AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > July
July 2007
Running out of time but not determination
Rebuttal
Should trans fats be banned?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exists to protect the American public from harm. This function serves the American public and it isn’t a violation of individual rights.
Just recently the FDA banned the import of some types of farm-raised fish and shrimp from China, because they found a link to cancer-causing drugs. In the past, the FDA has banned the non-water-soluble form of a red food dye because it produced tumors in male rats.
Last year, the FDA began mandating that food labeling in this country include information about the amount of trans fats in processed food. That began a chain of events in which several cities, led by New York, have either banned the use of trans fats in restaurants, or they are talking about it.
The backlash has a lot of folks suddenly anxious about their Happy Meals.
Trans fat is made when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil. It contributes to increasing the production of “Frankenfat” or LDL, the bad kind of cholesterol.
The Harvard Law and Policy Review says the “oils (are) attractive to food manufacturers because they have a longer shelf life and longer fry life than other oils. That makes them useful for fried foods like French fries, donuts, and taco shells. And they give baked goods like cookies, crackers, and pies the texture that previously came from lard.”
Now, food distributors are basically more concerned with profits than public health. They are in business to make money, not play fitness coach.
Chefs resent the FDA tinkering with their recipes and affecting the unique taste that attracts customers. And customers resent the idea of government food police. I mean, it isn’t like anyone thinks that french fries are really good for them. They just taste good.
But to state the obvious, the public doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. The FDA’s objective is not out to make meals taste like hospital food, but to research and make sure what we consume every day is healthy.
Clinical Dietitian Erin C. McAllister of Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital offers this bit of trans fat-free wisdom:
“When people start claiming it is a violation of their rights to ban trans fats, says Clinical Dietician Erin C. McAllister, “the key to remember is it is a man-made fat that we have added to the food supply and then discovered is harmful and contributes to the development of heart disease.
“To me, it is like recalling a harmful food product off the market. Why would we want to contribute to all the diseases we already have with trans fats when they can be removed and replaced with something ‘natural?’”
Rebuttal
When a lawyer files a lawsuit to ban Nabisco Oreo cookies, we’ve gone off the deep end. Stephen Joseph wants the removal of Oreos from shelves across California because they contain trans fats. The California legislature is actually considering a state-wide ban on all trans-fats cooking in restaurants — and a similar ban went into effect against New York City eateries a few weeks ago.
I’m not arguing that trans fats are a beneficial part of the American diet, but there’s a reason the FDA hasn’t banned them thus far: they’re merely…unhealthy. Not unsafe. And the problem is, there simply isn’t a trans-fat alternative out there that tastes the same. At least not yet.
A whole lot of foodstuffs aren’t good for you. But should the government ban them for everyone just because a sizeable chunk of the population (pun intended) refuses to consume them in moderation? After all, a few Oreos won’t make kids fat. But lots of junk food, sedentary lifestyles, sugary drinks, and lack of parental oversight might. A 2004 Gallup poll included two separate studies isolating sugary sodas as a huge contributor to teen obesity problems.
A ban on trans fats sounds great on paper, but so did Prohibition a century ago — and look how that turned out. Unlike with tobacco, which appears unsafe even in small amounts, people rebel against someone controlling their guilty pleasures when they are just fine in moderation. Someone can drink a glass of wine with dinner a few times a week — or indulge in a luscious desert at a restaurant — and still stay healthy. It’s got to be up to the individual to have enough sense not to inhale a package of cookies at one sitting.
The real break-through on trans-fats actually came a few years ago, when the FDA began requiring trans fat amounts to be disclosed on food labels. And almost instantly, customers began pressuring restaurant chains and food manufacturers to find a healthier alternative. As long as consumers are being given the real information, the market will generate a solution to this that is less nannying, less burdensome, and still allows us to enjoy — from time to time — an Oreo dunked in a glass of milk.
Why are more educated people less likely to believe the Bible is literally true?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I remember my shock in graduate school, when a Teacher’s Assistant assumed that “only poorly educated, simple people believe the Bible is literally true” - and how shocked she was when several highly educated, critical-thinking graduate students defended Biblical literalism. A May Gallup poll showed that one third of Americans do take the Bible literally, but - sadly - that the more educated they were, the less likely that was to be the case. Those with college and graduate-school educations were actually most likely to believe the Bible was “inspired” by God (not just man-made “ancient fables or history”) but least likely to take it literally.
Why? Well, our culture is led and populated by those who have had Biblical skepticism drummed into them by humanistic college professors. If a student manages to arrive at college with literal views of the Bible intact, his “naiveté” is quickly attacked by professors - classroom sages who are overwhelmingly humanistic and liberal in their own worldviews. When the American Enterprise Institute tracked professors’ political affiliations, they found a huge disparity between the number of conservative and liberal professors on most campuses. At Cornell, for example, out of 166 leading professors, only 6 were conservative, for a ratio of 26:1. The best ratio found was still pathetic, 3:1 at the University of Houston.
Ironically, the intelligencia’s increasing distrust of the Bible coincides with ever-more- significant archaeological and geological findings that consistently support rather than disprove its authenticity - even including its depiction of certain events usually derided as fable. For example, Dr. Bryant Wood, an archeologist, mechanical engineer and Director of Associates of Biblical Research, gained international acclaim via findings that correctly identified the age of the ancient city of Jericho and how it was destroyed - which precisely matched the seemingly mythological biblical accounts.
In a phone interview, Dr. Wood explained that, “What we have in the Bible is an eyewitness account. And archaeology has born out that account. It has never contradicted the Bible.”
I wish our society and educators were able to hear the other side of the story - and realize that it is actually more intellectually consistent to believe even the seemingly supernatural accounts, in a book that is the most thoroughly researched and proven document in history.
Rebuttal
The disciplines of science and religion may be mutually exclusive but can, and do, live happily married in the human spirit without a piece of paper or ring. Most of the time. The rest of the time there’s a lot of bickering: science demands proof and literalist fundamentalism demands wholesale belief.
Not surprisingly, fundamentalists are increasing in numbers because we struggle to process all of the information we read on our laptops, Blackberries, and television sets. Before you know it, microchips will be embedded into our visual cortex, taking wireless to a whole new dimension.
Wouldn’t it be nice to wake up and know the milk that you drink is good for you and not a cancerous time bomb? And wouldn’t it be nice to know if you didn’t accept Jesus as your Savior before death that you won’t be sent to Hell? It would, but I’m not sure anyone will ever know the answers to these questions.
That’s why you’ll find a lot of families at church who don’t necessarily share all the views of the Church they attend. The data may show the more educated the individual, the more they shy away from literalism, but the data also show a positive correlation between a parishioner’s educational level and church attendance in Vol. 26 of the Review of Religious Research.
An educated parishioner can participate in the social aspects of religion without buying the horse and the cart. There are other sources of truth not found behind a Priest’s confessional door. And there is still room for magical thinking in a rational world.
But Fundamentalism demands a moral imperialism that is unyielding to outside interpretation. It insists that those of us who cannot accept a single belief when interpreting the mysteries in life, miss the beauty of taking that giant leap.
I’d argue that literalists are the ones missing out. They miss out on the wonder of accepting mutiple truths that make our lives so unique. Because someone who can embrace mystery and science is someone who thinks independently, someone who is more tolerant, someone who is open, someone who feels comfortable with real mystery.
Ann Coulter helping Dems more than GOP?
Maureen Downey, a left-leaning columnist, stands in for Diane Glass on the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Early in her career, Ann Coulter discovered that she could sell more books and columns if she swore off thoughtful political analysis and just started calling Democrats “faggots.”
A cheap character assassin in black sheath and heels, Coulter has become the Paris Hilton of the right, admired as much for her blond good looks and her short skirts as her unapologetic viciousness against Democrats.
But now her shrill-and-kill approach to politic punditry is benefiting Democrats more than Republicans. She has crossed the line of decency so many times that smart conservatives turn their heads when they see her coming. Her comments have escalated from tasteless to hateful, and Democrats are rightfully capitalizing on the growing public revulsion.
In her latest belch of bile, Coulter sparred with the wife of presidential candidate John Edwards and ended up sending his supporters to their checkbooks. Coulter was hawking one of her books on MSNBC’s ”Hardball” two weeks ago when Elizabeth Edwards called the show. (Coulter says she was ambushed; “Hardball” producers say she was forewarned.)
In the past, Coulter charged Edwards of exploiting the 1996 death of his son Wade, writing that the candidate has a bumper sticker that says “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident” More recently, Coulter said, “If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” (Her defense was that Bill Maher said something similar about Dick Cheney, but he’s a comedian. She’s an attorney who styles herself as a serious commentator.)
On “Hardball,” Elizabeth Edwards told Coulter, “I’m asking you politely to stop… personal attacks.” An irate Coulter dodged the issue and accused the Edwards campaign of exploiting her comments.
The Edwards campaign has indeed cited Coulter’s attacks in fund-raising pitches. Following her tense exchange with Coulter on “Hardball,” Elizabeth Edwards emailed supporters and generated record donations.
Coulter continues to fume over the “Hardball” episode, writing on her Web site, “I’m a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails.” If Coulter’s really tired of it, she ought to stop snickering about Hillary Clinton’s “chubby little legs” and start talking about the issues.
Rebuttal
I share many of Ann Coulter’s policy opinions, but I am the first to cringe at harsh and personal comments against those who don’t. Yes, we need more respectful dialogue - but there’s another key factor.
In trying to fire up the right, Coulter is actually a conservative version of political comedian Bill Maher, who is well known for his over-the-top comments on the left. But since most media gatekeepers share Maher’s ideology, he gets cast as an ironist and Coulter gets cast as a “character assassin.”
For example, after a terrorist attack missed Vice President Cheney on a February visit to Iraq, Bill Maher told his talk show guests - two congressmen - that “If [Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” Despite suggesting that the assassination of the Vice President would be a good thing, there was almost no media outcry.
Fast forward a few months: Coulter’s recent comments were inappropriate - but twisted even more. Her supposed wish that John Edwards be killed by terrorists was widely reported. But almost no media (including my column counterpart) carried it in context, which was actually about trying to get away with what Mahar could get away with: “Bill Maher was not joking [when he said] he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
The Edwards campaign raked in what they call “Coulter Cash,” while condemning her “hate words.” But again, few media have reported the “hate words” coming from the Edwards campaign - for example, many bigoted and anti-Christian comments like this 2006 blog from Edwards campaign staffer Amanda Marcotte: “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Ugh.
Any approach that purposefully polarizes is counterproductive. But we conservatives should hold ourselves to an even higher standard. By ignoring the reality that the left-leaning media will magnify her already harsh comments, Ann Coulter ends up hurting the very beliefs that she is trying to promote.
Services »
Commentary
By Diane Glass
Editor’s Note: Columnist Diane Glass was diagnosed with Stage 4 bile duct cancer on July 6. She lost her fight against cancer early Monday, July 30, with family members at her side.
While in hospice care, Diane finished this column with the help of her sister, Janet Glass Dekle. Woman to Woman will resume with Shaunti Feldhahn and a guest columnist in three weeks.
A 42-year-old single female, in a promising relationship, is getting ready to adopt a baby from China after just landing a big promotion at work. Suddenly she is stricken with a rare form of cancer usually affecting men in their 70’s. It sounds like Greek tragedy, or perhaps something too over the top to even believe, but certainly something you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. I can’t tell you if it unfolds like a play, if it sounds that way, since it takes so much energy out of me being sick, but the drama in my life these days feels that way. I can tell you that watching your family and friends come to your bedside is probably one of the most beautiful, heart-wrenching parts of your life, even in a hospital bed. And while I’d love to stay and make up a new ending, I’m afraid weakness overcomes no matter how hard I try. I feel like the ending lacks proper drama, no sudden train crash or a fatal fall down the stairs. Just less clarity. In writing my column I’m overwhelmed by passion, drive and a determination to figure out where things will go from here. While I don’t know how many columns I have left, this one I needed to finish. DIANE MARIE GLASS
By JANET GLASS DEKLE
Most of you know my little sister, Diane Glass, to be a woman of intelligence and strongly felt opinions. She received her Master’s Degree from Harvard, no easy feat. But to me, she remains my little sister.
Many of her friends feel that way about her too. You just want to take her under your wing and protect her, but from an early age she had a distinct independent streak. From the moment she picked up a half-eaten sandwich off the sidewalk and took a bite out of it while on a family vacation in Galveston, Tex., I knew I’d have to keep an eye on her and help her out sometimes. Like now.
She had ups and downs in her personal as well as professional life, but recently things had been going well. She had a great job, a great boyfriend and she was getting ready to adopt a baby as a single mother. She exercised regularly, ate organically healthy and didn’t drink a lot.
That’s why her illness came as such a shock. Bile duct cancer is a relatively rare cancer that grows undetected until it’s nearly too late. As with everything in Diane’s life, she was ready to stand her ground and fight. But cancer doesn’t fight fair. Around every corner there was a Catch-22 situation, taking away the options for surgery and chemotherapy.
Diane would not want anyone to feel sorry for her. In fact, while I stayed with her during her 3- week stint at the hospital, she kept apologizing to me, and to others, for having cancer. That was my little sister, always wanting to please people.
The medication that relieved her pain also left her unable to think clearly. Stuck in a hospital bed, Diane worried about finishing her columns. She didn’t want to let readers down. She didn’t want to let herself down. She was so concerned about “Woman to Woman” that I found her sometimes, in the midst of medication-induced dreams, with arms outstretched, typing and drinking coffee.
That’s the reason I am writing for her today, because she couldn’t. But she let me know what to say.
If she could write it, she would want everyone to know that she was a woman who stood behind the facts and believed knowledge was power. She would want every little girl, especially her niece, Ava, to know that she could be anything she wanted to be, and that being strong didn’t make you any less of a woman. That standing by your beliefs was the only way to live your life and that it was ok to make mistakes if you could indeed learn from them. And she would want every young girl to know that you can’t make yourself whole with someone else, you need to be happy with yourself first, then you can really enjoy life.
Some people run out of life, some people waste the one they’re given, others don’t even know they have one to live. My sister had a lot more life to live. She just ran out of time.