Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

A reader writes:

We moved and we found a great parish right away, but it was across town. So, we decided to go to a less-than-100% orthodox parish within a few miles of our house. I’ve noticed some disturbing things since I’ve been there and they make me think that we should consider switching parishes and I wanted to know what you would do in our position.

My husband feels like we should stick it out at this parish so we can help transform them in to an orthodox church, maybe try to start up a bible study or an apologetics class. He has met with the pastor and the DRE, both basically told him that people [here] were just more liberal than we are (which is true) and his ideas would not work at this parish (who knows). My DH does not want to give up, but I am worried that we are harming ourselves by attending this parish. At the very least I know can’t let my kids in the religious ed classes here. What do you think? Given that there are much more orthodox parishes in the city, should we bale on this one? Or should we try to be an instrument of change here? What would you do?

I can’t tell you what you should do, but fortunately you didn’t ask me this. You ask what I’d do. I’ll tell you, but first let me note that canon law imposes no obligation on individuals to register or attend the parish that they are geographically closest to.

I understand your husband’s desire to stick it out and change the parish. That’s a very noble, altruistic challenge to undertake (men–me included–are suckers for challenges like that). However, if I were in your situation, I wouldn’t shoulder the burden of this challenge.

The reason is the kids.

Regardless of what challenges you and your husband might be up to facing, your kids are another matter, and your primary obligation is to them rather than to others who might benefit from having a better parish. If you have determined that you can’t put your kids in the religious ed programs in the parish then for me that would be the deciding factor. The family should attend where the children will have the best chance of becoming well-formed Catholic adults with the fewest bumps along the way (like having parish officials and teachers who are trying to subvert the religious instruction their parents are giving them at home).

If your kids were grown, matters would be different. I might well say that if you two want to dig in, take arms against a sea of troubles, brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and work to change the parish according to your ability (which is rather limited since it is the pastor who has ultimate authority within the parish), then go for it. But as long as you have kids who aren’t grown, I’d make sure their religious well-being is taken care of first.

At least that’s what I’d do in y’all’s position.

What y’all do is a matter for y’all to decide.

Speaking of Alternative Diets . . . (Vampires)

I recently saw the movie Van Helsing, which is basically a two hour car chase disguised as a monster movie (and which doesn’t have a PG-13 rating for nothing). There are many religious elements of the movie, which might be boiled down to the summary: “Catholics = Good; Monsters = Bad.” Despite the non-stop action and the film’s other flaws (including a cleric who is implied to break his promise of chastity), it was kind of refreshing to see a movie where the heroes unashamedly pray to God for help–and get it.

I won’t do a full review now, but I thought I would point out that some folks in the world still take monsters very seriously, including vampires.

Consider this recent story from Romania about how locals are angry that the police are trying to stop them from slaying vampires.

Or consider this story from last year about enraged villagers in Malawi who staged riots and attacked a government official (as well as three Catholic priests) on the belief that their government was consorting with vampires.

Kind of makes you glad you’re living in America, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, who wouldn’t be upset if they thought their government leaders were consorting with vampires? Sounds like a case for Mulder and Scully to look into.

Thin Europeans: A Vanishing Breed

Another reader writes:

I always wondered why then peoples like the Italian or French tend to be a lot slimmer than Americans though their diet is definitely a lot higher on Carbs that most of the studies you are using recommend.

What is your take on this?

There are a number of factors that are potentially relevant here, but the big one is this: The traditional European diet–like the traditional American diet–is not as high in carbs (and particularly in refined carbs) as the one Americans now eat. People over there might be eating pasta, but in much, MUCH smaller portions.

But things are changing in Europe. Fast. The high-carb, high-sugar diet that Americans eat is now sweeping Europe, particularly among the young. The European overweight and obesity rates are spiking, and it has European health authorities very worried. They’re rapidly catching up to us.

A hundred years ago there wasn’t this difference, but America modernized its diet in the mid 20th century in order to maximize profits of the food industry, and Europe simply lagged behind doing so by a few decades. Now their diet is changing in the same way due to the same pressures (i.e., financial ones), and Europeans are starting to lose the battle of the bulge.

Here’s an article that explains it well.

The Carb Threshold

Regarding my notes on the Kekwick diet research, a reader writes:

Very interesting results. However, if you take the same proportions of macro-nutrients in what you are currently eating, and reduce them all by the same amount (reducing calories, keeping same % of macro-nutrients), then you will loose weight acording to the usuall 3500Kcals = 1lbs formula.

I also wonder if there has been research where there was not such a huge differential (90%) to try to determine at what % the carb-insulin fat-increase effect takes place.

It is true that if you reduce calories far enough–regardless of the ratio of the macronutrients–that you will lose weight. The problem is what happens to your body as you do that. As the Kekwick research and other research has shown, a high-carb ratio has the effect of inhibiting weight loss in the calorie range where most people are comfortable. In other words, in order to consistently lose weight with a high-carb diet, many people have to reduce their calorie intake so far that the diet becomes torture for them to stay on, and they drop off it without making substantial progress toward their weight goals.

(Incidentally, the 3550 calories = 1 pound formula is an average based on the metabolism Americans tend to be in. For individuals, the actual amount will vary considerably.)

There has been research done on where the threshold is for weight gain, and the answer is interesting. First, there are two thresholds, one above which a person will gain weight (i.e., eat X number of carbs per day or more and your body will start storing new fat) and one below which one will lose weight (i.e., eat Y number of carbs per day or less and you will start burning fat).

Where these two thresholds are varies considerably from one individual to another. Some people are much more prone to weight gain or resistant to weight loss than others.

The thresholds also vary depending on the metabolic state that the individual is in at the time. This varies based on a variety of factors, including exercise and total caloric intake. For example, if you were to eat 10,000 calories per day, you’d probably gain weight even if none of them were from carbs, and if you ate 500 calories per day, you’d certainly lose weight even though all of them were from carbs.

FWIW, Atkins encourages people to find where their own thresholds are in the zone where they are comfortable eating (i.e., where they don’t feel like they are starving or gorging themselves). For most people, the number of carbs they can eat in this zone and still lose weight is rather low, but as one makes progress toward one’s weight goal the amount goes up until, when one arrives at one’s goal, one eats enough carbs to maintain one’s weight without losing further and without gaining weight back.

If you’d like the details of the approach, check out the book.

I did after my doctor recommended a few years ago that I go on the Atkins diet (which was much harder then than it is now, what with all the new low-carb products on the market). I lost seventy pounds before hitting a plateau (which I now think was due to slipping out of good diet habits), but I kept the weight off. Late late year I took a few months off from the low-carb approach to let my metabolism re-set, then went back on in mid-January. Since that time, I’ve lost over 40 pounds, an average of two pounds a week, without being hungry and feeling better than I had in years before discovering the diet.

Incidentally, the picture of me that you see on the blog is me before going back on the diet. I need to get a new one made, because I’m now quite a bit thinner than I am in that one.

Richard Biggs (Dr. Stephen Franklin) Dead At 43

RichardBiggsBabylon 5 series creator/writer J. Michael Straczynski posted this note Saturday regarding the passing of actor Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Stephen Franklin on the B5 series. He added a lot to the show, and I know that fans will miss him as much as cast and crew.

From: jmsatb5@aol.com (jms at b5)

Subject: today we lost richard biggs

To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated

Date: 5/22/2004 4:43:05 PM

I was awakened today with several phone calls from cast members and Doug to
pass along the terrible news that this morning, Richard Biggs passed away.

We’re still gathering information, so take none of this as firm word, but what
seems to have happened, happened quickly. He woke up, got up out of bed…and
went down. The paramedics who showed up suggested it was either an aneurysm or
a massive stroke.

His family members have been informed, and all of the the cast have, as far as
we can determine, also been informed.

This is a terrible loss for all of us. Richard was a consummate professional
but more than that he was an honorable, stand-up guy. If he gave you his word
on something, you never had to wonder about it afterward. He was always
helpful and supportive of all the cast, even those who only came in for one
episode, always with a ready smile and determined to do whatever it took to
make the scene work. He was, quite simply, a terrific guy, and everyone here
is just devastated at the news.

More word as this develops. We may try to have some kind of fund raiser to
help give whatever assistance may be helpful for his kids.

We all miss him terribly.

jms

For the repose of his soul.

"Ingeniously Bad Writing" (The Da Vinci Code)

0385504209Occasionally there is some book that hits it big and has all kinds of people praising how well it is written. I’m starting to get a reflective skepticism of such claims, because I’ve been burned too often by them.

I know, de gustibus non disputandum est, but some things are just poorly written.

This was what happened with the Harry Potter craze. People were going on and on about how well it was written, but when I read the first Harry Potter novel, I was stunned at how poor the writing was. I acknowledge that the book has some interesting ideas in it, but the way in which these ideas were given literary form was utterly incommensurate with the level of praise being heaped upon the book. It made me wonder about the people had who want to put J. K. Rowling up there with Shakespeare. Just how much exposure to literature did they have? Not much, if they thought that Harry Potter was the bee’s knees.

In case you haven’t read it or seen the movie, the basic plot of the first Harry Potter novel involves a young boy who has lost his parents and leads a dreary existence but who then discovers that he is the most famous, most important person in the world. Since readers typically identify with the protagonists of the books they are reading, it’s easy to use this premise as a ham-fisted, over-the-top, delusions-of-grandeur fantasy for the reader. Rowling has noted that she started writing the series while she was leading a rather dreary existence herself and working out her feelings over her divorce. Reading the first Harry Potter novel, I couldn’t help the feeling that on some level she was writing it for her own sons to atone for her divorce, giving them a marvelous escape fantasy from the realities of their broken family.

(If you want to read a sci-fi novel with a smilar premise that is more like what Harry Potter *should have been,* read Jerry Pournelle’s Starswarm.)

So when people started hyping how well written The Da Vinci Code is supposed to be, I was very suspicious. Once again, “interesting ideas” are delivered with an utter lack of literary style. The books is appalling written, but I don’t need to explain why because someone else already did.

Read this analysis from Language Log about Dan Brown’s incompetent wordsmithing.

Favorite quote:

“Brown’s writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad.”

“Ingeniously Bad Writing” (The Da Vinci Code)

0385504209Occasionally there is some book that hits it big and has all kinds of people praising how well it is written. I’m starting to get a reflective skepticism of such claims, because I’ve been burned too often by them.

I know, de gustibus non disputandum est, but some things are just poorly written.

This was what happened with the Harry Potter craze. People were going on and on about how well it was written, but when I read the first Harry Potter novel, I was stunned at how poor the writing was. I acknowledge that the book has some interesting ideas in it, but the way in which these ideas were given literary form was utterly incommensurate with the level of praise being heaped upon the book. It made me wonder about the people had who want to put J. K. Rowling up there with Shakespeare. Just how much exposure to literature did they have? Not much, if they thought that Harry Potter was the bee’s knees.

In case you haven’t read it or seen the movie, the basic plot of the first Harry Potter novel involves a young boy who has lost his parents and leads a dreary existence but who then discovers that he is the most famous, most important person in the world. Since readers typically identify with the protagonists of the books they are reading, it’s easy to use this premise as a ham-fisted, over-the-top, delusions-of-grandeur fantasy for the reader. Rowling has noted that she started writing the series while she was leading a rather dreary existence herself and working out her feelings over her divorce. Reading the first Harry Potter novel, I couldn’t help the feeling that on some level she was writing it for her own sons to atone for her divorce, giving them a marvelous escape fantasy from the realities of their broken family.

(If you want to read a sci-fi novel with a smilar premise that is more like what Harry Potter *should have been,* read Jerry Pournelle’s Starswarm.)

So when people started hyping how well written The Da Vinci Code is supposed to be, I was very suspicious. Once again, “interesting ideas” are delivered with an utter lack of literary style. The books is appalling written, but I don’t need to explain why because someone else already did.

Read this analysis from Language Log about Dan Brown’s incompetent wordsmithing.

Favorite quote:

“Brown’s writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad.”