what is LOVE

First Love

George Bernard ShawFirst love is a little foolish and a lot of curiosity.

Branislav NusicFirst love is dangerous only when it is also the last.

Rosemary RogersFirst romance, first love, is something so special to all of us, both emotionally and physically, that it touches our lives and enriches them forever.

Benjamin DisraeliThe magic of first love is our ignorance that it can never end.

Thomas MooreNo, there's nothing half so sweet in life as love's young dream.

Alfred Lord TennysonIn the spring a livlier iris changes on the burnished dove;
In the spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.

Leo BuscagliaLove is always bestowed as a gift - freely, willingly, and without expectation... We don't love to be loved; we love to love.

Blaise PascalWe conceal it from ourselves in vain: we must always love something. In those matters seemingly removed from love, the feeling is secretly to be found, and man cannot possibly live for a moment without it.

NietzscheLove is the state in which man sees things; most widely different from what they are.

William ShakespeareAs sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute, strung with his hair;
And when Love speaks, the voice of all the gods
Makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.

Lady Murasaki The memories of long love gather like drifting snow, poignant as the mandarin ducks who float side by side in sleep.

Leo BuscagliaThe heart is the place where we live our passions. It is frail and easily broken, but wonderfully resilient. There is no point in trying to deceive the heart. It depends upon our honesty for its survival.

Richard GarnettSweet are the words of love, sweeter his thoughts:
Sweetest of all what love nor says nor thinks.

Bayard TaylorThe loving are the daring.

Francois MauriacNo love, no friendship, can cross the path of our destiny without leaving some mark on it forever.

Alexander SmithLove is but the discovery of ourselves in others, and the delight in the recognition.

Red meat & cancer & very bad journalism

Written by Zoë on February 25, 2011

I am struggling to think of a diet & health story, which has been reported worse than the one dominating the press this week – and there tends to be at least one in the press every day. The newspapers seem to think that “artery-clogging” is an adjective to precede either, or both, of the words “cholesterol” and “fat” – whereas “life-vital” would be more appropriate words.
The story on red meat and cancer has to take the biscuit, however…
The story started to break on 20 February 2011 – we were forewarned that a report from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) was about to be released. “Red meat does increase cancer risk, new report will confirm” screamed the Daily Mail headline. The article opened with the following three sentences:
“Britons should cut their consumption of red and processed meat to reduce the risk of bowel cancer, scientific experts are expected to recommend in a report.”
“The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) was asked by the Department of Health to review dietary advice on meat consumption as a source of iron.”
“In a draft report published in June 2009 the committee of independent experts said lower consumption of red and processed meat would probably reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.”
So, SACN was asked to look at meat consumption as a source of iron and are going to conclude instead that lower consumption of red and processed meat would probably reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (bowel cancer)? (All the emphases are mine).
Notice how red meat has become red and processed meat – could these two substances possibly be more different? Real meat (by weight) is the most nutritious food on the planet – offal is best, red meat next best and white meat the next best for essential fats, essential proteins (amino acids), vitamins and minerals. Processed meat should not be ingested by a human being – full stop. Putting these two together is like putting drinking water and coca-cola together or sardines and sugared, breaded fish sticks. This is irresponsible and ignorant in the extreme.
Then notice the word probably - despite the fact that SACN were asked to look at meat and iron – we expect them to recommend that lower consumption will probably … No one reads that caveat – the damage is done in the sensational headline screaming out from every newspaper and on line news tweet on the 20 February.
So, 25 February 2011 arrives and the SACN report is published. All 374 pages of a report called Iron and Health - all about – Iron and Health!
The headline writers obviously don’t read the report – we know the headline already – “red meat causes cancer”.
BBC Breakfast kicks off the day of meat demonisation. Dr Alison Tedstone is the spokesperson from the Department of Health and she doesn’t slip up during the interview in her careful use of the words “red and processed meat.” She specifically says: “Our experts have said that there’s a probable link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer.” Note that probable and red and processed again. Plus note the word link - there is no causation being claimed – so, there might be a link between one terrific food and one evil food and bowel cancer? Um – I wonder which one might be the problem. The fab Susanna Reid starts to ask the right question “Why would red meat?…” and then corrects this to “why would red and processed meat be a particular problem?” Tedstone says that there are a number of “plausible” mechanisms by which “red and processed meat” “might be a problem”, “we don’t exactly know why…” But, despite not knowing why, we are then told to limit our red and processed meat consumption to around 70g per day – approximately 2 slices of meat a day. Boy, those cavemen should have been dropping like flies.
The London Evening Standard was one of the first to run the story: “Eat less meat: Government experts warn Britons.”  Experts from the SACN are expected to tell consumers to eat no more than 70g of “red or processed meat” a day. The headline says meat; the first sentence adds “or processed” in straight away. Is that because processed meat is the real killer? Does the sentence not hold if we just talk about meat?
The article goes on: “Some 1,900 cases of bowel cancer could also be prevented through cutting red meat consumption to under 70g per week.” Hang on a minute – how so?! The very next sentence describes the process by which processed meat is chemically altered. The sentence after says: “It is thought this process causes the formation of carcinogens, which can damage cells in the body and allow cancer to develop.” I have little doubt that processing meat causes carcinogens which can damage cells etc. But Ermentrude, out in the field near my house, grazing on fast growing grass in the Welsh rain and occasional sun – surely Mother Nature didn’t put her there to kill me?
The Evening Standard article ends with two telling sentences:
“Last year, experts from the Harvard School of Public Health in the US found that eating processed meats can increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes… However, unprocessed red meats, such as beef, pork or lamb, do not raise the risk, the study found.” So there is a difference between real meat and processed meat – we’ll just leave it to the end to point it out. This is disgraceful reporting.
BBC weren’t content just with TV coverage. They ran a story and tweeted on it in the morning – no doubt as a matter of urgency – I guess we need to know before we choose our lunch? “Eat less red meat to reduce cancer risk” the story instructed. First sentence? You guessed it: “People should cut back on red and processed meat to reduce their risk of getting cancer, the government says.”
Then the Department of Health tweet arrived: “Red meat link to bowel cancer.” Followed by the, now very familiar: “It  (SACN) concludes that red and processed meat probably increases the risk of bowel cancer…”
At this point it is important to go to the original source and see what SACN actually said. I haven’t read all 374 pages – I usually start any report with the conflict of interest and then look at the summary. If anything in the summary is not clear – you can always delve deeper.
The conflict of interest is always interesting. In this case we have the chairman, Professor Peter Aggett with the SACN 2008 annual report declared interests as: Astra-Zeneca; Nestec; ILSI (I cover this ‘sugar protecting’ body in my book “The Obesity Epidemic“), Wellcome; Yakult and Cadbury Schweppes. The vice chair, Dr Ann Prentice, has declared interests as: Institute of Brewing & Distilling; Mars; National Association of British & Irish Millers; Optimal performance limited; Tanita; Coca-Cola; The Beverage Institute for health and wellness (yes, really) and Weight Watchers. Professor Sue Fairweather-Tait has declared interests in Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, British Egg Information Service, Unilever and Totus Medica. Those are the worst.
The headlines of the report are then:
- In a 1998 Department of Health report, the COMA (Committee on Medical Aspects of Food & Nutrition Policy – the predecessor for SACN)  “highlighted possible links between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer”. Since red meat is an important source of iron in the human diet, SACN were asked to look at “the possible associated adverse implications of a reduction in meat consumption on other aspects of health, particularly iron consumption.” That was the brief – the possible link between processed meat and bowel cancer had been mentioned 13 years ago.
- The Terms of Reference were (and I quote) “To review the dietary intakes of iron in its various forms and the impact of different dietary patterns on the nutritional and health status of the population and to make proposals.” Hence calling the report “Iron and Health” – ‘cos that’s what it’s about.
- SACN started off the report with a bunch of excuses for why it has taken 13 years to write a report, which is so critical that the BBC needs to tell us (the wrong headline) about it twice before lunch.
- The conclusion of their task was as follows: “The modelling exercise indicates that reducing total red meat consumption (*) of consumers in the upper range of the distribution of intakes, down to 70g/day, would have little effect on the proportion of adults with iron intakes below the LRNI” (Lower Recommended National Intake).
(*) Note – in this paragraph (30) “Red and processed meat” is mentioned three times in as few lines before this summary sentence that seems to change this to “total red meat”. It is clear that red and processed meat is what we’re talking about. The title above para 30 is “The potential impact of reducing red and processed meat consumption on intakes of iron and zinc.”
Paragraph 36 reiterates that there is merely a possibility of a link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer. The logic then goes:
- “red and processed meat is a source of iron”
- “it is not possible to quantify the amount of red and processed meat that may be associated with increased colorectal cancer risk“
- “It may be advisable for adults with relatively high intakes of red and processed meat to consider reducing their intakes”
- “Modelling indicates that this would have little effect on the proportion of adults with iron intakes below the LRNI”
So, we’re not worried about population iron intake if the high red and processed meat consumers cut back.
And that’s what the SACN report was about.
But, never let the science get in the way of a good story…

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2011/02/red-meat-cancer-very-bad-journalism/

The Meaning of Freedom

Mike Treder

Mike Treder
Ethical Technology

Posted: Sep 17, 2009

Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

---

To most reasonable people, freedom means more than just ‘free to do whatever I want’. Taken literally, that approach would produce anarchy—every man, woman, and child for himself or herself. Fortunately, none of us has to live that way (unless you’re reading this in Somalia or a similar disaster area).
Certainly freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to infringe on another person’s freedom.
This still leaves a great deal of latitude. There is a long list of things that one can say, and say freely, for example, that excludes shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
One way to think of this is the difference between “freedom of” (or “freedom to”) and “freedom from”—a point eloquently made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union Address delivered on January 6, 1941:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.

The Four Freedoms

Securing freedom from fear and freedom from want is very likely to entail some collective, organized action. That kind of activity is often carried out most effectively and efficiently (although, admittedly, not perfectly) by the government. If we want to live in a society where freedoms are protected and where the opportunity to exercise freedom is assured, we have to rely on some form of governance. So far, liberal representative democracy seems to do the best job of it.
Note also that Roosevelt spoke in “world terms.” He and his colleagues (including his wife, Eleanor, one of the greatest women of the 20th century) operated according to a vision in which the United States belonged to a family of nations. This family was interdependent, cooperative, and shared common values. The U.S., in their eyes, would act as a member of that family—a leading member, to be sure, but not a belligerent or domineering one.
In the same speech, Roosevelt said:

There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

• Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
• Jobs for those who can work.
• Security for those who need it.
• The ending of special privilege for the few.
• The preservation of civil liberties for all.
• The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

This message is now nearly six decades old, but still rings as true today as when first spoken. We can hardly improve on FDR’s description of the fundamental goals and objectives of technoprogressive policies.
Of course, in 2009 we must take into account new issues and possible new areas of freedom—and potential infringements on freedom—that could not be anticipated in 1941.
In the next 50 years, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and cognitive science will allow human beings to transcend the limitations of the human body. Our senses and cognition will be enhanced. We will have greater control over our emotions and memory. Our bodies and brains will be surrounded by and merged with computer power. We will use these technologies to redesign ourselves and our children in ways that push the boundaries of “humanness.”
One central mission of the IEET is to protect what we call “morphological freedom”—the right for individuals to manage, maintain, augment, and upgrade their own bodies as they see fit—so long, of course, as their actions don’t negatively impact somebody else’s freedoms.
It is interesting that in his 1941 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt spoke of heath care issues that sound immediately familiar in light of the current debate on the U.S. over health insurance reform. He said:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

The argument about health care as a human right and access to basic medicine as an important part of freedom is not a new one. Nor is the effort by opponents of expanded coverage to cast the provision of benefits as a threat to freedom.
As Thomas Frank points out in this important op-ed from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

Conservatives of the 1930s, led by an upper-crust outfit called the American Liberty League, certainly felt that way. “That Roosevelt was a dictator there was no doubt; but Liberty Leaguers were not quite sure what kind,” wrote the historian George Wolfskill in “The Revolt of the Conservatives,” a 1962 study of that organization. “Some thought he was a fascist, others believed him a socialist or Communist, while others, to be absolutely sure, said he was both.”

Frank’s piece is titled “The Left should reclaim ‘Freedom’—The Right was wrong about FDR too.” He says:

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right’s utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word “freedom”—that when its leaders stand up for the rights of banks to be unregulated or capital gains to be untaxed, that it is actually and obviously standing up for human liberty, the noblest cause of them all. . .
Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health-care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.
“What we’re going to end up with is higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom for the American people,” House Republican Leader John Boehner said on Fox News in July. “We’re going to have a real fight for how much freedom we’re going to have left in America.”

Hogwash.

Today, of course, we know that the right’s tyranny-fears [about FDR] were nonsense. Most of Roosevelt’s innovations have been the law of the land for 70 years now, and yet we are still a free society.

In closing, Frank makes this vital point:

The reality of misgovernment, meanwhile, is not something you can grasp simply by donning a tricorn hat and musing on the majesty of Lady Liberty. It requires, among other things, close attention to the following irony: That many of the most destructive and even corrupt policies of the past few decades were engineered by exactly the sort of people who claim to be motivated by freedom and liberty.

During the recent horrible administration of George W. Bush, I often pleaded with people not to view Bush, Cheney, et al., as conservatives. They were clearly and profoundly not interested in conserving the liberties or the general welfare of Americans, as was their Constitutional duty. Rather, they were intent on maximizing the security and strength of powerful corporations, on whose boards they and their cohorts have so comfortably sat.
Have you ever taken the World’s Smallest Political Quiz? While it is far from perfect, it does offer a useful alternative to the traditional left-right spectrum, opting instead for a diamond-shaped depiction of U.S. political positions.

The red dot shows where I score on the quiz. I would submit that supporters of Bush-style politics, including many of today’s alleged ‘conservatives’, are really much closer to Big Government Statists. Bush, after all, increased the size of the federal deficit far beyond what any of his predecessors had done, while at the same time overseeing the most heinous incursions into civil liberties of any President since, well, perhaps ever.
Although I’ve openly stated my displeasure with the extreme positions of certain declared libertarians, I am not at all opposed to many of the tenets of libertarian thinking. I’ve even at times declared myself to be a “libertarian socialist.” Social freedoms should, in my view, be free from government restraint in almost every case.
Being a technoprogressive means being in favor of freedom. What we have to make clear, though, is that freedom stands for much more than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

---

Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/3411

Cranberry