Share |
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts

Friday, January 27, 2012

The first rule of martial arts & how to let go of suffering...



Read to the end if you want to know the answer to the titular pondering.


I wish I could take credit for living and writing this. 


Not because I would wish for this experience myself, but because, like our friend Laura Munson, I've been working on ending my own suffering. Believe me, it's been met with resistance from my reactive mind. I've been doing The Tibetan Five and meditating most mornings, and that helps, but still, the stress/suffering still manages to creep in.... despite my best meditation & tibetan-laced efforts to let it go. The result being - I see how absurd my "suffering" is, but still feel distressed.


Does everyone understand what I mean by absurd? I wish I could describe it adequately, but the best I can do right now is: The absurdity of my suffering is that it's usually over something that is NOT actually life-threatening. Student or credit card loans are common ones, as well as: my car has to go into the shop again?!? The basics are actually handled right now. Food. Shelter. Clothing (too much, in fact). Love. 


So why suffer? Well, the best I can tell is it's some malfunction in the computer program. Historically, we've called this ego or reactive mind. While it might be useful for surviving in the wild when a saber-toothed tiger is after you, it doesn't prove especially useful in modern society, where there's a bevy of things to "stress" about, but hardly any that actually threaten our survival.


Funny thing is, the more research I do about health and the state of the world, the more I'm cleaning up my act about how I eat and live. But I don't stress about those things. They're almost too big for my processor, so I stress about the things that appear to be under my jurisdiction. 


Silly, huh?


Anyway, all of this rambling is just mental fourplay for the thing I actually meant for you all to read. My friend Lisa sent this to me two years ago and I was going through old email in an effort to clean up my computer and I came across this article and remembered how much I liked it when I read it. Thanks for sharing this with me, Lis. I have a feeling this will strike a particularly loud chord with some of you married folks out there.


I like it for many reasons, especially that it reminded me how we can actually choose whether we experience suffering or not.


Huh. Yeah, right. Tell that to my reactive mind.


August 2, 2009
Modern Love
Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear
By LAURA A. MUNSON

LET’S say you have what you believe to be a healthy marriage. You’re still friends and lovers after spending more than half of your lives together. The dreams you set out to achieve in your 20s — gazing into each other’s eyes in candlelit city bistros when you were single and skinny — have for the most part come true.

Two decades later you have the 20 acres of land, the farmhouse, the children, the dogs and horses. You’re the parents you said you would be, full of love and guidance. You’ve done it all: Disneyland, camping, Hawaii, Mexico, city living, stargazing.

Sure, you have your marital issues, but on the whole you feel so self-satisfied about how things have worked out that you would never, in your wildest nightmares, think you would hear these words from your husband one fine summer day: “I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did. I’m moving out. The kids will understand. They’ll want me to be happy.”

But wait. This isn’t the divorce story you think it is. Neither is it a begging-him-to-stay story. It’s a story about hearing your husband say “I don’t love you anymore” and deciding not to believe him. And what can happen as a result.

Here’s a visual: Child throws a temper tantrum. Tries to hit his mother. But the mother doesn’t hit back, lecture or punish. Instead, she ducks. Then she tries to go about her business as if the tantrum isn’t happening. She doesn’t “reward” the tantrum. She simply doesn’t take the tantrum personally because, after all, it’s not about her.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying my husband was throwing a child’s tantrum. No. He was in the grip of something else — a profound and far more troubling meltdown that comes not in childhood but in midlife, when we perceive that our personal trajectory is no longer arcing reliably upward as it once did. But I decided to respond the same way I’d responded to my children’s tantrums. And I kept responding to it that way. For four months.

“I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.”

His words came at me like a speeding fist, like a sucker punch, yet somehow in that moment I was able to duck. And once I recovered and composed myself, I managed to say, “I don’t buy it.” Because I didn’t.

He drew back in surprise. Apparently he’d expected me to burst into tears, to rage at him, to threaten him with a custody battle. Or beg him to change his mind.

So he turned mean. “I don’t like what you’ve become.”

Gut-wrenching pause. How could he say such a thing? That’s when I really wanted to fight. To rage. To cry. But I didn’t.

Instead, a shroud of calm enveloped me, and I repeated those words: “I don’t buy it.”

You see, I’d recently committed to a non-negotiable understanding with myself. I’d committed to “The End of Suffering.” I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.

My husband hadn’t yet come to this understanding with himself. He had enjoyed many years of hard work, and its rewards had supported our family of four all along. But his new endeavor hadn’t been going so well, and his ability to be the breadwinner was in rapid decline. He’d been miserable about this, felt useless, was losing himself emotionally and letting himself go physically. And now he wanted out of our marriage; to be done with our family.

But I wasn’t buying it.

I said: “It’s not age-appropriate to expect children to be concerned with their parents’ happiness. Not unless you want to create co-dependents who’ll spend their lives in bad relationships and therapy. There are times in every relationship when the parties involved need a break. What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?” he said.

“Go trekking in Nepal. Build a yurt in the back meadow. Turn the garage studio into a man-cave. Get that drum set you’ve always wanted. Anything but hurting the children and me with a reckless move like the one you’re talking about.”

Then I repeated my line, “What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?”

“How can we have a responsible distance?”

“I don’t want distance,” he said. “I want to move out.”

My mind raced. Was it another woman? Drugs? Unconscionable secrets? But I stopped myself. I would not suffer.

Instead, I went to my desk, Googled “responsible separation” and came up with a list. It included things like: Who’s allowed to use what credit cards? Who are the children allowed to see you with in town? Who’s allowed keys to what?

I looked through the list and passed it on to him.

His response: “Keys? We don’t even have keys to our house.”

I remained stoic. I could see pain in his eyes. Pain I recognized.

“Oh, I see what you’re doing,” he said. “You’re going to make me go into therapy. You’re not going to let me move out. You’re going to use the kids against me.”

“I never said that. I just asked: What can we do to give you the distance you need ... ”

“Stop saying that!”

Well, he didn’t move out.

Instead, he spent the summer being unreliable. He stopped coming home at his usual six o’clock. He would stay out late and not call. He blew off our entire Fourth of July — the parade, the barbecue, the fireworks — to go to someone else’s party. When he was at home, he was distant. He wouldn’t look me in the eye. He didn’t even wish me “Happy Birthday.”

But I didn’t play into it. I walked my line. I told the kids: “Daddy’s having a hard time as adults often do. But we’re a family, no matter what.” I was not going to suffer. And neither were they.

MY trusted friends were irate on my behalf. “How can you just stand by and accept this behavior? Kick him out! Get a lawyer!”

I walked my line with them, too. This man was hurting, yet his problem wasn’t mine to solve. In fact, I needed to get out of his way so he could solve it.

I know what you’re thinking: I’m a pushover. I’m weak and scared and would put up with anything to keep the family together. I’m probably one of those women who would endure physical abuse. But I can assure you, I’m not. I load 1,500-pound horses into trailers and gallop through the high country of Montana all summer. I went through Pitocin-induced natural childbirth. And a Caesarean section without follow-up drugs. I am handy with a chain saw.

I simply had come to understand that I was not at the root of my husband’s problem. He was. If he could turn his problem into a marital fight, he could make it about us. I needed to get out of the way so that wouldn’t happen.

Privately, I decided to give him time. Six months.

I had good days, and I had bad days. On the good days, I took the high road. I ignored his lashing out, his merciless jabs. On bad days, I would fester in the August sun while the kids ran through sprinklers, raging at him in my mind. But I never wavered. Although it may sound ridiculous to say “Don’t take it personally” when your husband tells you he no longer loves you, sometimes that’s exactly what you have to do.

Instead of issuing ultimatums, yelling, crying or begging, I presented him with options. I created a summer of fun for our family and welcomed him to share in it, or not — it was up to him. If he chose not to come along, we would miss him, but we would be just fine, thank you very much. And we were.

And, yeah, you can bet I wanted to sit him down and persuade him to stay. To love me. To fight for what we’ve created. You can bet I wanted to.

But I didn’t.

I barbecued. Made lemonade. Set the table for four. Loved him from afar.

And one day, there he was, home from work early, mowing the lawn. A man doesn’t mow his lawn if he’s going to leave it. Not this man. Then he fixed a door that had been broken for eight years. He made a comment about our front porch needing paint. Our front porch. He mentioned needing wood for next winter. The future. Little by little, he started talking about the future.

It was Thanksgiving dinner that sealed it. My husband bowed his head humbly and said, “I’m thankful for my family.”

He was back.

And I saw what had been missing: pride. He’d lost pride in himself. Maybe that’s what happens when our egos take a hit in midlife and we realize we’re not as young and golden anymore.

When life’s knocked us around. And our childhood myths reveal themselves to be just that. The truth feels like the biggest sucker-punch of them all: it’s not a spouse or land or a job or money that brings us happiness. Those achievements, those relationships, can enhance our happiness, yes, but happiness has to start from within. Relying on any other equation can be lethal.

My husband had become lost in the myth. But he found his way out. We’ve since had the hard conversations. In fact, he encouraged me to write about our ordeal. To help other couples who arrive at this juncture in life. People who feel scared and stuck. Who believe their temporary feelings are permanent. Who see an easy out, and think they can escape.

My husband tried to strike a deal. Blame me for his pain. Unload his feelings of personal disgrace onto me.

But I ducked. And I waited. And it worked.

Laura A. Munson is a writer who lives in Whitefish, Mont. 


This thing makes me cry every time I read it.


Funny enough, the first rule of martial arts is: DUCK!


When someone's trying to punch you in the face, DUCK! 


I think this concept is rooted in zen philosophy. Because it's not just about leaving or running away from the fight, but about not participating in the violence. A block or hit to "defend" is still participating in the violence. But when you duck, you're actually staying present, but not contributing to the violence of the situation. 


Violence doesn't really work if there's nothing to push against.


I'm going to try this. A metaphoric duck when life's throwing me seemingly justifiable reasons to fret, worry, stress and suffer. Duck.


Duck!


So, everybody....


DUCK!









Saturday, April 30, 2011

Golf is better than sex..... & Beware of text messages

My Dad said this to me the other day...

"I think your Mom might be having an affair."

WTF?!?

Dad, what? 

Background: My parents have been married for 45+ years and they still love, like and enjoy each other. For real. Recently my Mom went to their vacation home in Florida solo and they both seriously missed each other! How cute is that? I was highly doubtful that my mother was having an affair.

Dad, what makes you think that?

He continued, "because I found these text messages on the cel phone that said I love you and Meet me later."

He handed me his samsung flip-phone so I could look over the text messages to see who'd been sending secret love messages to my mother.

I couldn't find anything in the in- or out-going text message mailboxes. (Side-note: My parents never text to me. The one time I sent my Dad a text message to show him how it works, he looked at it and said, "how do I delete this?")

I asked him to show me where he found these so he took the phone back for about 30 seconds, found what he was looking for and handed it back to me.

The very top of the list of text messages that indeed said I love you and meet me later said Message Templates.


Hahahahahaha.

Truth is, my parents are too old to have affairs. No offense intended. But ask anyone who's had an affair - from what I've seen, it may be exciting, but it takes a lot of energy and is a lot of freaking work. My parents would rather golf, from what I can tell.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Horrified by Congressional Bill S 510

They're calling it The Food Safety Modernization Act. What a complete and total misnomer. Or, to quote Al Pacino, "what a crock of shit."
When congress made it possible years ago to patent seeds, I wasn't made aware of it until after-the-fact. Most of you know what this has done to the independent farmer. For those who don't, in a nutshell, it basically allows evil conglomerates like Monsanto to sue independent and family farmers for trying to maintain their farm and their livelihoods for using Monsanto's "patented" seeds for their crop. No other "modern" or industrialized nation allows for seed patents, but the U.S. does and I'm certain it was due to lobbying and money in the pocket handed out by pharmaceutical-turned-agricultural-greed-machines like Monsant and Cargill.

The Food Safety Modernization Act, S 510, which I hope will soon be on the denied, proverbial cutting room floor, is a bill that will make it illegal to grow, share, and sell home grown anything. 

It seems to be somewhat under the radar right now and is being touted as a food safety act is not only a crock of shit, it is in the same vain as the aforementioned seed patent bill that passed years ago and has devastated and bankrupt independent and family farmers.

Think about it. That basil plant you have or the tomatoes your neighbor grows would be made illegal under this bill. But that's not who they're after, in my opinion. I think they want to centralize agricultural power even more, so that the organic, independent, family farms will become illegal and eventually extinct.

Not only that, it would give all the power of seeds and farming to pharmaceutical conglomerates like Monsanto and Cargill.

Below is what I received about this. If you can share this with anyone you know who can reach a lot of people, please do so. 

To me, this is totally unconstitutional. Prior to the European settlement, the Native-Americans reportedly lived in complete harmony with the land. Ownership of land, seeds or plants was not only dismissed it was unheard of. The European settlers who many of us are decedents of were absolutely dependent upon their right and ability to grow and live off of their own land and food. The right to plant our own food, and have the freedom to choose the food we eat is at the very core of this country's foundation.

It's just craziness!

Don't be fooled by this bill being called a Food Safety Modernization Act. Congress has denied proposed bills that would require GMO-labels on GMO food products. If they refuse to put labels just informing citizens we'll be eating GMO food, I can't believe they have our best interest in mind with this so-called "food safety" measure. 


We still have choice and a voice. Share this blog with everyone you know who cares about our freedom to choose what food we eat. Also, let the senators on the list below know how you feel. Here's a sample letter I received from Aajonus Vonderplanitz, the PhD in nutrition that I follow. By the way, during his studies in nutrition, he researched how mammals respond to food, and especially raw food, whereas a lot of conventional nutrition is based upon analyzing the food only, not how mammals process and respond to certain foods, so....his nutrition findings are extremely sound.

Love to all of you and to our freedom!


Here are a few links and here's the information I received about this bill.
Govtrack.us

We cannot assume that someone else will protect our rights. Each person needs to write a letter. SB S510 is perhaps one of the most scandalous bills to ever have been written that could jeopardize your right to choose the foods you want to eat.
Please send the following senators listed below a sample letter below, or write one and send yours.


Dear Congress(wo)man,
I am deeply concerned with your sponsorship of Senate Bill 510.  That bill represents another hideous attempt to place more power into the hands of centralized government and robs individual citizens and states.  The greatest danger to mankind is that this bill allows complete manipulation of America's food supply and threatens to strip us of our freedoms to grow, sell, and buy food and make doing any of those natural things crimes punishable by imprisonment. It would be a crime to grow food and share it with my friends and neighbors. The act of generating and supporting this bill is in itself criminal to our Constitution to which you are not immune.  Not only remove your sponsorship from Bill S510 but defeat it. Thank you.

Sincerely,
(your name)

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is the sponsor of this bill.

Co-sponsors are:
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
Richard Burr [R-NC]
Roland Burris [D-IL]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Judd Gregg [R-NH]
Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Ben Nelson [D-NE]
Tom Udall [D-NM]
David Vitter [R-LA]

Write these senators today and tell them to revoke their support of Senate Bill 510!
Senate Bill S510 Will Make It Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
by Steve Green

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010,  may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.
    “If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.  It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”  It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food."  ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes.

 S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food AND FARMING.

History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry.  Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control.  Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president.  Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto.  Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1.  It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.  It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2.  It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security.  It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.  Instead, S 510 says:

COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3.  It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.”  Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced. 

4.  It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food.  It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements.  Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5.  It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6.  It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals.  The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease.  Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents.  Animal diseases can be falsely declared.  S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7.  It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety. 

8.  It deconstructs what is left of the American economy.  It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer.  The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9.  It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs.  This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe.  The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger. 

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control.  The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied.  It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.

For further information, watch these videos:
Food Laws – Forcing people to globalize?
Corporate Rule?
Reclaiming Economies?


Monday, March 15, 2010

Yelling - One of the Highest Forms of Compassion

Lately I’ve been watching Kitchen Nightmares with Chef Gordon Ramsey, who in my opinion, does for wanna-be successful restaurants what Simon Cowell does for wanna-be pop singers...and that is give them a serious dose of honesty – delivered fearlessly and without restraint. Personally, I like the honesty of Ramsey (and Cowell), not only because I usually agree with them, but because I admire how effortlessly Ramsey (we'll cover Cowell in a future blog) handles confrontation with stubborn, defensive, and clueless chefs and restaurateurs. I find myself wishing I could handle confrontation more like Chef Ramsey. It makes me curious about his upbringing and family life. In Ramsey’s home, is it copasetic and even encouraged to raise your voice during a discussion? I’m sort of fascinated by what his family dynamic might be like. Maybe he just learned it in the kitchen. Who knows.

I suppose it’s worth mentioning that my family is not a yelling family. In fact, my father’s side is fully non-confrontational to the point where they’ll completely ignore an elephant in the room to avoid making waves. However my father has more boldness than his mother, in that he handled confrontations while teaching and coaching (35 years of the former, 25 years of the latter) with relative ease. My mother’s family, while generally not very confrontational, has a bit more fire in them, being a blend of Serbian and Russian, two semi-confrontational cultures (though I believe we having nothing on Latinos). I also never witnessed my parents yelling at each other. Something I feel grateful for now because it’s not a default that I readily go to when in arguments with my beau Marcus. Though I might not have learned how to verbally spar from my parents, I did learn how to fight for what I believe in and for what’s right, as my parents taught me that on a constant basis throughout my childhood.

The background is to bring you to this: For the first time in my life, I’ve yelled at my father. I have to tell you, it’s a bit uncomfortable for me, but still, I feel justified.

So maybe that’s it with Ramsey. He feels justified in his yelling at these chefs and restaurateurs who are so reluctant to take responsibility and create change in their businesses that he’s their loud, living, in-their-face wake-up call.

Because that’s what it is for me with my father. I feel justified yelling at him. Here’s why: He’s pre-diabetic. For anyone who knows anything about this, you know that for a seventy-one year old man (for a man at any age, really, but especially a bona-fide senior citizen), being pre-diabetic is not a good prognosis. The human body seems to handle semi-high blood sugar for about ten years, but once we pass the ten year mark, things start to go. My father, true to form, doesn’t really want to change anything in his diet or lifestyle. The changes he has made are sort of half-assed. The problem, I think, is that besides being overweight, my Dad feels generally all right. His weight-gain occurred primarily since he retired 15 years ago (since he worked out and ate less as a physical fitness teacher and football coach). But slowly over the past 15 years he’s gained weight and grown more sedentary. But they (they = reporters, doctors, the powers that be) call diabetes The Silent Killer for a reason. There are often no obvious symptoms with diabetes, even though complications from diabetes can be blindness, amputations, and usually irreversible coronary artery disease (which can lead to heart attacks and strokes).



So I feel justified yelling at my father because he didn’t really change much when I just spoke with him. Fortunately, I’m not alone in my fight as I imagine this would be much more difficult if I were. My boyfriend Marcus is a health and nutrition expert, and much-like Ramsey, is not afraid of confrontation, so we take turns talking to and sometimes yelling at my father. My mother, while not yelling at him, is making him healthy, healing foods to eat, but between my Mom’s healthy and Marcus sanctioned meals, my father still goes to some of the bad stuff.

Today’s yelling spell at my father was due to my mother’s report that he recently ate Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and a tuna-salad sandwich. Part of my rant was, “Dad, Kraft mac n’ cheese and a canned tuna sandwich?!? They are the bastards of pasta and fish. How about some organic pasta and the good, organic cheese (unpasteurized) that I know you have at home, or getting fresh tuna from the co-op?? But no, you have to eat the bottom of the totem pole of pasta and fish. Come on, Dad. You know better.”

But at this point, his taste-buds and eating are so habitualized, that he isn’t even aware of what he’s putting in his mouth and how it’s contributing to his impending diabetes. For example, the boxed mac n’ cheese has a higher glycemic index than a can of coke. Think about that. Mac n’ cheese spikes your blood sugar more than drinking a can of regular coke. Seriously. And sandwich was surely loaded with unknown sugars, what with the high-fructose corn-syrup spiked mayonnaise and the white bread that undoubtedly comprised the tuna-fish sandwich.

But what does this yelling mean in the big picture?

Though uncomfortable at times for all parties, I actually believe that yelling at my father is one of the highest forms of compassion. True compassion is fighting for the highest good, even when it’s uncomfortable.

I selfishly want so badly for my father to live long and healthy, that I’ll resort to yelling my truth to him, in the chance it’ll get through his thick, stubborn skin.

Which is part of why I like Chef Ramsey. He wants so badly for these people to have what they claim to want, that he’s willing to exert the effort and frankly, balls, that it takes to speak loudly and fiercely, the truth about how they’re f%*king up their restaurants.

Could there be a more quiet or gentler way of getting across my point or Chef Ramsey’s? Probably. Though I suppose it wouldn’t be as entertaining television in Ramsey’s case. But in my life, yeah, I suppose if I were more Zen, I might be able to find a way to get my point across without yelling and with more finesse and subtlety. But until I attain this Zen-state, I’m going to throw anything I have in my arsenal at my father about his health. Because as long as he’s not wiling to fight for himself and his health, I’ll fight for him. I can handle being a little uncomfortable, and so can he.

The irony is, I learned this lesson on true compassion and fighting for the highest good from my parents. Guess my Dad should’ve known it might come back to bite him on the ass. But Dad, I promise you... you’ll thank me some day.


More Interesting Katie Strand World Posts

New Music
&
Posts
at
Katie Strand Music