How to be a Critical Consumer of News Media (specifically "new studies" during the pandemic)

I am hoping this post can help slow the spread of misinformation, by bringing to light the nature of sensationalism in online news media, while touching on what to look for to draw your own conclusions from the many studies coming out in relation to COVID-19. 

News headlines from most non-educational sources aim to be catchy, leaning sometimes heavily on shock value and current trends or concerns. The intent is not always to mislead, but to grab your attention so that you will go to the website with the article on it. The title is not always reflective of what is written in the article. Read the article and be mindful of the parameters of different studies.

Example- I clicked on an article from AOL about some scientists connecting lack of vitamin D in patients with severe coronavirus-related complications and mortality.

The title was , "New study suggests vitamin D is linked to COVID-19 mortality- how a common vitamin could become pivotal". Say you click on it, because aren't we all hoping and praying for breakthroughs in fighting or slowing down the virus?

Note that the image is from an advertisement- but it's the first thing you see when
you click, so it looks like a guy who is pumped about taking some vitamin D!

The study is a retrospective study- as in, it is studying something that already happened, and we can only study if the thing correlated, not caused, another thing. Correlation is when two things happen at the same time. An example often used by college professors in introductory psychology courses- in childhood, as shoe size goes up, so does age. Are big feet the cause of aging? Most people laugh at that. Of course the two things are just happening at the same time. If that were true, human beings would reach a point in which we would be immortal or close to it! But the same can be said of vitamin D pills and COVID-19 mortality rates. The article points out a trend, but not a cause. Two co-existing conditions- vitamin D levels and coronavirus severity.
Unless you are directly administering different test conditions to different groups of people in a controlled environment (in this case- taking at least two large groups of test subjects, purposefully administering vitamin D to one group and not to another, in a controlled environment), you cannot say one causes another, or even begin to draw anything but a spark of hope from the study.

Even when you do have a study when there is a strong link between two things, you must be careful to draw conclusions right away. Especially in the early stages of research. This is why we draw conclusions after months of repetitive study or years of studying something, not after one study. This is why I shouldn't walk away from reading the title of the article and thinking to myself, "I should stockpile on vitamin D, because it will lessen my symptoms if I catch the virus".
So... When is enough enough? When can I trust the results of a study? Right now, as a country, we are desperate for good news. Science knows that one study gives us an idea of what direction we can possibly go in for more research, while multiple peer-reviewed studies can show real promise. A common example- in some sleep studies, the test subjects sleep in a research setting, so that all of them are facing the same exact conditions in that place. Note- you must control for the possible side-effects of the new environment. Eventually, you replicate your findings in the real world, where there is less control. Example- lung cancer is highly correlated with smoking. It is one of the strongest correlations that exists in medical science, and has remained one of the strongest year after year. Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that smoking increases risk of lung cancer). Does all of this mean I'm supposed to be paranoid about drawing conclusions from any research study?
Just the ones that don't hit the right checkpoints. We can still draw conclusions from science, but science is not the result of a single research effort, but months to years of careful study and replication. Think of a research study like a doctor.
Do you trust your doctor before they've studied for their exams to test their knowledge? Before they've gone through medical school? When they've only practiced surgery and diagnosis on a mannequin? Before they've done their real-world training? We want well-seasoned professional workers. In the same way, we should always desire a well-seasoned research base.
This is barely scraping the surface of what to look out for when a "new study" suggests something. We like new studies and new conclusions because they can give us hope- that there is no such thing as "too much" caffeine, that some foods high in fat are better for us than other foods high in fat or, say, that there is a panacea for the poison that is this coronavirus. When you have a personal stake in the end results, be wary- wishful thinking has its place in mindless chit-chat, but not in trustworthy scientific study. Curiosity, creative problem solving and painstakingly replicating what little research we have on this virus will pay off, in time.

A really "promising" study...

1.) Has results that are replicated by more than one group of scientists Replication assures us that the results are not random and can be trusted. Plus, scientists learn from other studies and adjust their methodology as needed, to create more extensive and trustworthy studies.

2.) Who are of limited personal consequence and gain nothing from the test results. When someone has something to gain from the results of a study, we call it bias.

Example- be wary of a study finding promising results on a specific medication, when the researchers work for big pharma or the producer's company, and no other researchers are finding the same result as they are). They have something to gain from looking good. But if other studies by independent researchers replicate the same results, the results can be promising.

3.) Has control conditions (at least one group being subjected to something and another group to compare the first group to that receives none of that thing). All of this takes place in a controlled environment (neutral environment)- you want your test subjects to be subjected to as much of the same experience as humanly possible, so that no individual variance that you didn't catch can account for your conclusion.

4.) Finds the same promising result over a period of time Months or years of studying the same subject only increases the trustworthiness of the results. Right now, we do not have the benefit of many months, or even one year, of data pertaining to the coronavirus. The best example of how the passage of time helps solidify scientific findings as trustworthy- the correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. There is, perhaps, no stronger link in medical scienc than that of smoking and lung cancer rates. Because nothing about this correlation is changing over time, and study after controlled study shows the same results, we can confidently say that smoking is a cause of lung cancer.

Be mindful of how you consume news media- especially exciting or newsbreaking studies. Hope for the best, but have a healthy sense of skepticism if a new study tells you what you want to hear.

Embracing Leviticus

Genesis was easy in comparison. It raised interesting discussion among our little group, none of which was particularly polarizing. We came to a consensus that people have been messing up since the fall, and that God has always wanted the best for us despite our screw-ups. Exodus, as an account of the Jews leaving Egypt, was an interesting story with colorful characters.

When we entered the book of Leviticus in our Bible study, I wasn't happy about it. Rather, I was nervous and desperate to get back to the story-telling parts. In my point of view, we had nothing to learn from old barbaric animal sacrifices and countless rules about the silliest things. I've only seen Leviticus being quoted to bring about harm, particularly towards the LGBTQ community.

I've since found value in Leviticus. The rules given to Moses and his chosen people kept them safe at the time, and set them apart from neighboring nations. Keeping a clean diet may have kept away food-borne illnesses. Quarantine of the sick served the same purpose of bodily protection. In barbaric, uncivilized times, their practices were not the best, but certainly not the worst.

Then, Leviticus 18:22 came along. 

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Guess I was getting too comfortable! Reflection on how to get past this passage brought me back to the basic tenants argued in "Misquoting Jesus":

1.) The Bible has been translated and re-translated many times over.
2.) Those who have translated the Bible stories come with their own cultural influence and biases, often forgetting about the culture and context the stories took place in.
3.) Pay attention to if a passage fits in context, to see if people are misquoting it.

The Land of Canaan:

Much of this chapter deals with detestable sexual activity. Most of it, you will find, talks about incestuous relationships. 12 verses. Then comes a healthy reminder not to have sex with your boss's wife, a woman on her period or animals. It even specifies that a man shouldn't have sex with an animal, nor should a woman. All of this makes perfect sense to me, as these acts remain detestable today. In the midst of those passages is verse 22.

The land of Canaan, the land promised to the people of Moses by God, was known for its violence, and for mistreating of vulnerable populations (1). It was also known for ritualistic sexual acts for the sake of appeasing a fertility goddess. We think of much of the Bible as talking about moral laws, but so much more of Leviticus talks about ritualistic laws (2), in order to keep people from repeating the acts of the Canaanites and following their ritual practices.

Elsewhere in Leviticus you see God dedicate some time to remind God's people that "You were once strangers in a foreign land" and to "treat the alien as your own", possibly to counter the incoming cultural shock in the land of Canaan as well.

Let's keep the cultural context in these verses instead of pulling them out of their time period.

Lost in Translation:

You will find that, according to what Bible you read, the word "homosexual" is inserted into the verse. There was no such word in the Hebrew language. Writing "homosexual" anywhere into the Bible is inserting our current cultural biases into a Bible verse. This passage is strictly referring to male-male sexual behavior, which is not by itself synonymous for "homosexuality".  Let's explore how else the verse might have been mistranslated.

The word "abomination" feels like a slap in the face, but the Hebrew written into this passage is the word for "ritually unclean", rather than the word for morally detestable. For the curious, the word "bdelygma" meant ritual impurity, while the word "zimah" referred to moral impurity. We see both words used elsewhere in the Bible. These are not words of uncertain meaning.

Patriarchal Assumptions:

Going back to the culture of the Hebrews, they had a patriarchal society in which men were highest in the caste system, and women were lower on the totem poll. For a man to "be made like a woman" or to have sex in the same way women have sex with men was seen as socially degrading for the men, as one man would be seen as taking a "passive" sexual role in male-male relations.

Conclusion:

The translations we read today of Leviticus 18:22 are not scripturally or historically sound. We read the Bible from our modern day perspective, and some of us so are used to homophobia in our church communities, we have never questioned the very few passages people use to fuel homophobic Biblical arguments. For a more in dept discussion, I highly recommend delving in the resources I've used below. 
I am no longer scared of talking about Leviticus because of this one, seemingly strong-worded verse.


1.) https://thebibleproject.com/blog/judgement-cruelty-conquering-promised-land/
2.) https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf
3.) http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Mental Illness as a Cause of Mass Shootings

This week I have been outraged over the "mental illness causes mass shootings" thing. I am a student of psychology, and everything I've been taught screams in opposition. Let me bring up a few important facts about mental illness you might not have known, that might help you decide for yourself instead of taking a Big Gulp full of misinformation in fear, looking for any answer that makes sense more than my final statement does. We do need mental health reform, but NOT because we need to "help" these mass shooters before they do what they do.

The Frequency of Mental Illness

About 1 in 5 adults will experience a serious, debilitating mental disorder per year in America (NIMH, citation 1). Nearly half of adults will experience some diagnosed mental health condition throughout their lifetime (Rubina Kapil, 2019). A mental disorder is (grossly simplified) when a few or more areas of a person's life (take job and social life, for example) are inhibited by a group of symptoms. We categorize these symptoms to better treat their ill effects. Take depression, for example- major depressive disorder. This "disorder" may include the symptoms of blue mood, lack of energy or drive, over or under eating, sleep disturbances, feeling less pleasure from previously loved activities, feelings of worthlessness or helplessness. We will all experience some of these throughout our lives, but a mental disorder is marked when functioning is impaired over a period of time. Is it this simple to categorize mental disorders? No. Here's a real life diagnosis: Adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. We take symptoms and their severity, and we categorize as best we can, given self-reports and observable symptoms.

Are More People Mentally Ill Nowadays?

Mental disorders have always been around, we just didn't have a name for them- because mental disorders are just what we call a cluster of symptoms. They are how we predict treatment and problems that may come up, by common symptoms and common salves. Allergies have also existed since the dawn of time, but people died from them more often and we didn't have names for them. Because mental illnesses are behaviorally observable, but not overtly physical, people were once cast aside as "crazy" and locked away for not conforming to normal behavioral standards of each time period. This is also to blame for why we think that mental illness is more rampant today. Those diagnosed have always been our neighbors, family and friends, but people were once hidden away for lack of an understanding of what to do to help them or stabilize them.

In early institutions, people were abused and mistreated- they still are in countries that have old-school mental health institutions. People were treated as subhuman. We had no medications to help people, we didn't have the advanced therapeutic approaches we have today. Maybe I could understand my nervous cousin who avoids people, but Suzy next door who talks to the walls and is put in a mental asylum. Now this doesn't mean if a person is a danger to themselves or others that there are no options to keep them and others safe. Most treatment is voluntary, but you can seek to get help for those who are not in a good state of mind, if there is evidence of such. This is more easily done in children, and I see it in my line of work. Short hospital stays to stabilize, then release back into the public is ideal. This approach lets people build a life instead of taking months or years unnecessarily away from them.

Who is Diagnosed More Often?

Isn't it true that young men, especially, would be the most reluctant to get help, therefore more vulnerable to suffering alone and turning into a mass murderer? No, but I'm glad that you brought that up. It is true that men IN GENERAL can feel a stigma when it comes to mental illness, because a mental disorder is not seen as a real illness, to many men and women. For men, a mental disorder's symptoms go against every, "Suck it up, be a man" quip they've internalized over a lifetime, from boyhood to adulthood. This is a problem, because someone who is struggling might be deterred from getting help (societal pressure does that sometimes- think rape victims).

Let's look at the groups that are worse off than white young men. African Americans and Hispanics use mental health services at about ONE HALF the rate, and Asian Americans at about ONE THIRD the rate, as white Americans use them (SAMHSA). Someone who is racist might say that this explains why "colored folk" commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population. This is another societal misconception- and look how most of the mass shooters have been white men.

A Consideration of Perpetrators vs Victims

Are people more likely to be perpetrators of crime when they have a mental illness? This misconception comes from the idea that you must have a "screw loose" to do something outside of, or break, societal rules or norms.

People diagnosed with mental illness are actually more likely to be VICTIMS of violent crime (Canadian Mental Health Association, Durham).

The majority of violent crimes are actually committed by someone with NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY.

Could some of them have a mental disorder? Sure, just as often as the rest of the population (1 in 5, perhaps) but if we assume that people must be "crazy" to commit a crime, we forget that crimes take planning, skill, concentration, intelligence, sometimes wit and charm. Think of the Mafia. Think about serial killers and rapists who didn't get caught for years and years.

A More Careful Look at Suicide

Furthermore, people with a mental illness are more likely to hurt themselves than others. 90% of people who die by suicide have shown observable mental health symptoms (Isometsa, E.T., 2001).

"But hey, didn't some of the shooters recently die by suicide?" A suicide because of mental illness is FAR DIFFERENT than a suicide to be a martyr or make a statement. Think suicide bombers in the Middle East. You want to tell me they're all mentally ill? Do we suddenly have sympathy for them?

The majority of mass shooters are described by friends and family after the incident. A "he didn't look right the past few months. Seemed distant. Snapped at me." A killer can be in a bad mood. A killer can struggle with what he or she is about to do. But let's not post-death diagnose like we're doing a mental health autopsy, and lets NEVER use mental illness as an excuse or explanation of violent crime, when it is simply sometimes a co-occurrence.

In Conclusion

What have we learned? Mental illness is COMMON. It is nothing to be afraid of- most people with mental illness are victims rather than perpetrators of violence or crime. It affects people of both sexes and all races, and minorities are less likely than the general population to get help for it.

So please, stop making excuses for monsters- we don't want to believe a sane person could get sucked into a violent spell and do something so vile, so awful. It's scary to believe that people can CHOOSE to take out aggression and do bad things, and they're still sane. Don't explain it away with mental illness as a straw man. It only further stigmatizes people with mental health struggles, and keeps people from coming forward, to family and friends, doctors and mental health professionals. Note: Citations for numbers and figures below. 1. National Institute of Mental Health. (2019). Mental Illness. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml#part_154785

2. Kapil, R. (2019, February 06). 5 Surprising Mental Health Statistics. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/2019/02/5-surprising-mental-health-statistics/

3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Racial/Ethnic Differences in Mental Health Service Use among Adults. HHS Publication No. SMA-15-4906. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015. Retrieved July 2017, from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/MHServicesUseAmongAdults 4. The Myth of Violence and Mental Illness. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2019, from https://cmhadurham.ca/finding-help/the-myth-of-violence-and-mental-illness/ 5. Isometsä, E. T. (2001, November). Psychological autopsy studies--a review. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11728849

"If God seems far away, who moved?"

After a car accident (or in my case, a tire popping on the highway), your perception on the road changes. You might be more cautious, eyes wide open, swerving to avoid the smallest New England  Pothole or fissure. You might feel extra awake- thankful, blessed, alive. Something shifts in a moment's notice, and suddenly the air is thicker/thinner, life is more precious and the world is different, if only for a little while before the adrenaline wears off.

I think when people say the following phrase, they mean well:

"If God seems far away, WHO MOVED?". It is realistic to human nature and gracious to God, and a little snarky. I believe in an omnipresent God, and can see that people feel a noticeable difference when they've "moved" away from God and are wrapped up in themselves. I offer an alternative explanation though, one that is gentler on us and accounts for  the importance of our mental wellness.

God is always present, everywhere- in the air, the grass and the waters. God is in you and I- we are made in the image of God. You can't escape God, so it is impossible for either God or yourself to move.

Think of a time in your life when you felt godless- negativity creeps in, you may have felt alone and scared, or jaded and numb. Did anything really change about the world, or was the change inside of you? Did you see things through a different lens, a darker and less hopeful one? The way that the world works hasn't changed. If God feels far away, only your perception of your place in the world and your connection to its spiritual side has changed.

I once went to a beautiful garden with my husband. In the garden were metal statues- a man had made many whimsical statues to represent the personalities of his three (now adult) daughters. The garden was set back from the road, and our journey around the garden was quiet. I felt in tune with the spiritual elements of the world. I was sharing in the powerful presence of this man's love for his daughters. In that place, I saw and felt God.

Was God any more in this place than in my home or my place of work? Certainly not- but my perception had shifted because of my peaceful surroundings. It is easy to feel God when you are surrounded by such a proud display of love, not as much when the world is busy and every little thing is calling out for your attention or concern.

Where are, or were, you able to feel God the most? How can we bring about more of those experiences?

A Biblical argument on the ethical treatment of animals: Consider the Lamb

For those of us who see God as a merciful and loving God, it might be unsettling to see how little mercy is given to animals throughout history, and how unethical treatment of animals has been twisted and distorted as man's true "dominion" over Creation. Consider the lamb- I present a Biblical argument for the merciful, respectful and loving treatment of animals.

How were animals treated in the Biblical times?

Mainly animals were used in Biblical allusion, imagery or parables. Sometimes there was commentary on the nature of animals. What stood out to me is that there are entire chapters in the Bible (Leviticus 1-7) on proper ritualistic sacrifice of animals to repent for sin. There is nothing speckled in about merciful death, nor ethical treatment of these animals. They were used as a blood sacrifice to God, at a primitive time in our existence. In modern times, such sacrifices would seem cult-like and scary. You sin against your neighbor, so you have to wring the neck of two pigeons and let their blood drip onto an altar (yikes!).  Under the New Covenant in Christ, many Christians believe these sacrifices became obsolete, in that Christ sacrificed Himself as the final "lamb" for our atonement. It is my own personal opinion that a more primitive humanity lumped God together with all of the angry, bloodthirsty gods of the time, and that Jesus preached an alternative view of God. What cannot be denied is that people in Biblical times valued the life of all living things, even if to modern eyes, this seems like a funny way of showing it!

I don't think we were meant to get to this point, offering blood sacrifices to appease an angry God. In the first Creation story, God made animals first and "saw that it was good". Then God made humanity to care for Creation. Don't tell your cats, they already act like the cream of the crop.

God "blessed" the animals and commanded them to "be fruitful and multiple". Both the people and the animals were given fruit and vegetation to eat (Genesis 1:29-30). Though human beings were made in the image of heavenly beings, they ate the same as their animal companions. This is the original harmony of the Garden of Eden- how God envisioned humanity spending its days, until they made another choice.

After the fall of humanity, we used animals for food, and we began to domesticate them to aid us with our labors (as our burden was now to work for our food). God did set some limits- Mosaic law forbids the overworking of farm animals (which is a grave ethical issue today, especially for farm animals). The Law also commanded people to help even an enemy who has an animal carrying a burden that is too heavy (Exodus 23:4-5)- whether this is for practicality (an animal with a broken back can't carry anything) is unknown.

(4)

Is it also for practicality or ethical treatment that on the "seventh day" work animals are also commanded to rest, as part of the laws given to Moses by God? Is it for practicality or proper treatment that they were told not to pair a weaker animal with a stronger animal, so that the weaker doesn't bear too heavy a burden (Deuteronomy 22:10)(2)?

It is practical to treat animals fairly, that much I am sure of. It is practical to let animals rest from their work. And if there is a practical purpose to something, it may just be that God intended it that way, for the animal's sake. I am a big believer that there are no mistakes to God's design, only ways in which we distort our original harmony with them.

An Argument For Better Treatment- The story that stands out

There is a parable of a man in the second book of Samuel, told to David by Nathan. It goes like this- A poor man had a lamb. He loved it and treated "like a daughter", even letting the lamb eat and sleep with him. The animal grew up with his children.

(3)

The man was grieved and vengeful when a traveler slaughtered his lamb. David, when told this story, said the man "had no pity" and would pay "four times over" for what he had done. Then Nathan tells David that David is like the traveler who killed the lamb, and David, seeing the connection, says that he has "sinned against the Lord". Was the sin grave in the parable because the man loved and cared for the lamb, or because the lamb was simply beloved property, and all the poor man had? Irregardless, this is one of the first allusions to those in Old Testament Times owning a beloved pet, and you can all but feel the man's anguish. There is a Proverb that says, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast,  but the mercy of the wicked are cruel" (12:10)(2). The man certainly cared greatly for his lamb, and we cannot deny the actions of the traveler were cruel, to both lamb and owner.

Though the story from II Samuel is the most powerful story I can find in defense of a Biblical consideration of treating animals well, I see merciful treatment and reflections on the importance of the lives of animals throughout the Bible. Psalm 145 boasts of God's steadfast love for "every living thing", and Jesus says God does not forget but one sparrow in all of Creation (Matthew 10:29). Can you see the image of God in your neighbor putting up their birdhouse to feed the birds (Matthew 6:26)? How about helping a turtle across the road or helping an animal out of a body of water, or in Jesus' example, a well (Luke 14:5)?

Our "dominion" over Creation is not a place of power, but of great responsibility. It is humbling and satisfying to support Creation in a sustainable, kind and just manner. The mercy, love, kindness and humility preached as positive qualities throughout the Bible are visibly exemplified in how we see one another treat animals.


1.) https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/dogs-in-the-bible/

2.) https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/replenish-booklet-in-color.pdf

3.) https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=13533&picture=baby-lamb

4.) https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=273172&picture=three-donkeys-pulling-a-donkey-cart

What do flags stand for?

Human beings have used symbols as a physical manifestation of ideas since the dawn of man, whether in drawing, story or invention. A symbol is an "outward sign" of something else. The empty cross, in Christianity, stands for the triumph of life over death. A ribbon stands for awareness of some cause- breast cancer, autism, AIDs. We use symbols to show off what we stand for and what we're proud of.

We use symbols to remember- what was going on at the time this symbol was conceived? How has it been used, what comes to mind when someone sees it, not simply just when I see it? In particular, flags (FUN WITH FLAGS TIME!) have been used as a signal or declaration. Flags have been used as a means of communication, particularly during warfare or the establishing of a territory.

Let's consider another symbol, the statue. A flag, like a statue, is often used in the process of commemorating some bit of history, or to show pride in roots. Most statues I've seen in the US seem historically neutral, or else a celebration of some accomplishment the people in that area are proud of, something that moved history forward. Flags can be used in the same way to show that history has moved forward, such as the flag of a newly united nation, or the founding of a country/smaller area). Founders get statues, heroes get statues. One person is not commemorated in a flag, like in a statue, but a group of people can be. We hail flags in the way that we hail a hero- almost giving them a strong reverence that is else-wise reserved for spiritual worship. In this way, this symbol holds power and weight, and symbols can bring up mighty strong emotions in people.

We use symbols to define us and stand for us. Our clothes, our hobbies, even the food we enjoy- all full of symbols. But the symbols of companies and clothing brands rarely have centuries of history behind them. Companies are under the curse of constantly rebranding themselves, changing their images and symbols to fit what they think will sell to the consumer. A company's brand symbol may change a little or a whole lot, but it continues to stand, in most cases, for the same cause- the products created by that company.

Flags are rarely "rebranded" in modern history, because they continue to stand for what they stood for at their conception. Some flags are added to over time, but rarely do they lose their original meaning. The Confederate flag we recognize today, with its blue starred cross and red background, was not a symbol of the Southern states of America. This flag was used as a battle flag during the Civil War. This flag bore a lesser resemblance to the stars and stripes flag we know today, as it was meant to stand out in the battle field against the Northern states. Out of battle, the national flag for the Confederacy was a "stars and bars" design which did not so much resemble the battle flag, though the battle flag we know today (confusingly) as the Confederate flag became a symbol of fallen heroes on the Southern side of the Civil War, a constant reminder of what was lost in the war over slavery (mainly, the right to hold slaves, but also lives lost). http://www.historynet.com/embattled-banner-the-convoluted-history-of-the-confederate-flag.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/confederate-flag-racist_n_7639788.html

The Sugar Rush

We are supposed to have under 50 grams of added sugars daily, according to the American Heart Association. Men are supposed to have no more than 36 grams, and for women the number is 25 grams. Americans normally consume up to 100 grams of sugar daily, or up to 1/4 of their daily calorie intake from added sugars (1).

Well I took a good look at a lot of things marketed as healthy, such as wheat breads, milk and nutmilks, heart-healthy cereals, and I started tallying up in my head how much added sugar one might consume daily, if they are health-conscious - A tuna fish sandwich with two slices of wheat bread, 6 grams total. One serving of bran flakes (not raisin) with a serving of 2% milk- 21 grams of sugar (and most of that is from the milk!). If you're female, that's it! That's your sugar intake for the day. No teaspoon in your nightly tea, no dessert (other than the natural sugars found in fruits and some vegetables). A little added sugar is OK if you're giving your body enough fiber to slow down digestion and process it, although added sugars have no nutritional value to begin with, so it's good practice to try to burn it off with regular exercise.

What about people who aren't looking at what they're buying, and are just listening to what the advertising claims? They might figure a salad is the healthiest thing to have at a restaurant, but then there are added sugars in many of those. Or like me, they may have grown up with canned fruit (which to me is better than none I suppose)- added sugar in the syrup if the fruit is not in its natural juices. Juice, for adults or children- I've given up on buying most juices marketed as healthy because some of them have as much sugar as a soda, and although some (not all!) claim to be naturally derived (such as 1 cup of juice equaling 2 cups of grapes), that's your serving of fruit for the day, as even too much fruit (more than 2-3 servings per day) can lead to blood sugar spikes and health issues. I would rather get the fiber and vitamins straight from the fruit than feel not in the least bit full from a cup of it. Or how about those with a busy lifestyle who would just like to indulge now and then. Take for example a small coffee from Dunkins- you want to indulge in a flavored, fun coffee from the drivethrough to jumpstart your day- a cookie dough swirl iced latte, small, with skim milk, gives you 25 grams of added sugar. That's most of your added sugar, or most of it, for the day. And we don't even think twice about it. A lot of my gripe with sugar has to do with the fact that you can eat a ton of it, but not feel full. That brings meaning to the phrase "empty calories". As they add up in your system, even as you feel you are generally eating healthy otherwise by getting your fruit and vegetables, fiber and healthy fats for the day, your waistline may grow (2). You might get frustrated, thinking that you're doing everything right and only indulging in the REALLY unhealthy stuff on occasion. Maybe you eat more fruit than is recommended, because it's fruit and can't hurt you. Too much of virtually any healthy food can harm your body, so it's good to be mindful of your limits, and look for a balanced diet that will lead to you being full, satisfied, and not sighing when you hit the bathroom scale.

(1) https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021 (2) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/