is evil. In my view, our good instincts may be our most direct communication from God. Fortunately, my friend is not in a position to dictate social policy.

Extremism and fanaticism are evil; that's because they always arise from principles. Principle itself may be evil, but I'll withhold judgement on that because some principles -- the best principles -- arise from life. For example, my statement above that principles should always yield to compassion is itself a principle, and it is a good one.

I started this article by saying that there is no evil, and I need to explain that. My religious views are based on the Seth Material, and the tenets of the Material guide much of what I am saying here.

Seth said we are all connected through God. We live in a pantheistic universe, meaning that God and the universe are the same thing. The living energy that forms God also forms the universe, and God's consciousness permeates all things. Since the universe is formed from the life energy of God, and since God is not evil, nothing in the universe can be evil, including those seemingly evil people among us.

So if the evil people among us are not evil, what are they? They are ignorant, or misguided, or confused, or obsessed. Most of them have suffered deep hurts as children which then became unconscious motivators later in life. Striking out with violence makes perfect sense to the inner wounded child. The rationale for striking out is always secondary to the retribution being enacted, which has a healing, protective and cleansing effect on the inner child. The striking out is usually extreme because the wounds of the child are repressed and festering. Not to get waylaid by psychology, the point is: Evil is good which has gone awry.

All evil people believe that they are doing good. Even a person who is completely self-centered may believe that "watching out for number one" is the right thing to do. The Norwegian murderer believed that, by killing children at a political camp, he was erasing the future leaders of the liberal movement, and in his mind that was a good thing because it would set the country on a different course. He also believed that he would jump-start a dialogue in his country about racial and national integrity and purity. (He didn't consider that people are unlikely to respect the ideas of a murderer.)

People who lose their faith after suffering a great loss (such as the 9/11 survivors) don't understand that nothing has been lost. Every person who dies is still alive (in an after-death environment, according to Seth) and will be reborn, so no one has actually died. Furthermore, Seth said that every person chooses his death in advance, albeit on an unconscious level. Indeed, Seth said that we choose the major events of our lives in advance also. The likelihood, then, is that both the victims and the survivors had spiritual lessons to learn from the tragedy that they endured. They will take those lessons with them, and their lives will be enhanced by what they learned.

People who lose their faith after a tragedy don't understand God's role in our lives. When explaining our relationship to God, my favorite analogy is: "God is to us as the ocean is to the fish". In other words, God is the source of our life, and God is our environment. If a barracuda comes along and eats the fish, the fish doesn't blame the ocean. The fish doesn't look to the ocean and say, "Why didn't you protect me?"

The Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition would have us believe that God is a protector and/or a dispenser of punishment, kind of like a loving but stern father. When something good or bad happens to us, we often talk about God's "will" or God's "plan" for our lives. But Seth said that God doesn't determine the events of our lives. As I have said in other articles, God gave us our freedom during the Creation, and that freedom is absolute. If God had a "plan" for our lives, we wouldn't be free (in other words, any plan that God made for us would be a restriction on our freedom). God's role is to provide us with life and the means to exist, not to determine the events of our lives. If we intuitively feel that there is a plan for our lives, then it is a plan that we have set for ourselves. When we pray to God, it is our inner self (or "higher" self) that listens and responds.

Part of our confusion stems from the plane of existence that we presently inhabit (meaning the Earth). Each plane of existence has its own laws, or "root assumptions" as Seth called them. In this Earth plane, we have death and chance (or capriciousness) as root assumptions, among others. As a result, some deaths will seem capricious and therefore tragic. But as I said above, that capriciousness is an illusion. If, as Seth said, we choose our deaths before-hand, then there is really no capriciousness at all.

All of these things which we accept as basic parts of life are actually illusions which are spawned by the root assumptions of this plane of existence: Aging, deterioration, death (mortality), powerlessness, chance, error, forgetfulness, conflict and destruction, among others. Time and space are the most basic root assumptions.

Living a life on the Earth is a little like being a house cat which never goes outside. The house we live in sets the boundaries of our existence, and it seems to be our natural environment (though there is nothing natural about it). Through the window we can glimpse a larger universe, but we aren't sure what it really is because we never go outside. We live with humans who may or may not be nice to us, and we don't seem to have control of our lives, being always at the mercy of those God-like humans. It's my opinion, however, that house cats choose to be pets before they are born; and if that is true, they are most definitely in control of their lives. (Having said that, I encourage all pet owners to let their pets go outside; keeping pets cooped up, especially birds, is cruel. Birds, in my opinion, should not be kept as pets at all.)

Before we were born, we chose to be human beings. Before we were born, we chose at least some of the life lessons that we would learn. What makes it all seem so capricious is that we don't remember making those choices. But we did, and we need to have faith that we chose our lessons because we needed to learn them. If one of those lessons is particularly harsh, and if we lose our faith in response to it, God will not be harmed. And when we are no longer human beings, we will be able to see the larger picture, and our faith will be restored.

Hinduism and Buddhism may have things to teach us here. Seth said that the concept of karma is an over-simplification of a deeper reality, that it is not just a matter of cause and effect (i.e., you cause bad karma by acting badly in one life, and you reap the effect, or punishment, in another life). Nonetheless, Seth made some very telling comments that seemed to support that notion to some extent. He said that if we could see the past actions of many victims of violence, we might not feel such a great sympathy for them. He also said that many of the victims of the Holocaust had been Huns in former lives (the Huns were nomadic marauders who conquered most of Europe and the Roman Empire, and slaughtered civilians apparently without remorse). Through the concepts of reincarnation and karma, Hinduism and Buddhism provide us with an explanation for inexplicable acts of violence. Christianity does not, which may be part of our problem when dealing with tragedy in this country.

If this article sounds a little glib, as if I am telling you to "get over" your grief, let me say that I understand what loss feels like (having suffered my share). But the grief that we feel when someone is killed is really for ourselves; what I am saying here is that we needn't worry about the person who died. It's important that we understand that victims of violence are playing out reincarnational dramas of their own. In this article, I have addressed the theological issues -- i.e., our expectation that God should intervene, or that God is somehow responsible. We can feel great grief for the loss of someone dear without losing our faith in God. What's important is that we have a concept of God that is correct. If we see God as a benevolent and omnipotent father, God will always disappoint us.

Is There a Balance Between Good and Evil in the World?

2011-06-05T17:23:00.018-04:00

Many people who are religious or spiritual believe that there must be a balance between good and evil in the world. I believed this for a long time. If you've read my other articles, you know that my religious views are based on the readings of various 20th-century psychics, mainly Jane Roberts (a trance medium who channeled a soul named Seth). However, another psychic once made a statement which heavily influenced me: He said that for every atrocity that is committed, a thousand cats are petted. I found that to be such a pithy and compelling maxim that I forgot the things I had learned from Seth, and it became my point of view for many years. The meaning of it, of course, is that an accumulation of many small acts of goodness balances out the larger acts of evil. This doesn't take into account that there may also be many small acts of evil in the world.

But Seth said that that is wrong. He said that there is no balance, and that this world -- which is, in a sense, our blank canvas to make into what we want -- can be mostly good. He said that if there were a balance between good and evil, good itself would become tainted because it would always be accompanied by evil. Our hope, of course, would be that the evil would occur somewhere else in the world -- but even if it did, good would still be suspect because it would always bring evil with it. Thus, it would become impossible to believe in the purity of goodness; and with our belief in goodness dashed, there is really nothing else to believe in -- unless, like Christians, we believe that all goodness resides in God, and that people are inherently evil (a sorry point of view given that we are people).

In order to have hope for the world, we need to believe that we are progressing towards something better. But if the progress made in one part of the world is balanced by regression in another part of the world, any progress we make is meaningless.

If there isn't a balance of good and evil in the world, does that mean that the world could become all evil? No, and the reason is simple. Seth said that we are part of God (see my other articles), and that the essential nature of God is good. Thus, no world that exists within God could become mostly evil. This is also why there is no Hell. Since God contains within him the totality of existence, and since he experiences the life of every individual as it is lived, he would not inflict permanent suffering on any individual because that would inflict suffering on himself. (Not to mention that God wouldn't do that anyway if he is a loving God.)

Seth was very clear about it: There is not a balance between good and evil in the world, and the world can be mostly good. Indeed, since Seth said that evil results from good intentions that have gone awry, the world may already be all good -- but that's a subject for another article.

Understanding Fleas, and Dealing with a Flea Infestatation

2011-05-08T18:04:00.018-04:00

Three years ago I adopted two cats. It turned out that they had fleas, but I didn't know it. Not only did the cats roam the house for a half-year with fleas, they slept on my bed, sometimes under the covers. I had many itchy nights and didn't know why.

If you have a persistent flea infestation, it is important to understand what is happening before you tackle the problem.

Fleas will jump on your pet when they are outside. The pet then becomes infested, and the fleas multiply in the fur. Fleas have hard, elongated bodies that allow them to survive frequent scratching by the animal. You may not know that your pet has fleas because the fleas will generally stay under the animal's fur. As the fleas reproduce in your pet's fur, flea eggs will drop from the pet and accumulate on floors, furniture and wherever else your pet has been. The eggs are sticky and adhere to the floor or furniture, and don't usually come up when you vacuum (although some will). The eggs then hatch and turn into larvae (small worms) that are tiny and hard to see. The larvae weave cocoons for themselves, and inside the cocoons they enter a pupal stage in which they evolve from a worm into a flea. The cocoons have little hooks on them and, like the eggs, are hard to vacuum up. It is when the fleas emerge from their cocoons that the trouble starts.

When a larva has evolved into a flea inside its cocoon, it waits for some kind of signal that an animal is nearby (such as vibration or heat) before it emerges. It then emerges and immediately jumps on the nearest animal. If your pets have been spreading eggs everywhere, you could end up with tens of thousands of cocoons in your house, each containing a flea that is ready to emerge when it senses an animal nearby. That animal may be you, or a member of your family, or your pets. The fleas do not all mature at once, so they do not all emerge at once. Rather, they can emerge over a period of months.

Spraying insecticides does little good because the poison will not penetrate the cocoons. Thus, covering your floor with poison will kill only the fleas that have already emerged. (Actually, they will also kill the larvae; but by the time you know you have a problem, all the fleas may be in cocoons.) That leaves you in the position of spraying your floors repeatedly over a period of months (in order to kill the fleas as they emerge), and that's a lot of poison to be spraying around your house.

Did I mention that fleas survive by feeding on blood? They survive under your pet's fur by biting your pet and drinking its blood. And when they jump on you, they will bite you and drink your blood.

How to Treat the Problem

Once the fleas start to emerge, expect to be under siege for 3-4 months or longer. Here are the things you should do:

* Immediately treat your pet with Frontline or Revolution to kill the fleas on its body, and continue to treat your pet with one of those products every month. Both of those products are applied to your pet's skin at the back of the neck. (Revolution requires a prescription from your vet, although it can be gotten on the internet from Australia without a prescription.)

* Vacuum frequently. The vibrations from the vacuum cleaner will cause the fleas to emerge, and you may be able to suck many of them up. Once you do that, vacuum some poison (or Borax) into the vacuum bag to kill the fleas inside the vacuum.

* Dusting your house with Borax is one technique to kill the fleas, as it will kill them by dehydrating them. It won't affect them when they are in their cocoons; but after they jump out and fall on the floor, they will dehydrate over a period of an hour or two and die. Thus, you'll still have fleas emerging from their cocoons and jumping on you; but if you brush them off onto the floor, they will gradually die. If your pets are still in the house, the Borax will get on their paws and then eventually into their bodies. If you have very young children who crawl on the floor, you must keep them off the floor for the entire time the Borax is on the floor, which could be weeks or months.

* As I said above, spraying insecticides will kill whatever fleas have already emerged from their cocoons. But because the insecticide dries after ten or 15 minutes, it is ineffectiveness against any fleas that emerge after it dries. Also, the insecticide will be harmful to your pets, and to you and your children.

* Check your legs frequently for fleas, as they will jump on your legs constantly. There are several strategies you can use: Tuck your pants into your socks to keep them from getting under your pants, or wear tightly woven knee-socks to keep them from getting to your skin. Another strategy is simply to walk around with bare legs and then catch any fleas that jump on your legs with sticky tape. Note, however, that tucking your pants into your socks or wearing knee-socks are not fool-proof solutions, as the fleas are adept at getting under your clothes. I once killed a flea that had hiked all the way to the top of my knee sock and was just about to slip under the top edge of the sock.

* Getting a good night's sleep is nearly impossible with fleas in the house, as they will jump on your bed, get under the covers, and bite you all night. Firstly, change your bed clothes if your pet has been on your bed. (It is not necessary to throw away infected bed clothes; simply wash them in hot water. After washing them, put them away for a few months and use other bed clothes.) The best solution for getting a good night's sleep is to sprinkle Borax all over your bedroom floor, and then keep the pets locked out of your bedroom at all times. The Borax should remain there for several months (if your infestation is a serious one), or replaced if you vacuum. Doing that, however, is not a guarantee that some fleas will not get into your bed on occasion -- but you'll get fewer fleas in your bed if you do it. Please note that if you have wall-to-wall carpeting in your bedroom, the Borax may ruin it (I am not certain of this). If you have area rugs, you should remove them and seal them in plastic for 6-9 months.

After several months of misery, the fleas will begin to subside, and eventually they will die off -- provided that your animals have been treated, and that you are preventing the fleas from biting you. If the fleas are getting regular blood meals from your body, they will reproduce and the infestation will continue.

Now, I said above that you could expect to be under siege for 3-4 months. That's true if your infestation is very bad. If, on the other hand, your pets were spreading eggs around your house for just a short while, the number of fleas that emerge will be smaller, and you may find that you can deal with the infestation simply by killing whatever fleas you see.

If an infested home has been empty for a long time, all the fleas may emerge but have nowhere to go -- or, alternatively, they may wait in their cocoons and then all emerge at once when someone enters the room. That's why you hear stories about people walking into an empty house and immediately being covered by fleas -- all the fleas were waiting in their cocoons, and they all emerged at once when they sensed the person's presence. When thousands of fleas emerge all at once, you may find your legs nearly black with fleas. Such a circumstance isn't entirely bad, however. If all of the fleas have emerged from their cocoons, that means that they can all be killed at once with one thorough spraying. Please note, however, that fleas can remain in their cocoons, ready to emerge, for more than half a year.

The Winter Months

I had an interesting experience in January, 2012. My cats love the outdoors, and they want to go out every day, even during the cold weather. After one of my cats came inside, I found a flea where the cat slept. The flea jumped away before I could kill it, and I didn't know where it went. It turns out that it jumped on me, since I found it in my shirt when I was trying to take a nap later. Again, the flea jumped away before I could kill it. Then, the next time I slept, I again found the flea in my shirt. That time I killed it. (It might have been two fleas, but I don't think so.) My point in saying this is three-fold: First, fleas can infest your animal even in the winter. Second, fleas are very persistent and, in their own way, intelligent. And third, one lucky flea can cause a lot of misery. For days afterward, I imagined I was being bitten when I wasn't, and I compulsively inspected my bed and my clothes. (It's hard to imagine that there are people in less-developed countries who routinely sleep with fleas and -- worse -- with bed bugs.)

Preventing Infestations

Now that you've had the experience of an infestation, preventing them is fairly easy. First, keep an eye out for fleas during any season that your pets go outside. Also, take notice if your pets are scratching their fur a lot. If your cats are scratching, look for fleas by separating their hair in many places (you'll have no problem seeing the little black bodies of the fleas). If your cats are scratching around their ears, that may mean they have ear mites rather than fleas. Both Frontline and Revolution are supposed to be applied once a month, but you can get away with applying either one every two months (use one or the other, not both). As long as you kill the fleas on your pet before they produce eggs, you don't have to worry about your house becoming infested.

Good luck!

Type 2 Diabetes, the Basics

2011-04-04T00:16:00.174-04:00

This article is still being written, but it is mostly complete. Diabetes is a complex disease, and the statements made in this article will apply to most type 2 diabetics, but not all. There are topics that I haven't covered, and you should do further research. I am a diabetic, not a doctor or medical expert.

If you are not interested in the causes of your diabetes, you can jump right to the section "A Step-by-Step Guide for Newly Diagnosed Diabetics" at the end of this article.

What Is Type 2 Diabetes?

Sugar, in the form of glucose, circulates in every person's blood and provides energy to all parts of the body. The sugar comes from the foods we eat, mainly from carbohydrates (starchy foods and sweets) but also from proteins. An organ called the pancreas secretes a hormone called insulin, the role of which is to take excess glucose from our blood and store it as fat in our fat cells, and as glycogen (a form of starch) in our liver, kidney and muscle cells (and a couple other places). When a person's body is unable to remove all the excess glucose from the blood, and the glucose level rises above normal, that is called diabetes. Normal glucose levels range from 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L)* (before eating) to 130 mg/dL (7.2 mmol/L) (after eating). Slightly elevated glucose levels (10% to 20% higher than normal) are diagnosed as "pre-diabetes", and anything higher is diabetes. When your blood-sugar levels get into the 200 to 300 range (11.1 to 16.6 mmol/L), you will need medication and/or insulin injections to get your blood sugar down. If you allow your blood-sugar levels to get to 500 to 700 (27.7 to 38.8 mmol/L), it's time to go to the emergency room at the hospital (but before that happens, you will have lots of unpleasant symptoms).

* mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) is the American system; the rest of the world uses mmol/L (millimoles per liter).

There are several things that cause or contribute to diabetes: a high-carbohydrate diet (which in itself may be caused by metabolic processes that create a taste for sweets and starches), a lack of exercise, overweight, poor genes, and advancing age. As a person gets older, or as the result of eating a high-carbohydrate diet for years (which most of us do), the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin (called "beta cells") may start to die. Another thing that can happen is that the liver, the muscles, the kidneys, and the other places where glycogen is stored (and eventually your fat cells), become insulin-resistant, meaning that they resist the action of insulin and don't want to take in any more blood sugar. Through metabolic processes too complicated to explain here, obesity is a major cause of insulin-resistance. Another cause is a sedentary lifestyle, and genes certainly play a role. If your body is insulin-resistant (for whatever reason), your pancreas will produce more and more insulin to force the glucose into your cells. At a certain point, your pancreas can't keep up, and your blood sugar becomes elevated. Indeed, you may have more insulin in your blood than most non-diabetics, but it isn't enough to force the glucose into your cells.

Regarding genes, some ethnic groups, such as American Indians, have a "thrifty gene" that makes their bodies less tolerant of concentrated carbohydrates, and the incidence of diabetes in these groups is very high. Such ethnic groups are not able to handle a modern diet, which is based substantially on grains. For the rest of us who are diabetic but don't have the thrifty gene, our lifestyle choices (eating a high-carbohydrate diet and not exercising) bring on diabetes. My own personal theory is that we have gotten too far from our animal heritage. Early man exercised strenuously and ate a wholesome diet with meat as the main ingredient. Biologically, we are not equipped for modern life.

Type 1 diabetes is the result of an auto-immune disease in which the body attacks and kills the beta cells, and it usually develops during childhood (although it can occur later). Typically, type 2 diabetics produce insulin, but not enough to overcome their insulin-resistance, and type 1 diabetics produce none or very little.

Are You to Blame for Your Diabetes?

No, you are not to blame, even if you are overweight and eat a great deal. Many overweight people lack the physiological signals that tell them when they are full, so they experience more hunger than normal people do. In addition, over-eating causes the release of a neurotransmitter called serotonin in the body, and serotonin acts as a natural tranquilizer. Some over-eaters (myself included) are essentially serotonin-addicts who eat to get a tranquilizing effect. About 20% of diabetics are not overweight at all, and in those cases, genes (or environmental factors) seem to be the culprit. Indeed, a person with good genes will develop a stronger pancreas in response to insulin-resistance, rather than a weaker one.

If you are carrying around a load of guilt because you are fat and diabetic, then you need to let go of it, as it will make it harder for you to deal with your diabetes. Also, if there are people in your life who blame you for your weight or diabetes, then you need to either education those people or distance yourself from them. Sadly, some doctors blame their overweight patients for causing their diabetes. If you have such a doctor, you need to find a new one.

The Treatment

Diet and Exercise

Unless you have a genetic predisposition to diabetes, you can generally avoid it by eating a moderately low-carbohydrate diet all your life (150 grams of carbohydrates per day or less), by getting adequate nutrition, and by exercising regularly. The fewer carbohydrates you eat, the less sugar enters your blood, and the less insulin your body must secrete. Unfortunately, our American diet is becoming increasingly carbohydrate-rich, and Americans routinely eat 250 to 350 grams of carbohydrates a day. Once you have diabetes, and if your blood-sugar levels do not exceed about 300 (16.6 mmol/L), you can possibly gain control of your disease by eating a diet which is low in carbohydrates (50-100 grams per day, depending on your body) and higher in fat than a normal diet. (By controlling, I mean getting your blood-sugar levels down to normal or near-normal.) Losing weight and exercising will definitely help (indeed, limiting yourself to 50-75 grams of carbohydrates a day will probably cause you to lose weight).

Eating an overall nutritious diet is important. If the carbohydrates you eat are mostly refined (white bread, white rice, pasta, sugary cereals, soda, desserts, etc.), you will have larger spikes in your blood sugar than if you eat whole grains and other unprocessed carbohydrates (whole wheat bread, brown rice, whole-grain cereals, yams, fruit, fresh or frozen vegetables, etc.). However, even whole grains are bad for most diabetics. Nuts, olives, low-carb vegetables, beans (without sugar) and some low-carb fruits (especially berries) are the best carbohydrates. Fiber is important because it will slow down your digestion, which will lessen the blood-sugar spikes after meals. Fiber also contributes to good cardiovascular health.

As for the type of exercise, any will do -- both aerobic and non-aerobic. The more muscle mass you have, the less likely you are to get diabetes, and the less severe your diabetes is likely to be.

I think it is worth explaining more about why a low-carbohydrate diet stops (or slows) the progression of diabetes. Researchers have discovered that high blood-sugar levels kill the beta cells in your pancreas that make insulin. Thus, if you have very high blood-sugar levels for many years, your beta cells start to die out. As your beta cells die, there is less insulin in your blood to handle the high blood-sugar levels, and you eventually reach a crisis point where you must take dramatic action to get your blood sugar down (by injecting insulin, reducing your carbohydrates to a low level, and/or taking medication). Also, if you have insulin-resistance, your beta cells have to work overtime manufacturing insulin to overcome the resistance. If you go on a low-carbohydrate diet at the time of diagnosis, your beta cells may stop dying, and they may continue to make enough insulin to handle your body's needs into old age (if not into old age, then certainly longer than if you eat a high-carbohydrate diet). Even if your diabetes is fairly advanced, a low-carbohydrate diet along with Metformin (see below) may be all you need.

So how low do you have to take your carbohydrates? That depends on how early you catch your diabetes. The FDA considers 225 to 300 grams of carbohydrates a day to be a normal diet, but in my opinion, 300 grams constitute a daily binge, even for a large man (that's enough to eat a half-gallon of ice cream). If you catch your diabetes early (when your blood-sugar levels are just starting to rise), eating 150 grams of carbohydrates (or "carbs") a day may be low enough to get your blood sugar to a normal level. If you've had diabetes for a few years, 100 carbs a day may do the trick. But if you let your diabetes worsen over many years, you may have to eat 50 grams a day (or less) to normalize your blood sugar (or inject insulin). It all depends on how much insulin your pancreas is producing, and how much insulin-resistance you have. You'll have to experiment with your diet.

Allowing your blood-sugar levels to remain high can lead to some very unpleasant complications: cardiovascular disease (with an increased risk of heart-attack and stroke), neuropathy (resulting in pain and numbness, usually in your extremities, but sometimes in your groin area), amputation of your feet (from advanced neuropathy), sexual dysfunction (from neuropathy), and blindness. Believe me, it's not pretty.

Medications

When people find out that there are medications for diabetes, they are relieved because they think that diabetes can now be treated with pills. Really, it can't. The pills have one of three effects: They stimulate the pancreas to produce more insulin, they partially block the release of sugar into the blood by the liver, and they reduce the insulin-resistance of your cells. However, the drugs that stimulate your pancreas do so indiscriminately, and your pancreas may end up producing too much insulin at times when you don't need it. The drugs that block the release of sugar from your liver do so only partially. And the drugs that reduce your insulin-resistance do so only slightly. To overcome insulin-resistance, more insulin is what is really needed. This is why insulin injections are probably the best treatment. (Insulin cannot be taken by mouth because it will be digested before it reaches the blood.) Having said this, however, if your diabetes is mild, and if you reduce your overall carbohydrates, the judicious use of medications may indeed keep your diabetes in check.

The best of the medications is Metformin (Glucophage). Metformin reduces your cells' insulin-resistance, and it also reduces the amount of sugar that is released from the liver. However, it won't work very well if you eat a high-carbohydrate diet.

I don't recommend any drug that stimulates your pancreas to produce more insulin. There is some concern that such drugs may cause the pancreas to "wear out" more quickly. In my personal opinion as an informed consumer, I believe that Metformin is the only safe drug. (Please note that Metformin will cause diarrhea and general intestinal discomfort for the first 2-4 weeks that you take it, but your body will eventually adapt to it. If your doctor is going to prescribe Metformin, ask for the extended-release version. The pills are much larger, but you should have less intestinal problems.)

No matter what drug you take, it won't work very well if you don't reduce your dietary carbohydrates.

Injected Insulin

Injected insulin is, and yet is not, a cure-all for diabetes. It will get your blood-sugar levels down. However, it is difficult to mimic the natural action of the pancreas with injections, and thus your blood sugar may sometimes be too high and sometimes too low. Nonetheless, it's possible to get reasonably good blood-sugar numbers by taking injections. If you do go on injections, you will still need to eat fewer carbohydrates; taking large amounts of insulin so you can eat large amounts of carbohydrates will just force more sugar into your fat cells, and you'll become fatter.

There are two kinds of insulin: basal (long-acting) and bolus (short-acting). Basal insulin is injected once or twice a day, and bolus insulin has to be injected 30-60 minutes before meals. The basal insulins that are generally considered the best -- Glargine (band-name Lantus) and Detemir (brand-name Levemir) -- are about twice as expensive as the cheaper insulins. The less-expensive basal insulin -- NPH (brand names Humulin N and Novolin N) -- does not have a smooth action in the body (by that I mean, the amount of insulin that is released into the body peaks after several hours, and then drops; the expensive insulins have less of a peak). Even if you take the best of the basal insulins, your blood sugar will still go too high after meals if you eat a lot of carbohydrates. (Note: NPH contains a substance from cows which at least one well-known doctor says may cause a mild allergic reaction, although that allergic reaction only seems to affect the speed with which NPH is absorbed into your body. Also, there is some concern -- very preliminary at this time -- that Lantus may be carcinogenic.)

It is important to understand that basal insulins -- especially Lantus and Levemir -- were designed to keep your fasting blood-sugar level to a normal -- i.e, your blood sugar level when you are not eating. They were not designed to compensate for the rush of sugar that enters your blood after meals. Thus, basal insulin should be used in addition to bolus insulin, not in place of it. However, if your consumption of carbohydrates is extremely low, you may not need to take injections of bolus insulin to cover your meals, since your blood sugar may not rise much. But if you eat more than about 20 grams of carbohydrates per meal, your best bet is to use bolus insulin to cover your meals.

Bolus insulin comes in two types: regular (identical to human insulin) and fast-acting. Regular insulin (brand names Humulin R and Novolin R) is effective for 4 or 5 hours, and fast-acting insulin is effective for 2 or 3 hours. (In both cases, there is a delay of 30-60 minutes before it takes effect.) The fastest-acting insulins are Aspart (brand-name Novolog), Lispro (brand-name Humalog) and Glulisine (brand-name Apidra). Like Lantus and Levemir, these "engineered" insulins are more expensive than regular insulin or NPH.

Now, it is important to understand the difference between natural and injected insulin. Insulin secreted by your pancreas is released directly into your blood, and it will immediately lower your blood-sugar level. Injected insulin is always injected into fat, and it then drips into your blood over a period of hours. So even the fastest-acting insulin is slower than the insulin released by your pancreas. As a result of this, diabetics must "eat to their injections". In other words, if you take an injection of X units of insulin, which you know from experience will cover 3-times-X grams of carbohydrates; and if you know that it will take 5 hours for the insulin to be completely absorbed into your body, then you will want to eat those carbohydrates over a five-hour period to keep your blood sugar levels even. (I hope I'm not confusing you with the algebraic terminology.)

You see, if you were not a diabetic, then you could eat any quantity of carbohydrates at any time; but being a diabetic on insulin, you must not exceed the amount of carbohydrates that you have injected for. Not only that, you must spread those carbohydrates out over the time that it takes the insulin to enter your blood from your fat.

You may think that the solution to this is to inject insulin directly into veins or into muscle, so as to mimic the natural action of your pancreas; but your pancreas may release insulin a dozen times a day, and you don't want to do that. Also, injections made into muscle or fat are more painful, and can be dangerous if you accidentally inject a bubble of air into a vein. Bubbles of air injected into fat will not harm you.

How Painful Are Injections?

As I stated above, you'll want to try to get your diabetes under control before it is necessary to take injections; that's because it is much harder to control your blood-sugar levels with injections than it is for your body to do it naturally. Nonetheless, injections may become necessary. Modern needles are very thin and sharp, and they hurt much less than needles did just 20 years ago. You may have heard that they are painless. Well, that's true if you don't consider a slight sting to be pain. I take two injections a day, and sometimes I don't feel the needle at all. At other times, I feel it, but it doesn't hurt or sting. At other times it stings slightly, and at other times it definitely hurts. It all depends on whether I hit or bypass the nerves. Each person is different, however. Apparently, for some people it never hurts (lucky them). Even if the needle doesn't hurt, the insulin may sting going in (especially if you are taking more than 5 or 10 units of insulin). Again, however, some people never feel any discomfort as the insulin goes in.

Please note that there is only one way to inject yourself. Insert the needle into your fat as fast as possible from a distance of 4 to 6 inches (make sure you are inserting it straight). The faster the needle goes in, the less it will hurt. Dr. Bernstein talks about throwing the needle into your fat like it was a dart, but that can be awkward if you are throwing the needle at your belly (rather than, say, at your thighs). Also, if you don't throw it straight, or if the needle flops down or to one side right after it enters the skin, I can imagine that would hurt (I've never tried throwing, and I never will).

You should inject your insulin into a large pad of fat, and the best place is usually the stomach (under the ribs down to the groin area, avoiding the area around the belly button, which has more nerves). (Injecting into muscle, as they do with medications, will cause the insulin to enter your body far too quickly.) You can also inject in your arms, but only if you have a lot of fat there and you are sure the insulin isn't going into your muscle. You can inject into your thighs or hips if you have a lot of fat there, but I found the thighs to be more painful. You should not exercise the area where you just injected because that will make the insulin leave your fat more quickly. Don't, for example, do situps after injecting into your stomach.

Using a good needle makes a great deal of difference. I use BD syringes, which cost 30¢ to 40¢ each. At one point I searched the internet for a cheaper syringe, and I purchased Easy Touch syringes, which cost 10¢ to 20¢ each. Even though they have the same specifications as the BD syringes, the Easy Touch syringes are easily twice as painful (to me; they may not hurt you).

When you buy your first syringes, you'll want to get syringes with 8mm (or 1/3") needles (the shortest) that are 31-gauge thick (the thinnest). There are also syringes available called "pens" that have even smaller needles, but I have no experience with them.

How Many Shots Will You Have to Take?

The number of shots that you'll need to take per day can vary from one to five or more, but most will need two or three shots. If you are a type-2 diabetic, that means that your pancreas is still producing insulin -- but exactly how much can vary from one person to the next. You may only need to cover the carbohydrates in your meals, which would mean two or three shots of bolus (fast-acting) insulin each day (two shots if you don't eat carbs for breakfast). If your pancreas is producing very little insulin, you may need to take one or two shots of basal insulin (NPH, Lantus, Levemir) in addition to bolus insulin. You may be able to get away with taking just one shot of Lantus (the longest-acting basal insulin), but that will most likely work only if you eat a very low-carb diet so that your post-prandial blood-sugar numbers don't rise too much.

NPH (the older basal insulin) comes in mixtures with regular insulin in the ratios of 75 (NPH) and 25 (R), and also in the ratio 70/30. Those mixtures last about eight hours in the system. You may be able to take one shot of a mixture before breakfast (on which you would eat breakfast and lunch), and then one shot before dinner (on which you would eat dinner and a bedtime snack). This is something that I have not done but intend to try myself, and I will report in this article how it works.

Personally, I have been taking regular (R) insulin for many months, and it works for me. It lasts about 5 hours in my system, which allows me to eat a meal and a snack (or two small meals), but the meal and snack must be separated by a couple hours. I take only two shots a day; during those times that there is no insulin in my system, I eat low-carb food. For each shot of 25 units of R insulin, I can eat 75 grams of carbohydrates (that is my personal ratio; you would have to figure out your own ratio). If I eat all of those carbs immediately after taking my shot, my blood sugar will rise too high; so I have to spread the 75 carbs out over the two small meals that I mentioned.

Note: Regular insulin is available without a prescription in 49 of the 50 states, so taking insulin is something that you can try yourself without getting a prescription from your doctor. If you try it, be sure to start with very small shots (5 units or so) and then work your way up to larger doses; otherwise, you can give yourself a hypo (see next paragraph). Always inject 45-60 minutes before you eat. You'll know how much of the insulin to take by what your meter tells you. If 5 units is not enough, gradually increase the dosage one or two units a day until you are taking an amount that results in decent blood-sugar numbers (as given in this article).

All insulin is injected into fat. If you injected it into your veins or muscles, you would have an episode of low blood-sugar which could be life threatening. Such episodes are informally called "hypos". When you inject insulin, there is always a chance that you will accidentally inject it into a vein, so the danger of hypos are something you need to be aware of.

In summary, most diabetics who go on insulin will have to take two shots a day (of bolus before at least two meals, or of a mix before two meals), or three shots (one of basal and two of bolus), or four shots (one of basal and three of bolus). If you experiment, you can probably find a regimen that involves only two shots per day. You may have difficulty finding a regimen that involves only one shot.

There is something called an insulin pump which remains attached to your body. Insulin pumps have both advantages and disadvantages. I have no experience with them, so I'm not going to discuss them here.

Avoiding Hypos

The word "hypo" is shorthand for an episode of hypoglycemia, or extremely low blood sugar. Hypos can be caused by certain medications (such as medications that stimulate the pancreas to release more insulin), and by accidentally injecting insulin into a vein or muscle (instead of into fat). The one medication that I recommend -- Metformin -- does not cause hypos.

If you accidentally inject your insulin into a vein or muscle, about ten to 20 minutes later you will develop a set of symptoms that will be very alarming. Your heart will start to pound, and you will start sweating as if you were exercising. You may also feel faint. If you experience these symptoms, immediately do a glucose test. If your glucose is low (anywhere from 30 to 70 mg/dL [1.7 to 3.9 mmol/L]), do the following: Take one or two glucose tablets or candies made primarily from dextrose (another name for glucose), such as SweeTarts. (If you don't have either of those, eat a teaspoon of sugar.) Then wait ten minutes and measure your blood again. If your blood is still low, take the glucose, candy or sugar again. Repeat this procedure (testing and then eating) until your blood sugar returns to normal. Once it returns to normal, continue testing every 10 to 15 minutes for the next hour, just to be on the safe side.

It is not necessary to continue to eat sugar until your symptoms subside. The symptoms -- sweating, heart pounding -- are caused by a hormone called epinephrine (also called adrenaline) which your body pumps into your system to alert you that your blood sugar is dangerously low. It takes less time to get your blood sugar back to normal (about 15 minutes) than it takes for the epinephrine to leave your body (45-60 minutes). So if you continue to eat as long as you have symptoms, your blood sugar will go way too high.

It is a good idea to always have SweeTarts with you when you inject insulin. In the eight months that I have been injecting insulin twice a day, I have had one hypo. I marked that spot on my belly, and I will never inject there again.

I said above that the first thing you should do when you experience the symptoms of a hypo is to test your blood sugar. However, if you've just taken an insulin injection, it might be wise to take a SweeTart first and then test your blood sugar. If your blood sugar is plunging rapidly, you are in danger of blacking out if your blood sugar gets below 30 or 40 mg/dL (1.7 or 2.2 mmol/L). (SweeTarts can be bought at almost any candy counter.)

Testing Your Blood Sugar

As a diabetic, you will have to test your blood sugar several times a day (whether you are taking insulin or not). The results of your testing will tell you which foods to avoid, whether your medication is strong enough, and/or whether you are injecting enough insulin. You'll want to avoid foods that cause you to have sharp blood-sugar spikes after meals. The blood-sugar levels you should try to achieve are 85-110 mg/dL (4.7-6.1 mmol/L) when "fasting" (i.e., 3 or more hours after eating) and 130-150 (7.2-8.3 mmol/L) in the 2 hours after a meal (the lower the better, in both cases).

Testing your blood sugar by pricking your skin stings more than the needles do. You can minimize that sting by getting a blood-sugar monitor that requires only a small drop of blood, so that it can be used on your forearm (where there are fewer nerves). However, even on your forearm, the pricks are likely to sting (at least sometimes). The skin-pricker (called a lancet) works on a spring-loaded action, so you position the lancet in the right spot and then press a button. The needle jumps out, pricks your skin, and then jumps back. You can control the depth of the prick by dialing a number (on my lancet, 1 is the shallowest prick, and 5 is the deepest prick).

Let me give you an example of how you would use your meter:

Let's say that you eat a meal that contains 60 carbohydrates, and your blood sugar peaks at 180 to 200 after that meal (10.0 to 11.1 mmol/L); and let's say that this happens on several occasions, so you know it is a pattern. 180 (10.0 mmol/L) is really too high, so it is then up to you to take some action to get that number down. Now, the action you take would depend on how you are treating your diabetes. The first and best course of action (no matter what your treatment) is to lower your carbohydrates to 40 grams per meal (or lower). If you are taking Metformin, you could ask your doctor for a higher dosage. Or, if you are injecting insulin before your meals, you could inject more of it. The problem might also be that the carbohydrates you are eating are very high-glycemic, meaning that they enter the blood stream quickly and raise your blood sugar quickly. (For example, sugar, bread and rice enter your blood quickly, whereas pasta enters the blood a little slower, and beans [cooked without sugar] enter the blood even slower.) So you might choose to eliminate the fast-acting carbohydrates from your meal. Which course of action you take in getting your blood sugar down depends on your experience using your meter, your judgement, and the judgement of your doctor.

The Dawn Phenomenon

In the morning your blood sugar may always be elevated. That is due to something called the "dawn phenomenon". As your body approaches the time of waking, your liver will release glycogen into your blood, and you will wake with your blood-sugar level elevated (the elevation is usually in the range of 20 to 40 points [1.1 to 2.2 mmol/L). Once you are awake, your blood sugar may continue to rise. Eating something and/or taking a shot of insulin will stop the rise (although if you eat something, your blood sugar may rise further before it drops). The "dawn phenomenon" occurs in most diabetics and cannot usually be avoided. However, having said that, you may be able to control it with an injection of basal insulin before bed, or by eating a very low-carbohydrate diet. Personally, as long as my waking number is 140 or below (7.8 mmol/L), I don't worry about it.

Let me add that the dawn phenomenon is apparently a natural process which has gone awry in diabetics. The assumption is that the liver releases sugar into the blood to help wake the person up and to give him or her energy for the day. The diabetic's body, however, is unable to control the process, and the blood sugar goes too high.

The Action of the Liver

As I stated above, sugar can be stored in the liver, the kidney, the muscles and a few other places in the form of glycogen. The liver can complicate things when you are trying to get your blood sugar under control because it may release sugar into your blood at unexpected times. Indeed, when you first start a low-carbohydrate diet (or when you first start injecting insulin), your liver may dump sugar into your blood every day for the first several days or weeks. Thus, you will start to wonder why your diet (or your insulin injections) are not working. Eventually your liver will achieve a stasis in which it is not dumping sugar into your blood frequently, and you'll see your blood-sugar numbers drop. Thus, it is very important that you be patient after starting a new regimen of either diet or injections. If you choose to eat a very low-carbohydrate diet, such as 50 grams a day or less, this period won't last that long (a week or less), and you may eventually get to the point where so much glycogen has been taken from your liver that it no longer affects your blood-sugar readings very much. However, if you eat more than 100 carbs per day, that may be enough for sugar to continue to be stored in your liver, and the action of the liver may continue to cause unexpectedly high BS readings from time to time. Taking Metformin will help to ameliorate these "liver dumps".

Ketosis

As I stated above, the glucose in your blood is used for energy throughout your body. However, there are substances called "ketone bodies" that can pinch hit for blood sugar. If you do not eat any carbohydrates, and if you do not eat much protein (some of which is converted to glucose), your body will use fat for energy. It breaks down the blood lipids (i.e., blood fats, which come from your diet and from your fat stores) into smaller components, one of which is the ketone body (or "ketone" for short). Ketone bodies can be used in place of sugar throughout the body [read up on this]. When your body is using ketones for energy, it is said that you are in "ketosis".

There is a good kind of ketosis and a bad kind of ketosis (called "diabetic ketoacidosis"). The bad kind of ketosis occurs when a diabetic has inadequate insulin in his body, and his body then produces an excess of ketones. His blood will then have both an excess of blood sugar and ketones (this is a dangerous situation and requires immediate treatment). However, ketones in your blood are not harmful if they are at normal levels and if insulin is present to regulate your glucose. Indeed, a ketogenic diet is a good way to lose weight, since your body gradually eats up your fat deposits.

If you eat a diet of 50 carbs a day (or even more for some people) your body will go into ketosis and will use your fat deposits for energy. Your liver will release most of its glycogen stores into your blood, so you will stop having "liver dumps" which raise your blood sugar. This kind of low-carbohydrate diet (the same thing that Atkins recommended) used to be controversial because doctors associated it with diabetic ketoacidosis, but it is now understood to be perfectly healthy. Indeed, ketosis may be a normal state for the human body. There are some populations, such as Eskimos, which eat mostly meat and fat, and their bodies are in ketosis all the time. In centuries past, many populations ate carbohydrates only during warm weather (when fruits were available), and their bodies were in ketosis during the winter months (when only meat was available). Thus, a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet is perfectly normal and healthful, and may be the best diet to treat diabetes.

Carbohydrate Addiction

Most people in our country eat a high-carbohydrate diet, and the evidence is increasing that it is the cause of the diabetes epidemic. You may have eaten a high-carbohydrate diet all your life, not because you love carbohydrates so much (although they are addictive), but simply because you were taught to eat that way. Some people, however, (and I am one of them) develop a true addiction to carbohydrates. As stated above, eating a large quantity of carbohydrates will cause a release of a natural tranquilizer in the body called serotonin, and people can become addicted to the serotonin effect. (A release of serotonin is also caused by some narcotics.) Also, people who frequently overeat may be lacking certain chemical signals in their body that tell them that they are full. If you've been eating a high-carbohydrate diet over the years simply out of habit, then giving up the carbs may not be that difficult for you. But if you are addicted to carbohydrates, it will be much harder.

There are two strategies for giving up carbohydrates: immediately going to a low-carb diet (this is the "cold-turkey" approach) or gradually reducing your carbohydrates. A diet of 50 carbs a day (total) is low enough to be considered "cold turkey", whereas a more gradual approach will start you at 175 to 200 carbs a day (a level that will allow you to have a dessert a day, or a couple servings of whatever kind of starchy food you love). Then, over time, you should decrease the amount of carbohydrates you eat to, say, 100 or 125 grams. 200 carbs is actually pretty high, and you should start at a lower level if you can. 200 carbs is high enough that it will be hard to keep your blood sugar under control. For me, 150 carbs seems to be the magic number. If I keep my carbs to that, my health seems to be good, and my blood-sugar fluctuations are not extreme. Eventually I hope to get to 125 carbs a day, which would be my maintenance level. A diet of 75 carbs a day will be better for your diabetes than 125 carbs a day, but we do what we are able to do. On a forum that I frequent, there are quite a few people who eat 125 carbs a day and manage to control their diabetes quite well.

If you decide to go cold-turkey off carbs, it is my understanding that once you've been dieting for 2-3 weeks, you stop craving them. This, then, is the problem with the moderate approach: If you eat 100-150 carbs a day and allow yourself to have sweets and starches, that may keep your taste for sweets and starches alive. In other words, you may never reach a point where you don't crave them.

Another strategy is to go on a very low-carbohydrate diet (50 grams a day or less), and then, after you lose your weight, to increase your carbohydrates gradually to a more moderate level. What will work for you is a highly individual matter, and you must work it out for yourself.

Incidentally, starting insulin injections may help to decrease your craving for sweets. That is what happened to me. There was something about my high blood-sugar levels that was keeping my craving for carbohydrates alive. When the insulin began to reduce my blood-sugar levels, my cravings decreased also.

But for me, the craving always comes back. Periodically I will buy (always as the result of an impulse) a box of ice cream bars. I will then have the ice cream bars as my only carbohydrates for the rest of the day, eliminating all bread and other starches. It doesn't seem to hurt me at all to do that (in that my blood-sugar levels are often good during such binges), but it might not work for you. Knowing that I can have ice cream if I really want it helps me on those days when I am being good. If you try to deny yourself forever the foods you want, that may just lead to failure. ... But not always. You may, instead, have success at completely changing your diet.

Fats

How dangerous are fats? For years the medical establishment has been telling us that a high-fat diet is dangerous. Well, that isn't entirely true. Fats are fattening only when they are accompanied by high levels of carbohydrates. That's because insulin not only ushers sugar into your fat cells, it also ushers blood lipids (blood fats) into your fat cells. By lowering your blood-sugar levels, you will also lower your insulin levels, and there won't be excess insulin available to store your blood lipids in your fat cells. Of course, it is still a good idea to avoid large amounts of saturated fats, although there is disagreement on this point. Recent research seems to indicate that saturated fats are not as dangerous as was thought, especially when insulin levels are low. I'll write more on this as I learn more about it.

One thing is certain: oils contain all kinds of nutrients that we need, especially the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils. They also contain vitamins A and E and sometimes D. Oils and fats are used in tissues throughout the body, and they also slow down the absorption of carbohydrates from our intestines.

The fats which will be the best for you are mono-saturated oils, such as olive oil. Other oils besides olive oil are problematic, even other mono-saturated oils. Oils undergo a great deal of processing. It is common for food manufacturers to use rancid oils and then heat them to extremely high temperatures to deodorize them. Rancidity is bad for your body. Canola oil, the new "healthful" mono-saturated wonder oil, is even worse than the others. Canola stands for Canadian Oil, Low Acid. It is mostly rapeseed oil, which contains a toxic substance which is only partially removed from the oil. It is best to stick with extra-virgin olive oil, which, I believe, is processed less than other oils [I need to check this].

Buying your oils at a health-food store might get you a better quality of oil, especially if it says "cold pressed" on the label. However, my experience is that the price for such oils is astonishingly high.

Losing Weight

The best way for a diabetic to lose weight is to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Eating just 50 grams of carbs per day will cause weight loss, and some diabetics (more men than women) will lose weight on 100 carbs per day. Since a diabetic must keep his or her blood sugar low anyway, a low-carbohydrate diet is the only logical choice. [I will eventually expand this section.]

More on Diet

I have already said a great deal about diet in the paragraphs above, so I'll try not to repeat myself. As a diabetic, the best way for you to lose weight is to go on a low-carbohydrate diet. Eating a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is the wrong approach. Restricting your carbohydrates to 50 grams a day will cause the vast majority of people to lose weight, and some men may be able to lose weight on 75-100 grams per day. If you are overweight, losing weight is the single most important thing you can do, as it will lower your body's insulin-resistance, and you may find that you can go off both medications and insulin (as long as you do moderate exercise and keep your daily carbohydrates to a moderate level).

Let me give you some examples of low-carb eating so you'll know what I'm talking about. Here is a day's menu (with alternatives given) that has less than 50 grams of carbohydrates:

Breakfast

Western omelette (eggs, ham, peppers, onions); or eggs with bacon; or a bacon, egg & cheese sandwich on low-carb bread. (Almost all other breakfast foods -- cereal, pancakes, toast, juice, etc. -- have too many carbs. If you don't like eggs, substitute dinner foods, such as steak or chicken.)

Snack

Nuts, cheese, olives, antipasto, celery sticks or other low-carb vegetables, Vienna sausages or any kind of meat. Personally, I like to spread lox cream cheese on ham slices, add cucumber sticks, and roll them up like appetizers.

Lunch

Salad with oil & vinegar or low-carb dressing (no croutons); or cole-slaw made without sugar.

Any kind of meat, fowl or fish (not breaded) on low-carb bread with lettuce, tomato & mayonnaise. Meat salads with mayonnaise (tuna salad, chicken salad, ham salad) are all acceptable.

- or -

Chef's salad or other meat salad, or meat and vegetable soup, or cream soup (not thickened with starch).

Snack

(same as above)

Dinner

Large salad with oil & vinegar or low-carb dressing (no croutons).

Any kind of meat, fowl or fish (not breaded) with butter, low-carb gravy or cream sauce. Cooked low-carb vegetables with butter or cream sauce. (No rice, potatoes or pasta.)

Snack

(same as above)

Daily Dessert

If you need a daily dessert, you could have any sweet thing which has 20 carbs or less, such as: Chobani yogurt (20 carbs), Slim-Fast (20 carbs), a Hershey's dark chocolate bar (22 carbs), berries of various kinds (strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries) with heavy cream and artificial sweetener.

What I just gave you is one example of a day's diet. It may sound monotonous, but there are all kinds of ways that you can make it tasty. Keep in mind that you don't need to restrict fats, so you can actually eat a lot of rich foods. How does asparagus with lemon butter sound? Or broccoli and pearl onions with hollandaise sauce (or a thick cheese sauce)? Or chicken with Thai red curry sauce? Or peppers, cabbage or grape leaves stuffed with seasoned ground meat? If you enjoy cooking, the variety of delicious low-carb foods you can make is limitless.

What Parents Can Do for Their Children

Parents should not permit any of the following foods to be kept in the house: sugary sodas; artificially sweetened drinks of any kind such as Cool Aid or Sunny D; low-quality desserts such as doughnuts, Twinkies and Ring Dings; candy; chips of any kind; sugary cereals, pastries, waffles or pancakes; and white bread or rolls. Children should be taught to quench their thirst with milk or ice water. Juices should be served at breakfast only. Table sugar should be used sparingly.

(Diet drinks are a problem because, although they don't put sugar in your child's body, they teach your children to always want a sweet taste in their mouths. However, I'm not sure about this, so I can't give definitive advice.)

My suggestions for breakfast are eggs, bacon or ham, whole-grain toast with sugar-free jam, yogurt, and whole grain cereal with artificial sweeteners. Oatmeal is okay if it is not instant, and if it is artificially sweetened. Grapefruits should be eaten without sugar.

Desserts can be eaten occasionally, but they should be a special thing, and they should always be high quality. An example of a high-quality dessert would be a home-made carrot cake made with natural ingredients, and which isn't too sweet. The point is that you don't want to be teaching your kids to like junky sweets, which are available everywhere. If your kids have high culinary standards, they are less likely to eat foods that are bad for them (well, we can hope). Fruit salad, solid chocolate, trail mix with chocolate, and Greek yogurts make good substitutes for more carb-rich desserts (and I think they all taste good enough to satisfy your kids). Mixed fruit can be extremely delicious if you choose the right fruits. Ice cream and pudding have some protein in them, so they will be better than cakes and pies. If you are serving your kids ice cream, give them plain chocolate or vanilla or strawberry instead of Ben & Jerry's ice cream that has syrup and candy mixed into it. If you enjoy cooking, you can learn to make reduced-carb desserts. Egg custard made with artificial sweeteners can be very low in carbs. Of course, artificial sweeteners may not fool your kids' taste buds, but egg custard made with 1/2 sugar and 1/2 artificial sweetener might fool their taste buds, and it's better than egg custard made with all sugar.

Parents should insist that their local schools not sell sodas or candy to their students. In my opinion, any school which sells such items within its walls is abusing its students. Many, if not most, school districts allow the sale of junk food in their schools because they make money from it, which is a shameful situation.

More on Neuropathy

The latest trend in the treatment of diabetes is to put diabetics on insulin injections earlier rather than later. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to develop neuropathy in some part of your body (most commonly in the feet). I learned this lesson the hard way. I told my doctor in 2010 that I thought I should take insulin injections. He didn't say no, but he wondered why I wanted to take injections before it was really necessary. By the time I did start injections in March, 2011, I had developed significantly worse neuropathy in my feet. It took five or six months of injections for the neuropathy to subside substantially; and now, when I go off my diet, the neuropathy comes back. To a considerable extent, neuropathy can be healed, but nerves which have been damaged will always have a tendency to become re-inflamed, even if you drastically improve your diet. It is important that you take your diabetes seriously before you suffer permanent nerve damage.

Generally, the symptoms of neuropathy include tingling, numbness, aching, spasms, and outright pain; and that can occur in your feet, your ankles, your hands, and your groin area. You may lose your ability to become sexually aroused (speaking physically now, not psychologically -- i.e., no more erections for men). The feet are usually the first to be attacked, and your ankles may hurt as if you had gout. Your ankles may become weak and you'll feel like you are about to collapse, only to catch yourself (until the day comes when you do collapse). Your toes may spasm in the oddest way (that was the most disturbing symptom for me). [Expand this section.]

Finding a Good Doctor

The kind of doctor that you, as a diabetic, need depends on what kind of person you are. If you are informed and pro-active, you will need a doctor who is flexible and not threatened by an educated patient. Such a doctor will be your partner in controlling your diabetes, and he or she will not expect to dictate your treatment to you. If, on the other hand, you want to leave all the decisions up to your doctor, then you need a doctor who has the right ideas. The right ideas, in this case, means that your doctor believes that you should eat a reduced-carbohydrate diet and get your A1c below 7.0. In addition, beware of doctors who are drug-happy -- i.e., who prescribe several medications. Many diabetes medications have problematic side-effects, and metformin (also called Glucophage) is the only one which is truly effective and safe.

Beware of Misinformation

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has become infamous among knowledgeable diabetics because it appears to be spreading misinformation. Several of their top executives are former food-industry lobbyists, and they recommend a diet that is fairly high in carbohydrates (though not excessively high). Nonetheless, if you go to their web site, you will find recipes for cakes, cookies and other desserts. Although a diabetic can eat moderate amounts of sweets, to encourage the consumption of sweets is highly irresponsible. Years ago it was discovered that starchy foods (such as bread) are converted into blood sugar as quickly as table sugar is. The logical conclusion was that bread and other starchy foods should be avoided. Instead, the ADA concluded that it is okay to eat sugar (and eat it, and eat it, and eat it). An organization called dLife has picked up on the misinformation spread by the ADA, and their site is also filled with an astonishing number of high-carbohydrate recipes.

Even if you can eat a dessert every day, is it a good idea for any diabetic to bake an entire cake or pie? Let's look at the situation: dLife lists a recipe for an Amaretto Pumpkin Pie that makes 8 servings that contain almost 61 grams of carbohydrates each (to be exact, 60.8 grams after fiber is deducted). That is a total of 486 grams of carbohydrates. I can tell you right now, unequivocally, that eating 61 grams of sweets at one sitting will cause the blood sugar of most diabetics to spike over 140 (7.8 mmol/L) (the cut-off for what is considered absolutely safe), and many (if not most) will see their blood sugar spike to 160 (8.9 mmol/L), 180 (10.0 mmol/L), or 200 or more (11.1 mmol/L) -- even if the diabetic first takes a shot of insulin.

In order for a single person to eat up such a pie, he or she would have to eat a slice a day for 8 days -- but of course, the pie may not last in the refrigerator that long. For a family of three to eat it up, two members would have to eat a slice for three days in a row, and the third member would have to eat a slice for two days in a row. That is a lot of sweets to be feeding your family, especially given the amount of sugar per slice. In addition, with a delicious pie sitting in the fridge, there is a chance that the diabetic might lose control and eat more than one slice in a day. Also, pies are generally eaten as desserts, which means that they are eaten at the end of a meal. If you have already eaten 20, 30 or 40 carbohydrates at your meal, eating a slice of this pie will take your total for the meal to 80 or more, which is a lot for a diabetic.

dLife has a rating system: "Very Low Carb", "Low Carb" and "Carb Safe". That recipe was not rated at all, which means that it is not "Carb Safe" for diabetics. If that's the case, why is it listed on their site???

Let's look at one of their "Carb Safe" recipes, Almond Spice Pound Cake. That cake has 12 servings, each of which has approximately 25 grams of carbohydrates. 25 carbs is a reasonable amount for a dessert, yet there are the same issues with this cake as with the pie: A single diabetic person would have to eat it up over 12 days, before which time it would have spoiled. A family of three would have to eat a slice a day for four days, a lot of carbohydrates for a family to be eating. And this doesn't take into account that eating sweets every day will keep your taste for sweets alive. A diabetic should endeavor to eat sweets on occasion, not every day.

In my opinion, organizations like the ADA and dLife are about as irresponsible as they can be. They serve as examples that the food industry has long tentacles that reach into all areas of our life, even into supposedly objective non-profit organizations.

Let me add that there are also medical supply companies which advertise cookbooks to diabetics that are full of dessert recipes. A company called HDIS is possibly the worst of them. By convincing diabetics that they can eat virtually anything they want, these companies hope to get new business. It seems that keeping diabetics addicted to sugar and then treating their high blood-sugar levels is quite a lucrative business.

Diabetes Research

It is important that you not accept as gospel the conclusions of every study that comes down the pike. For example, a recent study has concluded that a high-fat diet can contribute to diabetes. However, that study was conducted solely on rodents, which react to fats very differently from human beings. Also, the rats were fed high levels of carbohydrates along with the fats, and the carbohydrates were probably the culprit.

Less recently, there was a study that showed that diabetics who kept their A1c's low had a higher incidence of stroke and heart attack. However, many of the participants in the study were using Avandia and a couple other drugs that are known to cause cardiovascular problems. Getting your blood-sugar low by eating a reduced-carb diet and taking metformin and/or insulin will not cause cardiovascular problems.

In the world of medicine, most studies are funded by drug companies and other corporations, and that undoubtedly colors the conclusions that are drawn.

Getting More Help

Other Sites

This site is very useful: www.bloodsugar101.com. It is run by Jenny Ruhl, a lay expert on diabetes (meaning that she is not a doctor, but rather a diabetic who has done a great deal of research in the area). My only criticism of Jenny is that she can be ever-so-slightly alarmist at times, in my opinion. But her advice is generally very good. she also has a blog, the link to which can be found on her site.

The site www.mendosa.com is run by a journalist named David Mendosa (also not a doctor). There are dozens of useful articles on his site.

Forums

I am hesitant to recommend any forums because you can receive bad advice. There are a lot of differing opinions about how to treat diabetes. One forum, which I won't name, has a large contingent of aggressive low-carbers who are intolerant of anyone who is trying to eat a more normal diet. The advice that I offer here (to eat low-carb if you can, or otherwise eat a reduced-carb diet and take metformin and/or insulin if necessary) is moderate advice, and it will help the most people. There is also a great deal of censorship on all the forums. If you are even slightly outspoken, you will be reprimanded or have your posts deleted. It can be very humiliating.

Books

Until I fill this section in, I am going to refer you to David Mendosa's page about diabetes books: www.mendosa.com/books.htm . However, Jenny Ruhl has written her own book, Blood Sugar 101, which I recommend, though it is not on David Mendosa's reading list.

A Step-by-Step Guide for Newly Diagnosed Diabetics

1. Immediately buy a carbohydrate counter (a book that tells you the carbohydrate values of foods). You can also find the carbohydrate values of foods on these sites:

http://caloriecount.about.com/

http://www.carb-counter.org/

2. Start keeping a daily log of your foods, carbohydrate totals, and exercise.

3. Start counting the carbohydrates in your foods, and eliminate the foods that have the most carbohydrates. Your immediate goal is to get your daily carbohydrates down to 150, and then eventually to 100 (if possible). Avoid sweets and refined starches (as much as possible), and eat some low-carbohydrate vegetables every day (salads with low-carb dressings are especially healthful). The focus of your diet should be on poultry, fish, meat, cheese, low-carb vegetables, nuts, seeds, and low-carb fruits (such as berries). Use butter and olive oil in place of other fats. Take a multi-vitamin/mineral pill every day. If you don't eat much fish, taking omega-3 fatty acid supplements is also a good idea. If you must have sweets, try to be satisfied with a yogurt or small chocolate bar.

4. Buy a blood-sugar testing meter. A diabetes expert by the name of Richard K. Bernstein recommends the Roche Accu-Check Aviva meter as being the most accurate. The Bayer Ascensia Contour meter is also fairly accurate. At the time that you buy the meter, you will also need to buy testing strips for your meter. Test strips will generally cost more than $1 each when purchased in a drug store. On eBay you can find them for as little as 40 cents each. (When making purchases on eBay, be sure to note the expiration dates of the strips being sold, and avoid sellers who don't have a rating of 99.8% or better.)

5. Test your blood sugar at least three times a day:

- after waking -- eventual goal: 140 or less (7.8 mmol/L)

- 1-1/2 hours after your largest meal -- eventual goal: 140 or less (7.8 mmol/L)

- 3 hours after your largest meal -- eventual goal: 110 or less (6.1 mmol/L)

Continue to reduce your carbohydrates until you see better blood-sugar numbers. Don't be upset if your numbers, initially, are not anywhere near the goals just given. Remember that your liver will pump sugar into your blood for the first 1-4 weeks that you are dieting, so it may take time for your blood sugar numbers to drop.

6. Begin to exercise four or five times a week for 20 minutes, even if that only involves walking. Both aerobic and strength-building exercises are good.

7. Keep it up. Keep lowering your carbohydrates, exercising, and testing your blood until your blood-sugar numbers approach the goals mentioned in step 5.

8. See your doctor and get an A1c test (your eventual goal is a 6, but going lower is better). If your blood-sugar readings are over 200 (11.1 mmol/L), ask your doctor for extended-release metformin (but remember, metformin will give you intestinal discomfort for the first couple weeks. Start with a low dose and work your way up.)

9. If after a couple months of this regimen you are having trouble getting your blood-sugar numbers under 200 (11.1 mmol/L), ask your doctor to give you insulin.

Is Abortion Murder?

2010-07-04T16:32:00.023-04:00

The problem with the abortion issue is that it can't be separated from religion. When viewed from a purely atheistic or ethical standpoint, halting the development of a human life must be considered murder. However, if there is no life after death, then human life has no meaning anyway, so ending a life before it begins is inconsequential. Life only has meaning if it endures.

Since humanity has no absolute proof that life endures after death, we must look to religion for our answers. Christians believe in only the one life; and although the fetus' soul is not destroyed by abortion, abortion prevents the fetus from being baptized, from developing into a full human being, and from coming to Christ and being "saved".

On the other hand, people who believe in reincarnation believe that the soul is independent of the body. If a fetus is aborted, the soul simply finds another fetus to occupy. Thus, no individual dies as a result of abortion, and no opportunity to live a physical life is prevented. My own belief, based on my religion, is that the incoming soul is aware of the mother's intentions and will not occupy the fetus if the mother is considering an abortion. If that is true, then the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body in the first trimester) is correct. As you can see, there are other points of view besides the Christian one.

So what should the law say? Should we follow Christian teachings and outlaw abortion (since the majority of Americans are Christian)? Absolutely not. Basing a law on a religious tenet would be an establishment of religion, which is against our Constitution. Besides, the majority of people in this country are in favor of legalized abortion. Also, a poll taken many years ago showed that a large percentage of Christians believe in reincarnation. When these things are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that there is no monolithic position among the public on the subject of abortion. Those Christians who interpret the Bible narrowly are actually in a minority. Basing abortion laws on conservative Christian doctrine would be discriminatory against non-Christians, against liberal Christians, and against non-practicing Christians (not to mention the rest of us).

The Supreme Court, by ruling that the fetus is part of the mother's body in the first trimester, struck a reasonable balance. Since the issue of abortion hinges on religion, and since human beings cannot know what the true status of the fetus is, we must base our decision on practical matters. From a practical standpoint, it would be a disaster to return to the days of back-alley abortions performed by criminals using coat hangers. Abortion saves society from unwanted babies, and it helps to control population growth. It also allows women to have full control of their bodies. From every practical standpoint, abortion is a positive thing, and it is for this reason that I believe it should be legal.

The Anti-Abortionists

First, let's stop calling anti-abortionists "pro-lifers". Conservative Christians, the most vocal anti-abortion group, are not particularly "pro-life" in most respects. They are more likely to own guns; they are more likely to support killing as a means of self-defense; they are more likely to support capital punishment; and they are more likely to support a huge and deadly military. Frankly, Christ would be appalled at what his followers believe. So if conservative Christians are so ready to take life, why are they so concerned about preserving fetal life? Such people, I think, have an obsession with the concept of innocence. Psychologically they identify with the fetus, and they imagine with horror that they could have been aborted themselves, and would have been powerless to stop it. They are consumed with anger at the mother who might have aborted them (and by extension, all mothers who might consider abortion). Believing in Hell as they do, they imagine what it would be like to go to Hell forever, since many of them believe that souls which are not baptized or "saved" (even fetuses) go to Hell or to Limbo. Yet ironically, these same people believe that, once the fetus grows up, it is damned to Hell anyway if it doesn't believe in Christ. If Christians hold life so dear, why do they believe that it can be sacrificed so easily?

Conservative Christians are strong believers in blame. For example, if a person sins and goes to Hell, he has only himself to blame. More moderate people recognize that human beings are impulsive and generally create their own problems, and that casting blame serves no purpose. Conservative Christians are frightened people – frightened of God, frightened of the chaotic world, and frightened for their security and immortality. To allay their fears, they cling to stringent rules of behavior and concepts of judgement. Their main comfort is the idea that they are "chosen" by God and thus "saved". The world, in their view, is divided between the "saved" and the "damned", and the thought of innocent fetuses being damned for no fault of their own fills them with an unbearable anxiety. It never occurs to them to question the rationality of their views, or to wonder if such a cruel God could possibly exist.

In my view, everyone is "saved", and the state of grace which we enjoy cannot be sacrificed by unwise choices, wrong views or selfish actions. Each soul has many lives in which to work out its problems, after which the soul moves on to other realms and challenges. If, when a soul is ready to reincarnate, the prospective mother decides to have an abortion, then the soul will find another mother or wait for another pregnancy.

No one dies. Nothing is lost. Abortion is not murder.

A Sad Loss for Warren

2010-05-09T00:30:00.027-04:00

Kathleen Delekta Lowney. That's the name of Warren's local pharmacist who was hit by a car and killed on April 30th. The accident occurred right outside of Delekta's pharmacy on Main Street. Main Street is the main thoroughfare between Providence and Newport, and it is like a highway all day long. Ironically, I was at the accident scene shortly after Kathleen had been taken to the hospital. There was a woman standing there, but I didn't speak to her. The SUV that hit Kathy was still there. The news story that I read later said the driver was a woman, so perhaps that woman was the driver. There didn't seem to be anything to see, so I pedalled on, not knowing that one of my favorite people had just been run over.

I didn't know Kathleen that well, but I knew her well enough to like her very much. She was a solid person in so many ways: hard-working, intelligent, interesting, helpful. She was also honest and straight-forward and serious, qualities I admire. In three years, I had only a couple conversations with her of any substance, and each time I was surprised by how much character she displayed. (Intelligent people with mature and well-developed characters are hard to find in this world.) I immediately identified her as a person I would like to know better. But she was liked by everyone, and I was just a customer, so there was really no way to become friends. Even so, every time I walked into Delekta's, I hoped that she would be at the counter so I could say hello. I can't explain why she made such an impact on me, but she did.

Kathleen had worked at Delekta's for more than 50 years. The store had belonged to her father. In one of our conversations, she told me that when her father died, he left the entire store to her brother, leaving her out of it altogether (apparently because she was a "girl"). Kathleen was still bitter about it, though it had happened years earlier. Two years ago, Kathleen's mother died in a fire at the age of 98. So Kathleen had experienced her share of grief.

It's normal to turn to religion in the face of death, and I'm no different. However, my religion (the Seth Material) isn't your average faith. Seth said that we choose our deaths on an unconscious level, and that by the time we die we have lost enough of our attachment to the world that we are ready to go. As to why Kathleen chose to die at this time, I can only guess. She had spent her entire life in one community working in one store. At the age of 78, there was nothing lying ahead of her but more of the same, followed by the slow decline of advancing old age. Perhaps after so many years of doing the same thing, she had done it enough. Perhaps she wanted to go out at the top of her game, working full time and feeling productive. Perhaps her relationship with her mother had been important to her, and her mother's death took away one of her reasons for living. Her children were all grown, so the task of raising her family was behind her. She may have also wanted to teach a lesson to the community (and the driver of the SUV) about the value of life.

If what Seth said is true, Kathleen is now in an after-death environment deciding what to do next. If she has chosen to reincarnate, she is deciding what kind of life to live. If she has chosen not to reincarnate, she is deciding what environment to occupy next -- i.e., which universe or plane of existence best suits her needs. According to Seth, one thing is certain: She is in a joyful place. The after-death environment is what most people think of as Heaven. Her life continues in this new environment. She continues to live and learn, and she develops new relationships. When she died, she undoubtedly met her deceased relatives and friends from this life, as well as friends from previous lives (meaning, in other words, that she is not alone). With the increased creative powers that she has in her spiritual form, she may have reconstructed her life in Warren to ease the shock of transition. She may, depending on her choices, still be going to the pharmacy every day to dispense prescriptions. She may also be reviewing the events of her life to see how she could have lived them differently. Eventually, however, she'll set all that aside and move on to new things.

Happy travels, Kathy. I hope to encounter you again. The next time, I want to know you better.

Not Using Good Sense

2010-04-25T14:47:00.006-04:00

I sell jewelry components on the internet, most of which go out in bubble mailers sealed with plastic tape. I was feeling bad about the amount of plastic that I was putting into the environment, so I did some searching and found biodegradable bubble mailers (they are made with a special plastic film which breaks down in the presence of water). To go along with the new bubble mailers, I looked for biodegradable packing tape. I discovered that this special plastic film is not yet being used for packing tape. However, I did find cellulose tape (a clear tape made from wood) which is a perfect substitute for normal plastic tape. I was very pleased with myself! But then, without thinking, I purchased a big, heavy desktop tape dispenser made from a big block of plastic, and I also bought a hand-held tape dispenser made from plastic. The amount of plastic in these items must be equivalent to 40 rolls of tape! How stupid was that? I don't entirely blame myself, since desktop dispensers made of metal probably don't exist; but I still could have exercised better judgement. It just goes to show you how easy it is to screw up when you are trying to do the right thing.

Soon I'll publish an article on the biodegradable mailers and tape, and I'll tell you where to get them.

Fifty-Eight Beads

2010-04-24T14:03:00.042-04:00

About 25 years ago I made beaded jewelry as a hobby. Like most hobbyists, I had difficulty selling my creations. However, my hobby had the unexpected effect of bringing me closer to my mother. I mailed a package of my designs to her, and she put them out in the cafeteria at her job, and they sold. After that I sent all my jewelry to my mother, and she always sold it without a problem. I also started to visit her a little more often. During one visit we went to a bead warehouse in Providence and bought a lot of beautiful beads. It was a lot of fun.

Around that time she purchased a string of particularly beautiful Czech beads for herself. They were really quite lovely, and I was very envious of her for having them, though the beads were worth only a few dollars. There was an unusual quality to the beads, and I coveted them like crazy.

Shortly after that she retired, and I moved to another state and stopped making jewelry, and our relationship went back to the tension-filled thing that it had been before. We even became estranged, and I didn't visit her for about ten years. Ultimately she developed dementia, and in 2007 I moved to her home town to take care of her.

For 2-1/2 years I visited her about five times a week (she also had aides visiting her). She was a shell of her former self, and in many ways she seemed like an entirely different person. During those 2-1/2 years she lost much of her remaining memory. Watching her lose her memory made me realize that memory is the foundation of identity. If we forget our past, then we forget who we are. Her home had always been a showcase of beautiful antiques, but towards the end she couldn't remember how she acquired them (or that she had refinished and reupholstered many of them). She once looked at her collection of 200-year-old Japanese prints (which she had framed herself) and wondered who it was who had collected them all.

During my many visits, she would sometimes need something that I would have to search the house for. During one of those searches, I found those lovely beads. They looked just as lovely as they had 25 years earlier, and I still coveted them. Finally, in January of this year, my mother was moved into an assisted-living facility in another state. By the time she was moved, she had lost so much mental function that she could no longer operate any of the appliances in the house. (But she still had enough intelligence to object to being taken from her home.)

My mother's slow slide into idiocy was disturbing to watch. When I first moved here, she could still make coffee, use the microwave, listen to music on the stereo, and watch the TV. Operating the stereo was the first skill to go. After that, she forgot how to make coffee. She still remembered how to use the microwave, but she lost her judgement about how long to cook things. Operating the TV remote was the last skill to go. She knew how to press the on/off button, but she couldn't remember how to change channels or adjust the volume. Her hearing and comprehension were failing also, so even when she watched, she couldn't understand what she was seeing and hearing.

Her ability to comprehend what she was reading also slipped. Reading had been her most active hobby. For much of her life she had read about a book a week. She also got the newspaper every day, and reading it in the morning was an important ritual for her. She subscribed to the magazine Archeology, and she loved learning about man's history (as do I). During our visits she started to complain that the articles made no sense. Never having been willing to admit that her mind was slipping, she blamed the writers for writing poorly. Eventually she stopped reading altogether, and she would spend hours just daydreaming, staring at the ceiling. Without the ability to hear or comprehend, all of her normal activities became unrewarding, and she started to sleep for long hours.

The day after she left to go into assisted living, I used my key to enter her house, and I took the string of beads. I felt like a thief, though I really wasn't. Her possessions are now being divided up among her children, and those beads would have gone to me anyway. Even so, the irony of the situation was overwhelming. Simply by outliving her, I had gotten something of hers that I had wanted. Knowing that she had once loved the beads, I felt like I was stealing part of her identity. Yet if I had shown them to her in her final year at home, she wouldn't have remembered them.

Now that I own the beads, they don't seem so special; I have bought and sold more beautiful beads in the years that I've been in the jewelry business. What made them so special was that I couldn't have them. Now that I have them, they are so much less important to me than the intelligent mother that I lost. I would give a ton of them to have my mother back.

Actually, this story has ironies that I haven't mentioned. She wasn't a very good mother. She had seven children because she enjoyed sex, and because her birth control often failed (at a time when abortion was illegal), but she didn't have enough love for seven kids. I was her least-favorite child, and she never wanted to be close to me, except for that time when I was making jewelry. She lived in Providence at the time, and when I moved to Providence in my 30's, she seemed irritated to have me around so much. Strangely, it was her dementia that brought us together again, because it caused her to forget our history. Yet the closeness was unrewarding because she brought little intelligence to the relationship. If she were the person she had been ten years ago, we would still be estranged. What I really long for isn't the mother that I lost, but the mother I never had -- the loving, supportive, tolerant mother that my mother never was. It is an irony of my life that when I long for the past, I don't long for the life that I lived, but for the life that I wish I had lived -- which is perhaps why I don't long for the past very often. I'm lucky in a way. The world is full of people who long for the excitement and pleasure of their youth. It must be very painful to have had a glorious youth, and then to have lost it.

There is yet another irony. She always viewed me as something of a failure because I couldn't hold a job or make a career for myself. By the time I did become a success running my own internet business, she was too demented to appreciate it. I brought her to the local library to show her my online store on their computer, but she didn't understand what she was seeing. Thus, her dementia has robbed me of the satisfaction of showing her that I'm no longer a failure. Yet if she still had all her intelligence, she might still consider me a failure because my business doesn't make me the $100,000+ incomes that some of my brothers make. There's no winning, is there?

Life is too long and too short, all at the same time. In twenty years, after I am dead or in a facility, someone else will open my drawer and take those beads. Those beads will probably outlast me, and they may outlast all of us.

The Shroud of Turin

2010-04-19T02:19:00.026-04:00

Over the years I have learned a lot about the Shroud of Turin. It is pretty obvious that it is a fake. I thought that I would summarize the most notable facts in one post, including some observations of my own.

Carbon-dating has shown it to be about 700 years old, which would date it to the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages, there was a big trade in fake religious artifacts. Even the Catholic church was in on the fake relic business because it brought money to the church. This fact -- that the Shroud is 700 years old -- is in itself conclusive proof that it is a fake.

Microscopic examination of the blood stains on the Shroud has shown that they are crystallized red ocher. Red crystals can be seen clinging to the linen fibers, whereas blood would have soaked into the fibers. Blood does not crystallize.

The face of the Shroud has a two-dimensional quality, like a painting. True shrouds are wrapped around the head; so if an imprint of the body were to occur on the shroud, the head portion would look rather strange, with the face appearing distorted and the ears sticking off to the side, etc. Some investigators believe that a bas-relief sculpture was used to create the image of the face. Actually, the body also does not look as it should. The shroud would have been wrapped around the body, showing Jesus' sides in addition to his front and back, and the image of the body would also appear distorted. Instead, we have a perfectly proportionate two-dimensional representation of the front and back of a human body (with the hands strategically placed over the crotch!). For such perfectly proportionate images to appear, Jesus' body would have had to be wrapped in a highly unusual manner, with his body placed perfectly between the folded cloth, like a sandwich. Bodies are not wrapped in such a manner.

The man in the shroud appears to be a representation of the ideal man that was prevalent in Europe in the Middle Ages. This seems to confirm the carbon-dating of the shroud to that time period.

Several investigators have managed to duplicate the Shroud, including its three-dimensional qualities (as seen under ultraviolet light). One method is to apply metallic paint to a cloth covering a body (but using a bas-relief sculpture for the head), and then baking the cloth for a few hours. Another method involves painting an image on glass, then placing the glass over a cloth, and then leaving the glass-covered cloth exposed to the sun for a week (the portions of the cloth that are not covered by the image will lighten, while the portions covered by the image will remain dark). The former method was probably used since paint can actually be seen on portions of the Shroud.

Those are the main facts. A lot has been written about the Shroud over the centuries, so perhaps I don't need to add my two cents. But isn't it time that we put this debate to rest? The Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Glenn Beck

2010-04-10T21:40:00.008-04:00

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ

This quote was used by a guest on the Glenn Beck show of April 10th as an example of a liberal attitude, with Beck seemingly in agreement. The implication, of course, is that Jesus was a liberal. If Jesus were alive today, I believe that he would support the liberal idea that government programs are the best way to alleviate the suffering of the poor. Only the government is in a position to help everyone. Private industry will never do it, and private charity will never be enough.

Mormonism

2010-04-06T22:17:00.004-04:00

Then:

A charismatic prophet
A desperate community
Gold plates; looking in hats
Stolen ideas
Contrived history
Polygamy
Violence

Now:

Secrecy
Conformity
Exclusivity
Conceit
Ambition
Misogyny
Homophobia
Excommunication

No thank you!

A Drug-Addicted Friend

2010-03-24T23:31:00.004-04:00

(I wrote this article a full decade ago for a blog that I never started. I think it's very interesting, so I decided to include it here. I don't know what has happened to this fellow.)

A friend of mine, whom I'll call Geoff, has a drug problem. His behavior in some ways is so irresponsible that it is hard to be sympathetic with him, and I am having difficulty understanding how much of his behavior is due to his addiction and how much is due to his own personality. I spoke to a former alcoholic recently who said that most addicts are very immature, and that is their real problem. On the other hand, Geoff claims to have been sexually abused by his father when he was a boy. Not knowing what that is like, I can't assess the impact it had on him (if it's true).

I met Geoff when I hired him on a job. He is from a middle-class family, and both his parents are still alive. I was fired from that job about four months later (for blowing the whistle on illegal activities at the firm), but Geoff and I remained friends. While we were still working together, Geoff's mother used her credit and money to get him a co-op apartment. She also bought him appliances and furniture. I didn't know then that he had had a drug problem before, and that she was trying to help him develop a stable life. About half a year after I left the firm, I got Geoff a job at a new firm. He was very grateful and told me repeatedly that the new job was perfect for him.

Geoff's life started falling apart soon after he got his co-op. He had been "clean" for a while but started using drugs again, and drinking sometimes. Later I found out that during this period he used cocaine, heroin (once or twice), ecstasy, and GHB (the knock-out, date-rape drug). Astonishingly, he was using GHB as a sleeping pill. We would be "chatting" on America Online and suddenly Geoff would stop responding, and I would learn the next day that he had taken GHB and become unconscious at his desk. (At that time, I didn't know what GHB was and I accepted what he told me about it. Now I know that it can cause brain damage.)

Geoff was convinced that he had a chemical imbalance in his brain and that he needed to take drugs to achieve a balance (that was one of his reasons for taking GHB). In addition to the illegal drugs, he was taking tranquilizers, and he sometimes took large doses of cough syrup to get high.

Geoff was the best operator in his department at work, but even so, things started to fall apart. Although he said he loved the job, he left it for another job, and then begged to be taken back when the other job didn't please him (they took him back). Then his drug use started to increase, and he went on short-term disability for a month (that alone will cause many employers to fire you). When he returned, things continued to go downhill. He often worked unsupervised, and he would take two-hour dinner breaks or leave early (he worked the second shift). He also began to look dishevelled and dopey, and his speech sometimes slurred. They finally fired him when he started to fall asleep at his desk.

On the home front, things were falling apart also. He developed relationships with other drug addicts – some of them dangerous types – and he got in trouble with the other apartment-owners when his friends started doing drugs in the hallways.

I lost touch with Geoff for a while, and later I learned that during that time he had attempted suicide and, on another occasion, overdosed, and that he had been in two drug treatment programs. Since he was no longer occupying his co-op or paying the maintenance, his mother had sold it.

One day, Geoff called me up from New England and said he was leaving his treatment program and coming to New York. Not knowing what I was letting myself in for, I invited him to stay with me. I didn't realize that if I had said no, Geoff would have remained in treatment. I just assumed that he had completed the program and was being discharged.

Geoff turned out to be about the worst roommate that anyone could have. I say "roommate" because, when it became clear that he would be staying for a while, I insisted that he share in the rent (he got the money from his mother). Initially, however, Greg showed up with only a small amount of money, and I had to lend him $100. He smoked non-stop, and the apartment quickly became permanently smoky. (Sometimes he would lean out the window, but the smoke would drift inside, and he would leave butts on the window sill.) Everywhere he went in the apartment, he left trash for me to pick up, and he never did any cleaning. His bed and the area around it became increasingly trash laden. I finally insisted that he clean up the area, in response to which he picked up about half the trash and considered himself done.

Midway through the visit (which lasted about seven weeks) I couldn't stand the smoke any longer and I asked him to go outside to smoke, which he agreed to do. Literally 30 seconds after that conversation was over, he lit up a cigarette in his bed. When I confronted him, he said he had "forgotten" what we had just talked about. It wasn't just the smoking that bothered me, but that he didn't seem to care that it bothered me.

Geoff was depressed much of the time he was here. At 31, he felt that his life was over because he had lost his job and co-op (although he hadn't valued either of them when he had them). I tried to convince him that losing material things was unimportant, and that he could get another co-op and another job. But he clung to his obsession that his life was over because he had lost those things. I gave him a lot of pep talks, but his attitude remained relentlessly negative.

Geoff never gave me back any of the emotional support that I gave him, and that bothered me. When we spoke, he always brought the subject back to himself. His own problems were all that he could think about. If I described one of my own problems to him, his advice would be short and shallow, and soon we'd be talking about him again.

One thing I couldn't shake him out of was the belief that happiness could be found in a bottle, whether a bottle of alcohol or a bottle of pills. I found this particularly disturbing because he hadn't seemed to learn anything from his bad drug experiences. He continued to self-medicate, using over-the-counter drugs in ways they weren't supposed to be used. He would take as many as 20-30 kava root capsules at one time because they gave him a "buzz" (the directions said to take two). He also got hold of a bag of physician's drug samples from one of his drug friends, and that bothered me. In addition, he took large amounts of analgesics.

Geoff was still convinced that he had a chemical imbalance in his brain which he had to treat. I argued that if he went off all drugs, ate nutritiously, and got enough sleep, his body would find its natural stasis, and his depressions might subside. But he never gave that a chance.

Geoff was most depressed at the beginning of our visit, and he slept for hours and hours, which was an annoyance because he was sleeping in the living room – but things did improve for a while. He started going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and they gave him some feeling of community. He was getting out of the house for longer periods of time, and he would come home with positive things to say. He told me that he prayed on occasion, which was encouraging. In addition, he was taking whatever work he could get – work keeps a person from getting too self-absorbed.

But Geoff continued to be a lousy roommate. On three or four occasions he forgot to lock the front door, which is very dangerous in New York City. Once, he got sick on kava root pills and threw up all over the toilet (ON the toilet, not IN it), and left it for me to clean up (that was the only time I yelled at him). On two occasions he didn't pull the shower curtain all the way closed and soaked the bathroom rug. Once, he needed to urinate while I was using the bathroom, so he urinated in a bottle and left it on the kitchen counter for me to discover the next day. (Yes, I sniffed it to find out what it was.)

He would frequently fall asleep at 8 or 9 in the evening. That was particularly annoying because, being a night person, I stay up very late. I hated being confined to my bedroom and tiptoeing around the apartment in the dark. I found out later that he was taking Benedryl early in the evening to put himself to sleep, and that he could have stayed up later if he had wanted to. Even after I complained about how early he was going to sleep, he continued to do that. Naturally, he would wake up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, and then he would complain that he couldn't sleep through the night.

In an attempt to be helpful, he did do the laundry twice. However, the first time he forgot that he was doing it and left the building before it was finished. The clothes came back encrusted with dried detergent, and some of my socks went missing.

I should point out that Geoff is not stupid. He is extremely intelligent and has a mind for trivia. But he doesn't seem to have any presence of mind. Everything he does is done sloppily and carelessly, even to the extent of dropping food on the floor when he eats. Twice I watched him make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He didn't spread the jelly smoothly, and when he held the sandwich to his mouth, jelly fell on the floor. He didn't notice either time that he had dropped jelly. In other words, he didn't have the presence of mind to hold his sandwich closed so the contents didn't drop out. It was like watching a child.

In order to get Geoff out of the house, I had to give him deadlines, which I ended up extending several times. Every time I gave him a deadline, he would fall back into a depression and start sleeping during the day again. He kept saying that he would commit suicide if he had to leave. My advice to him was to go to the YMCA and use that time to find a rooming situation, after which he could save his money to get an apartment. But he didn't want to go to the Y and he didn't want to bother looking for a room.

Instead, he decided to go to San Diego, where he had stayed once before (and taken drugs). His only reason for going there was that he knew of a place to stay. However, on the day he was supposed to leave, I insisted that he call them and find out if he could stay there, and he couldn't; so once again I had to extend his deadline for leaving.

Getting him out was turning into a crisis, so I called his parents. His mother, who had mostly supported him in the previous year, offered to send him $1,000, and that cheered him up. While talking to his parents, I learned that his behavior had been bad everywhere he went, and that he was slowly alienating everyone. He smoked like a chimney everywhere he stayed, and he did stupid things, like flushing a steak down his father's toilet, which caused a flood and required the services of a plumber.

I was with him when he packed his stuff, and like a retarded person, he simply didn't notice all of his possessions lying around the room, and he would have left them if I hadn't pointed them out to him (even so, he ended up leaving things, as well as boxes for me to ship to him). After he left, I discovered about a dozen cigarette burn holes in the sheets on his bed, some of them going through the top layer of the mattress pad – in other words, he could have set the apartment on fire (thank heavens for fire-retardant materials!).

Geoff ended up in a treatment program in California, and then traveled to Florida, where his father lives. During his travels, he did his usual stupid things, losing his money on one occasion and his luggage on another occasion, and then leaving his new luggage containing his new clothes (which his mother had bought him) unattended, so that it was stolen.

In Florida, his father took him in, but he wasn't happy there, and in early July he called me up hinting that he needed a place to stay. I purposely didn't pick up on the hints, so a week later he called again and asked if he could stay with me. I had once promised that I would take him back if things didn't work out, but I decided that I couldn't, and I said no.

Nonetheless, three days later he showed up in New York City (where I live) and called me from Times Square, hinting that he needed a place to stay. I think he was genuinely surprised when I told him to check into the YMCA and then give me a call. (I would have accompanied him to the Y, but I was working that evening.) After getting off the phone, I called his father to make sure that Greg actually had the money to stay at the Y, and his father said that he did.

But Geoff didn't go to the Y. Instead, he got in touch with an old drug friend who promised to take him in. They ended up drinking and drugging that night, and Geoff took cocaine. The drug friend ditched him late in the evening, and Geoff ended up sleeping under an elevated highway. He then checked himself into a psychiatric ward. When he got out of the hospital, he again slept on the street, this time under a truck in the hope that it would run over him. The police found him and checked him into yet another hospital.

I visited Geoff in the psychiatric ward, and I was actually glad to see him (I still like him). I told him that if he would go to the Y and start helping himself, I would be a good friend and help him out as much as I could; but that as long as he was playing this dependency game, I wouldn't help him. He was released from the hospital a couple days later and checked into a rooming house. He then came to visit me, and I typed his résumé, and we went shopping for work clothes (his mother had given him some money). A few days later he visited me again, and he told me that he had gone on two job interviews.

It appeared to me that Geoff was on the road to recovery, but that was not to last. At the end of his first week in the rooming house (which, admittedly, wasn't the nicest place), he called his mother complaining about how unhappy he was. He must have given her quite a sob story, because she suggested that he go back into the hospital. Using his mother's suggestion as an excuse, he checked into a psychiatric ward at Bellevue where, as of today (7/30/00), he still is.

I have spoken to him on the phone and visited him there, and he looks awful. When I ask him why he went back into the hospital, he variously gives his mother's recommendation as an excuse, and then says that he "had no place to go" (although he didn't need to "go" anywhere since he already had a room). He also says that he was worried that he would run out of money, although he did have enough money to get the room for one more week (and there was no reason to believe his mother wouldn't send him more). From where I sit, it looks as if Geoff just couldn't stand to be independent.

I have come to see his mother as being an "enabler". She enables his behavior by leaving the money spigot turned on. I remember how negative my reaction was three years ago when she bought him his co-op apartment and then furnished it for him – what 30'ish man needs that kind of help from his parents? I should be more sympathetic, however. Clearly, she is worried that if she turns the money spigot off, he'll deteriorate and die.

I asked Geoff once what would happen if his mother cut him off entirely (i.e., no more money), and he said, "I wouldn't survive." When I pointed out to him that a 31-year-old single man should not need his mother's help to survive, and that the world is full of 31-year-olds who are supporting not just themselves but their families, he conceded that I had a point.

Geoff's future is looking increasingly grim. The longer he stays in psychiatric wards, the more feeble he becomes (they are not healing places!). When I visited him recently, I noticed that he was trembling. His unstable condition is obvious even to strangers, which is probably why nothing came of the job interviews he went on. It doesn't help that he misses about 20% of his facial hair when he shaves, and that his clothes are not ironed.

But I still feel that he is responsible for his predicament. If he didn't keep sabotaging himself, he might make some progress. His attitude is the real problem: As long as he thinks that he needs his mother to survive, then he won't be able to make it on his own. He is unwilling to take the normal steps that any adult must take to be self-sufficient.

An Introduction to the Seth Material

2010-02-05T20:53:00.020-05:00

In 1963 an author by the name of Jane Roberts, who lived in Elmira, New York, decided to write a book about ESP. As part of the research for the book, she and her husband borrowed a Ouija board and started experimenting with it. The first two or three sessions brought no results, but after that they started to get coherent messages from the board. After a few more sessions, Roberts started to hear the words in her head as they came off the board, and shortly after that she started to speak them involuntarily. That initiated her career as a psychic and trance medium. But who was talking through her? The speaker called himself Seth. He said that he had known Roberts in past lives, that they were related on a spiritual level, and that Roberts had the necessary psychic abilities to speak for him. He said that the truth about man's existence is given to every generation, and that it was his task to give it to the current generation.

Roberts continued to speak for Seth for about twenty years. A pattern of sessions developed in which Roberts went into a trance and spoke for Seth two or three times a week, with the sessions lasting one to three hours. Over those two decades, Seth answered every major question that people have had about their existence. He explained who God is, and even told us something about God's beginnings. He described the Creation (not at all like the Christian version). He explained how the Earth was made, and what our relationship to physical reality is. He talked about every aspect of human existence and psychology, including sexuality.

What makes the Seth material (as the readings are called) so different from other psychically produced material is the sheer quality of it. It is not pompous or pious or vague. Rather, it is consistently intelligent and insightful. Seth never contradicted himself, which was quite an accomplishment given the volume of the readings. The world view that Seth put forth was both original and intriguing. He introduced many concepts into the discussion about religion that had never been considered before. The readings, taken together, constitute their own complete theology.

But perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Seth readings is how consistently wise and insightful they are. As I read the books (about 20 of them), I always learn things about myself and how the human mind works.

The readings couldn't have been faked. Jane Roberts and Robert Butts (Jane's husband who transcribed all the sessions) conducted themselves in a very transparent way, with many witnesses. Roberts' own writings have a very different style and quality from Seth's. The view of the universe that Seth set forth was so unique and detailed that it couldn't possibly have been fabricated. If the ideas in the Seth material had belonged to Roberts herself, she simply would have presented them to the world as her own. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Seth material doesn't get more respect is that it was delivered by a psychic. If Roberts had presented Seth's ideas to the world in the guise of a philosopher, she would have become much more famous and respected than she is.

Here are some of the things that Seth said:

- Our physical universe is just one of a multitude of universes (or "planes of existence") within a much greater universe that we are unaware of. Each universe has its own natural laws (Seth called them "root assumptions"), and only some universes are physical in nature. The number of universes or "planes" is essentially infinite.

- Our natural state is a mental or spiritual one, and we assume different forms in order to live in different environments. Thus, we assumed physical form in order to live on the Earth. The essence of every living thing is its mind, and it is our minds that survive death.

- We reincarnate, but we do not reincarnate endlessly. (The number of incarnations can vary from two to a great many. Seth didn't put a number on it, but in an informal conversation he once indicated that ten or fewer lives is the norm.) After we have learned all that we can learn from this reality, we move on to other planes of existence. Seth made it clear that we choose to reincarnate. Just as a person might commit to four years of college, each of us has made a commitment to reincarnate in a series of lives in order to learn what we can from this world.

- We don't remember our past lives for several reasons (actually, Seth said that children do remember them to some extent, but those memories fade as children get older). First, mankind is in a materialistic phase of his development, which makes such memories unacceptable to our world view. Second, a clear memory of our past lives would not allow us to start fresh in each life. We regain all of our memories when we die.

- Time and Space are "root assumptions" of this universe, and thus are illusory to some extent. In the greater reality, there is no time and no physical space (but there is mental or psychological space). Since there is no time, everything exists simultaneously. Thus, all our lives actually occur at the same time, though they seem to come one after the other.

- Each individual is part of a larger grouping of souls. The greater soul, or what Roberts referred to as the "oversoul", is like a family of souls that functions as one individual. Besides our reincarnational selves, each of us has an inner self from which all the reincarnational selves sprang. Our inner self is an aware individual with its own identity. In a sense, it could be said that the inner self gave birth to us so that it could experience physical reality (which it experiences through us). Having been created, however, we now have independence as individuals.

- God can be likened to a great mind or spirit. God is composed of mental energy, "mental" because the energy itself has consciousness and awareness. The mental energy of God floods the universe and forms all things (including all sentient beings like ourselves). Physical matter is also formed from God's mental energy. Atoms, which are composed of energy particles (neutrons, protons and electrons), are a means by which God's mental energy can be made into objects.

- As God's energy floods the universe, forming all things, it carries God's consciousness with it. Thus, God's consciousness occupies all things, including all individuals. God knows himself as Himself, but also knows himself as each individual and each thing in the universe. (God is not a male, of course; I use such terminology because it is our normal convention.)

- Since God's consciousness occupies all things, it can be said that there is only one individual in the universe -- God -- and that all other individuals and things are part of God. God, then, represents our highest self, and it is through God that we are related to everything else in existence. Since everything in the universe is formed by God's energy, and since God's consciousness occupies all things, God IS the universe, and the universe IS God.

God is actually a gestalt of everything in the universe. A gestalt is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. Everything in the universe, taken together, constitutes the whole, but there is a consciousness which transcends all the parts. Likewise, the soul of an individual is a gestalt of lesser souls.

- Creation is ongoing and has never stopped. It occurs as the universes within God grow and expand, and as new ones come into existence. God does not create everything directly. Rather, the individuals who compose God (or who are contained within God) do most of the creating, but God's consciousness spreads into every newly created thing.

- There was an initial Creation, but it is nothing like the Christian version. In God's formative stages, the universe existed as "dreams" in God's mind. The initial Creation occurred when God learned how to give his dreams actuality and independence. When God realized how to actualize his dreams, the Creation occurred in a flash.

- The independence that we gained during the initial Creation is absolute: God cannot control us or determine our actions. We have true free will. However, God remains the source of our life, since the energy that forms us flows from God. God determines the nature of existence. Conversely, our decisions about how we live our lives affect God. God and his creations are interdependent.

- God knows only himself and knows of no other like himself. Thus, God always looks inward, living through his creations. God has a desire to experience existence in all its possible forms and manifestations, so the multitude of universes that exist within God contain an unimaginable variety of life.

- As I said, God knows of no other like himself. However, the possibility exists that there is a race of Gods, each God knowing only himself. Seth also said, compellingly, that God does not know why there is existence instead of nonexistence. In God's formative stages, he used the same test of his existence that Rene Descartes used: "I think, therefore I am."

- Since we are made of God's mental energy, we have the same essential nature as God, including God's creative powers. However, in this physical existence those powers are masked. By experiencing such things as helplessness, pain, sickness, etc., we are able to learn things that we would otherwise find difficult to learn. We actually retain our creative powers during this life, but they function in a way that is not apparent to us.

- Perhaps the most important message Seth had for human beings is that we create our lives according to our beliefs, thoughts and emotions. "You create your own reality" is a phrase that he often used. We exist in a kind of feedback loop in which our beliefs and attitudes are transformed into reality by our inner selves. If, for example, you are chronically angry at the world and believe that you always get "the short end of the stick", then the events of your life will unfold in a way that seem to confirm that. On the other hand, if you are basically happy and feel that the world is a fair place, you are more likely to experience good things and to find success.

- Despite this "you create your own reality" principle, in each life we have certain challenges or goals that we have set for ourselves, and even a happy person will not be able to escape suffering if suffering is necessary in order to deal with those larger issues. Of course, the greater challenges and goals are not necessarily negative. Sometimes the challenge is to achieve one's greatest potential.

- Prior to the materialistic phase of development that man is in, man had the ability to communicate telepathically, and we could also project our consciousness to distant places. Thus, man did not need language and did not need to travel physically. We also had the ability to project our consciousness into objects, parts of our own body, and into other animals, so that we could experience those things directly. Language became necessary when we lost our telepathic abilities, and it was with the advent of language that we began to record our history. Seth said that mankind will regain some of those spiritual abilities towards the end of this century.

- All portions of God are immortal. Thus, we are immortal. We exist in one environment after another, choosing each environment before we enter it according to our needs and preferences (each of those environments is a portion of God). In our spiritual state, we do not feel exhausted or overwhelmed, so there is never a desire to die. According to Seth, nothing that exists, or has ever existed, will cease to exist. There is no heaven or hell; there is only continued existence. Nor is there a final judgement, beyond the judgements that we make about ourselves.

If you are searching for a religion, and if you can't relate to the unsophisticated, antiquated concepts of the ancient religions (see my post about the Bible below), the Seth material is something you should investigate. The books to start with are The Seth Material, Seth Speaks, and The Nature of Personal Reality, in that order. The first of those books was written by Jane Roberts with generous excerpts from Seth, and the other two books were dictated directly by Seth. Some of Seth's later books are quite dense and hard to read, but those earlier books are very interesting. If you can't find them in your local book store, they are available here: www.sethcenter.com

Jane Roberts died in 1984. Her death was a very unpleasant one (her body froze up with severe arthritis towards the end, and eventually she lost the will to live). Many people (including me!) have questioned why Seth wasn't able to help her. The answer is that Seth and Jane Roberts were separate individuals, and Roberts made her own choices. She had a lot of emotional problems stemming from a strict Catholic upbringing and a manipulative mother. Also, to some extent, Roberts felt put-upon by Seth, and it was important to her to maintain her own identity. She didn't like being the mouthpiece for a "ghost", and as a result she often resisted Seth's attempts to change her. Seth could not force her to deal with her emotional issues.

Because she's been dead for 27 years, some people may consider the Seth material to be out of date. But deep spiritual truths never go out of date. If that were true, Christianity would have been out of date by 60 A.D.

Which Is Safer, Wood or Plastic Cutting Boards?

2010-02-01T03:49:00.005-05:00

The short answer: Wood cutting boards are safer.

The long answer: About twenty years ago there was a rash of news stories telling the public to use plastic cutting boards because they are less prone to bacterial contamination than wood cutting boards. At the time, I was suspicious of the stories, for a couple reasons: First, no scientific evidence was given as to why plastic was safer. Second, I knew that propaganda from various industries is often picked up by news organizations and presented to the public as fact, and there was something about these stories that sounded like they were coming from the plastics industry. But I had no proof either way, so I did what I had always done, which was to do my cutting on a plate.

Years later, however, the University of California did some tests, and they found that wood cutting boards are safer. Here's why: Wood is not a good environment for bacteria to grow on. Wood is absorptive; and as the wood dries (after being used), it sucks the moisture out of the bacteria on the surface, and the bacteria die. That doesn't happen with plastic, since plastic doesn't absorb moisture. As you use a plastic cutting board, you put hundreds of little cuts into the surface. Water and food get into the cuts and remain there, and bacteria breed in those crevices. Since the plastic isn't absorptive, the crevices can remain moist for weeks, and that allows the bacteria to grow. Then, when you use your cutting board again, the bacteria contaminates the new food you put on it.

The scientists did find that if the plastic cutting board was new, and had no cuts in it, it could be cleaned completely by hand. They also found that it could be adequately cleaned in a dishwasher even if it had cuts in it (presumably because the dishwasher heats the dishes while drying them). But once the plastic board had many cuts in the surface, it could never be cleaned adequately by hand. Their exact words were, "plastic surfaces that were knife-scarred were impossible to clean and disinfect manually". This means that if you are using a plastic cutting board, you must wash it in the dishwasher constantly in order to keep it safe. (And you must use the high heat setting.)

The researchers didn't say how long a wood board had to dry before it was free from bacteria, but they said the time was "short" (which suggests that the wood didn't have to be completely dry). They did find bacteria present inside the boards, but in order to get to that bacteria, the wood had to be gouged or cut very deeply. The bacteria inside the boards didn't appear to be multiplying, and the researchers expected it to eventually die out (presumably as the wood got dryer and dryer). Their exact words were, "Although the bacteria that have disappeared from the wood surfaces are found alive inside the wood for some time after application, they evidently do not multiply, and they gradually die."

The researchers tested many kinds of plastic and wood, and the results were the same for all of them.

So what should you do? First, always use a wood cutting board. If you frequently cut up raw meat, wipe the board down with bleach and then let it dry (at least partially). That should be adequate to make it completely safe. Even if you don't use bleach, it should be safe once it is completely dry. If you do a lot of chopping in the kitchen, it can't hurt to have two cutting boards, one for vegetables and one for raw meat.

As for using a plate, that is probably the safest method (in terms of preventing bacterial contamination). However, china is so hard that it will dull your knives, and the knives will eventually damage the plates.

More: At the end of the report that I read, which can be found here, they mention a study which was done in California which confirmed their work. People who used wood cutting boards were less than half as likely to contract salmonella, while people who used plastic cutting boards were twice as likely to contract salmonella. How regularly the plastic cutting boards were cleaned didn't make a difference.

Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God

2009-12-26T16:41:00.007-05:00

I'm not a Christian, but like a lot of people in the United States, I have sometimes felt intimidated by the constant ranting of conservative Christians. The cudgel that the Christians use is the Bible, which they claim is the word of God. Although I have very strong religious views of my own and don't feel the need to refute other religions, I decided it was time to look into the issue of the Bible's sources, and I found out some very interesting things:

1. The Bible was written by dozens, possibly hundreds, of people over a period of centuries. The identity of some of the authors is known, although not much is known about them. If the Bible is the word of God, then all of them must have been divinely inspired.

2. The Bible in its final form was assembled in the third century at the behest of a Roman emperor. Thus, early Christians -- those who lived closest to Jesus' time -- did not have the Bible. Early Christians did have the Torah (the Old Testament) and the gospels, but it is unlikely that they considered the gospels to be divinely inspired. Early Christians would have viewed the gospels as simple biographical documents. The idea that the Bible was the word of God developed after the Bible was assembled into final form. The Torah at that time was considered scripture; and by combining the gospels with the Torah, the gospels became elevated to the status of scripture also.

3. At the time that the Bible was assembled, the likelihood is that the editors of the Bible simply included the books that were the most popular, or which had the widest circulation. Many of the available books, such as the gospels of Thomas and Judas, did not make it into the Bible. Thus, the final form of the Bible was determined by human editors, and their decisions may have been arbitrary. If not arbitrary, then their decisions were certainly influenced by their preferences and prejudices.

4. The four gospels that made it into the Bible were written 60 or more years after Jesus died, and none of the authors ever met Jesus. Thus, all of the information in the gospels is hearsay. At the time that the gospels were written, most of Jesus' contemporaries had died.

5. The gospels that made it into the Bible disagree as to the events of Jesus' life, and they do not use the same language to convey Jesus' words. They also disagree as to the role of Judas. Thus, the Bible contains inconsistencies (many more inconsistencies than the ones just mentioned).

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a Christian. What I am suggesting is simply that Jesus and the Bible are two different things. The Bible is a collection of historical documents, documents which may or may not be accurate. In order to be a Christian, you don't have to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. What makes you a Christian is believing that Jesus was the Messiah (the savior of the Jews) or that Jesus was the son of God. Thus, it should be acceptable for any Christian to take the Bible with a grain of salt, especially those portions which are very negative or prejudicial to various groups (such as women and gays).

One of my childhood friends was a conservative Christian (now a minister), so I have some experience with the Christian mind. In my opinion, people who adhere to the Bible as the word of God are not Christians as much as they are Scripturalists or (my term) Biblists. They inevitably have conservative personalities, so it suits them to take a narrow view. To them, the words of the Bible are more important than finding out who Jesus really was. Christians who are unafraid to think independently are the true Christians (in my opinion). It was, after all, a willingness on the part of early Christians to think independently that made Christianity possible. It takes character to make up your own mind about what to believe. Being a true believer doesn't mean adhering to the narrowest point of view.

To be honest, it strikes me as rather conceited of modern Christians to insist that the Bible is the word of God, especially when early Christians did not believe that. I've always wondered where the hubris of modern Christians comes from. Jesus preached humility, but there is no humility in the you're-damned-if-you-don't-agree-with-me attitude of many preachers.

My own religious views are based on various 20th century sources, mainly the readings of the psychics Jane Roberts and Edgar Cayce. Jane Roberts channeled the entity Seth (you may have heard of the books The Seth Material and Seth Speaks). Seth spoke about Jesus and his era extensively. Seth said that many of Jesus' more controversial teachings were censored because they didn't agree with prevailing cultural prejudices. Those teachings included Jesus' statements on sexuality and reincarnation. Seth also said something very interesting: He said that knowledge was considered a source of power in those ancient cultures. In order to protect their knowledge, authors of the scriptures would sometimes create falsified versions which contained inaccurate information, and some of those falsified documents made their way into the Bible.

Now, I'm not expecting any Christian to look to the Seth Material for answers, but the point is that there is a world of information out there, and no Christian needs to limit himself to the narrow, contradictory and harsh teachings of the Bible.

There are other arguments for why the Bible is not the word of God, but they appeal more to our common sense than to the facts. For example, the Bible is vague and can be interpreted in many ways. Why would God express himself so vaguely? Also, the Bible exists in clear opposition to scientific evidence. Science has established that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs dominated the earth for millions of years. Yet the Bible would have us believe that the earth is only about 4,000 years old. If the earth is only 4,000 years old, when did the dinosaurs live? We know that human beings and dinosaurs never coexisted, yet the Bible would have us believe that humans were on the planet from the beginning.

The most compelling argument against the Bible is that it is the product of an ancient and unsophisticated culture. The god of the Bible is a petty and jealous god, modeled after the tyrants of the day. He is a god who demands fealty and obedience; and when those things aren't given, he throws temper tantrums and exacts harsh revenge. He is, in short, the angry Jehovah of the early Israelites dressed up in Christian garb. According to many conservative Christians, when the day of judgement comes, God will condemn 90% or more of the human race to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him (or in his son) with enough fervor. The Christian god is a god who lacks love, compassion and tolerance. Such a god simply doesn't exist, and it is time for humanity to develop new ideas about who our Creator is. With so much evidence that the Bible is imperfect, there is no longer any reason to feel bound by it.

Why I Won't Be Buying a Snuggie

2009-12-06T03:28:00.004-05:00

I'm sure you've seen them, those ubiquitous ads about the blanket with sleeves called the Snuggie. According to what I've read, millions have been sold, and it has become quite a phenomenon. However, I'm quite sure that 90% of them will end up getting very little use, and will eventually be consigned to the basement or the attic. The Snuggie, in my opinion, is the perfect example of an idea that sounds good but isn't.

The sellers of the Snuggie don't tell you much about it. It's a blanket with sleeves and, apparently, a tailored edge which fits around the neck. Since it is a blanket, I assume it doesn't close around the back -- meaning that it stays open like a hospital gown. From the pictures I have seen, it is apparently very long and could trip you if you walked in it.

So what can you do in a Snuggie? Well, you can sit, and you can hold a book or a TV remote -- and that's about it. But how many people spend long periods of time just sitting? Even TV-watching couch potatoes get up to get drinks and snacks, and to go to the bathroom. And every time they do, they'll have to pull their arms out of the sleeves, and then put their arms back in the sleeves when they return. It seems to me that an ordinary blanket would be more convenient. Personally, I spend a lot of time sitting at my desk working, and the large, floppy sleeves would get in my way immediately. And that's one of my main criticisms of the Snuggie: Large, floppy sleeves on any piece of clothing are incredibly annoying. They get in the way of any task you are performing. Even eating snacks in a Snuggie might be a problem: I can envision those floppy sleeves knocking over a glass or a bowl as you reach for your food. The sleeves on the Snuggie aren't tailored to anyone's individual size; they are one-size-fits-all. So whenever you do a task which involves holding your arms down instead of up, the sleeves will probably fall over your hands. Unless you have long arms, you'll have to hold the Snuggie's sleeves out of the way just to pick up a potato chip! So there really isn't much you can do with a Snuggie draped around you. You can't do any complicated tasks, and you can't walk, and you can't move around freely because the Snuggie might fall off (since it is open in the back). It seems to me that a sweatshirt or pajamas would be a better choice to stay warm.

Sweatshirts and pajamas are usually made of cotton, a natural material, and they don't harm the environment -- unlike the Snuggie, which is made of a synthetic material (i.e, some type of woven plastic). And this is what really bothers me: People don't think before they buy. Every year people buy millions of useful-sounding products which turn out to be useless, and most of them are made of plastic which takes THOUSANDS OF YEARS to biodegrade. If people would just stop and think before they buy, the environment would not be so endangered.

Avandia: Be Cautious of New Drugs

2009-11-29T13:27:00.003-05:00

In 2006 I was prescribed Avandia for my nascent diabetes. Avandia was a fairly new drug at that time, and my well-informed doctor felt that it was a promising treatment. I started taking Avandia on March 9th. Around March 16th or 17th I started hearing hissing in my ears (i.e., tinnitus). I also occasionally heard a chirping noise. My mother had had tinnitus for years and had described to me the horrors of it on more than one occasion. However, I assumed that the tinnitus I was having was a temporary side-effect of the drug, so I continued taking it. (I should add that, interestingly enough, I wasn't seeing a significant reduction in my blood sugar numbers while taking the Avandia.) By March 19th to 20th, I was definitely hearing the tinnitus quite a bit. Then, on March 25th, it occurred to me that the tinnitus might NOT be a temporary side-effect, and I stopped taking it immediately. Well, the tinnitus didn't go away. It has persisted at the same high level for the last 3-1/2 years, and I am certain that it is now permanent.

My opinion is that the Avandia gave me the tinnitus. Glaxo-SmithKline, the manufacturer, would undoubtedly say that this was simply a coincidence; but I have not been able to identify any other factor or change in my life that would have brought on tinnitus within ten days. One of the reasons I believe that Avandia caused the tinnitus was that my doctor had given me some free samples of Avandia the year before. I had taken the free samples for just three days. After that time, I noticed that I had a very slight hissing in my ears which I could hear only when it was very quiet, but which hadn't been there before. At that time, however, I didn't make the connection between the new hissing and the Avandia samples. But the hissing that I have in my ears now, since taking Avandia for that 17-day period, is anything but slight. There have been times when I have heard it over some very loud sounds, including jets flying over my apartment building. Almost every day I am bothered by it. At times it is maddening, like what I imagine the Chinese water torture would be like. I haven't, as some people said I would, gotten used to it and stopped noticing it. Fortunately, it isn't always very loud. It is loudest when I have been eating milk products.

Since 2006 Avandia has been implicated in increasing the risk of stroke and heart attack, and I believe that most doctors have stopped prescribing it. I should say also that I am the only person that I know who has -- again, in my opinion -- gotten tinnitus from Avandia, so it is obviously not a common reaction. Nonetheless, this episode is a good example of why it may be unwise to take a new drug. Three years later, another doctor prescribed Metformin for me, a drug which has been around for years and is thoroughly "vetted" (for lack of a better word). Although Metformin initially caused me some severe intestinal problems (which subsided), it immediately caused a 50-point drop in my blood sugar readings, and it has caused me no other problems.

So my advice to my readers is: (1) Avoid Avandia, and (2) stick to tried-and-true treatments, and don't demand the latest drugs from your doctor.

Review of Frigidaire's FMP33ORGSO 18" Dishwasher

2009-11-25T14:18:00.007-05:00

Important: Since writing this stellar review, I have had lots of problems with the dishwasher. After about 4 months, the dishes started to come out smelling like bad breath. Around the same time, the dishes on the top shelf stopped getting completely clean, and I had to start spacing them more widely. Eventually, the dishes on the bottom shelf stopped getting clean. I used a product called Dishwasher Magic, which got rid of the smell. I then called the service people and was told to do a wash with vinegar (see two paragraphs down). I did the wash with vinegar, and the next load of dishes came out clean. However, the smell returned (although it wasn't very strong). It seems that in order to keep this dishwasher working, I must use Dishwasher Magic ($4.50) and Vinegar (about $1) every couple months.

One other problem has cropped up with this dishwasher since I got it, and that is that the detergent doesn't always empty out from the dispenser. I sometimes find caked detergent in there (which means to me that the dishes are not getting thoroughly rinsed). I switched to liquid detergent, but surprisingly I am finding streaks of detergent on the dishes nearest to the dispenser. The dispenser may not be working properly.

To use the vinegar, do a wash with no dishes and no detergent (but use hot water). When the wash cycle starts (i.e., after the washer fills with water and starts to slosh the water around), slowly open the door, throw in 2 cups of vinegar, and close the door. I did that twice; we'll see how it works.

Even though I live alone, I dirty a lot of dishes. I work at home, so I eat all my meals here. I tend to snack a lot. Also, I have two cats, and I occasionally feed the strays, and I always use clean dishes. For all my adult life -- 40 years -- I have washed my dishes by hand. But once I started a home business, the amount of time I had to wash dishes diminished. Every time I had a little energy for cleaning, there were always dishes sitting in the sink. So I washed a lot of dishes but neglected other parts of the house. Finally I decided enough was enough, and I got a dishwasher from Sears. Here is my review of the Frigidaire FMP33ORGSO 18" dishwasher.

First, Frigidaire's 800 number is a ruse. Callers are referred to their web site or given a toll number to call if they need to speak to a person. Very deceptive!

The washer is small and holds only 30-40 dishes, not including utensils. The tines are very close together, and it is difficult to fit thick items in. Medium-size bowls have to go in the top rack with the glasses. The bottom rack is designed almost entirely for plates, but I don't dirty enough plates to fill it up. Large bowls don't really fit at all. Well, it is possible to fit large items in if they are positioned sideways, but you can't fit in many items that way. Really large bowls, like mixing bowls, should be hand-washed. There is no room for pots and pans, unless they are small and inserted sideways. Of course, people who buy this compact washer won't be expecting it to have a lot of interior space. I would say that this washer is good for one or two people. If your family is three or more, you should get a full-size washer.

The hoses are long enough to connect to a sink, but not long enough to operate the washer away from the counter. It would have been nice if they had made the hoses really long so you could keep the washer a few feet away and never have to move it. Fortunately, you can unscrew the hoses and insert extension hoses, in which case you'll need to buy two hoses and, probably, two adapters from your hardware store. The hoses that you get from the hardware store will have metal screw nuts on them (or whatever they are called), so you have to be careful not to strip the plastic nuts that come with the washer.

The device which attaches to the faucet is all plastic, which means that is may be less durable than if it were metal. Fortunately, if the device fails, you can replace it since the hoses can be unscrewed.

As is the case with all portable washers, when you are doing a wash, you won't be able to use your faucet (unless you have a spray nozzle). When you remove the hose, you'll want to stick it in a pot immediately because it will leak water all over your floor.

The top of the washer is nice and solid, so you can use it as a counter top. You can't use it as a butcher block, though.

The cycle time is about 2:15 (if you always use the heavy dirt cycle, which I do) -- that's a long time, but then, all modern washers seem to take a long time. You can start the washer and then go to bed, but I don't recommend it. Leaving the water pressure in the hoses all night could cause them to fail. I think it would be safer to do the dishes a couple hours before bed so you can turn off the water before you retire.

The washer does a good job of cleaning. About half the time, all the dishes are completely clean, which is very good performance indeed. I have cats, so I put a lot of dishes in the washer that have dried meat on them, and the machine usually removes the meat entirely. There have been several occasions when one or two dishes came out with some meat particles on them, and there have been a couple occasions when four or five dishes had meat particles on them; but I am satisfied with that performance. (When there are dishes that aren't clean, they are almost always on the top rack.) I frequently heat hot dogs and pre-cooked bacon in the microwave, so I often put dishes in the washer that have a lot of grease on them. The washer always removes the grease entirely.

I am finding next to nothing in the filter, and I think this is one of those washers that grinds up the food particles and flushes them down the drain.

The dry cycle, which gets the dishes about 80% dry, makes the dishes so hot that you can't handle them for a while afterward. Plastic items which might melt can't be washed. I tried washing a plastic peanut butter jar. The washer got the peanut butter out (very impressive!) and removed the label (even more impressive!), but it partially melted the jar.

Supposedly, dishwashers use less resources (water, energy) than hand-washing does. Certainly I am using less water than I used to, and that means less natural gas since that's what I heat my water with. However, the washer uses electricity, which hand-washing doesn't. Heating elements in the bottom of the washer are used during the drying cycle, and they undoubtedly use a lot of electricity. During the winter that's not a bad thing because my apartment needs the heat, but that's not the case during the summer. There is a button on the front of the washer which, it appears, turns off the drying cycle. If that's the case, I assume the user must open the washer at the end and let the dishes dry in the air. I'll try that when the summer comes.

I'm not sorry that I got this washer. Most of the inconveniences associated with it are due to it's limited internal capacity and the fact that it has to be wheeled to the sink (but then, I knew those things before I bought it). The only serious design flaw, in my opinion, is the layout of tines. However, the inconveniences pale next to the inconvenience of washing 30-40 dishes and utensils by hand every day. This washer has made my life much easier.

How to Get Rid of Windows 7's Preview Windows

2009-11-21T12:15:00.005-05:00

I never used Windows XP, which I now understand was the best Windows version. I went straight from Windows 2000 to Windows Vista, which was a nightmare. Windows 7 is faster than Vista, I have found. However, I hate the changes that have been made to the taskbar, and I despise the preview windows (which don't actually provide a preview because I run Windows in the Classic mode).

I immediately started searching for a way to disable the preview windows. On the internet I found various registry tricks, none of which worked. The one that worked the best was a setting that delayed the opening of the preview windows for about ten minutes (thereby effectively eliminating them). But that trick worked only about 95% of the time. Finally I found a utility program written by someone name Ram Michael. It not only eliminates the preview windows entirely, it allows you to ungroup grouped windows, and to restore various features from previous versions of Windows.

Here is the URL:
http://www.rammichael.com/
The program you want is 7 Taskbar Tweaker. It is available for both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7. Note that it comes in the zip format .RAR, so you'll need a utility to unzip it. You can find a free utility here:
http://www.7-zip.org/
My thanks to Ram Michael for writing this excellent program. If he would set up a method to accept donations, I would definitely make one.

Hello

2009-11-21T11:38:00.000-05:00

I'm one of those people who has a lot of things to say, and I decided it was time to put those things in a blog. I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, so you can expect to see a lot of griping in this blog. I am a 60ish man who lives in Rhode Island.

Caleb Murdock

What's Wrong with Mitt Romney

Unilever, Get with the Program

Instructions for Taking Insulin for Type-2 Diabetics

From the Seth Material: The Evolution of Personality

Seth and Science

The Entaglement of Particles

The Uncensored Seth Material Article from Wikipedia

What Is Evil? Losing Faith in the Face of Tragedy

Recommended Article on Christianity and Homosexuality

Is There a Balance Between Good and Evil in the World?

Understanding Fleas, and Dealing with a Flea Infestatation

Type 2 Diabetes, the Basics

Is Abortion Murder?

A Sad Loss for Warren

Not Using Good Sense

Fifty-Eight Beads

The Shroud of Turin

Glenn Beck

Mormonism

A Drug-Addicted Friend

An Introduction to the Seth Material

Which Is Safer, Wood or Plastic Cutting Boards?

Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God

Why I Won't Be Buying a Snuggie

Avandia: Be Cautious of New Drugs

Review of Frigidaire's FMP33ORGSO 18" Dishwasher

How to Get Rid of Windows 7's Preview Windows

Hello