Marketing to the Masses: Amorality and Civil Anarchy by Corporations

Within modern corporate culture there exists a beautifully regimented theocracy - the God of this corporate governance is Money. All other considerations are subjugated to the Primacy of Money. Here are a few books I've read in recent months (and one movie) which expand on this theme:

1. Born to Buy : The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture by Juliet B. Schor

2. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal by Eric Schlosser

3. Super Size Me - "documentary" by Morgan Spurlock

4. The Laws of Choice by Eric Marder


Juliet Schor, author of The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need and Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, put out Born to Buy last year which completes her trilogy on on the American Middle-Class Malaise. Speaking of threes, the triumvirate of Middle-Aged Women Moping about the Malaise of the American Middle Class are Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Warren, and Juliet Schor.





I talked a little bit about Ehrenreich's books here. I discussed Elizabeth Warren's book briefly here. Schor does a good job reporting about her analysis of American middle-class problems. Her current book puts forth the thesis that corporate amorality has damned the recent generations of Americans to behave almost as automatons enslaved by Materialism. She interviews marketing executives past and present, parents, children, ad-men and documents research (her own as well as pre-existing) demonstrating the behavioral effects of such marketing on children as they grow up. She tries to refute the claim by marketers that "associations not causations" underlie the links between their marketing acts and the growing pestilence of fatness, stupidity, laziness, materialism, substance abuse, violence, and psychiatric disorders (anxiety and depression mainly). She claims her research on two cohorts around Boston (one affluent, the other inner-city poor) forges a sure connection, causality, between the marketing of products and such behavior by American kids. She decries the commercialization of the public school system with the expected diatribes, well researched. Starting initially with good intentions, she writes about how Advertisements have infiltrated the school systems compromising education and stealing large chunks of time daily. Channel One is again attacked, as they should be, and she talks briefly about the groundswell of opposition against Channel One (see Channel One Removal Kit).

She describes the chilling methods employed by Marketing companies in order to capture or seduce small children into becoming agents for their products. Particularly striking are the descriptions of the "Viral Marketing" techniques and the use of children as "spies" within their peer groups - e.g. the GIA (the girls intelligence agency) which infiltrates the typical suburban pajama slumber party of pre-teens with a school girl who has the assignment of obtaining a laundry-list of information from her school/classmates during the party, all for the marketing edification of corporate conglomerates like GAP, Levi-Strauss, etc. Also interesting is the evidence presented which show that large corporations now believe that it is to their benefit to market alcohol, cigarettes, and even such items as large appliances, automobiles to children more than to adults. Schor portrays us consumers as mostly pawns and victims, reminiscent of Elizabeth Warren's book The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. For the majority of Americans this may be true unfortunately.

Fast Food = Death
Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation is a tour de force of the fast-food industry, an excellent, entertaining, and fairly-well researched book which I wished I could make all 220 million or so adults in the US read.

He begins with the story of Carl Karcher, Richard and Maurice McDonald + Ray Kroc describing the birth of the hamburger industry in California in the early 1950s. He covers the marketing to kids including examples of outrageous public school marketing plans just as Schor did and draws parallels between Ray Kroc and Walt Disney - their early friendship during WWI, Kroc's early flirtation with Disney, later enmity, and the ironic posthumous partnerships of their companies. The overall theme of Schlosser's book would have to be Exploitation of the People by large corporations. He shows how franchisees are exploited by the big companies McDonald's, Subways, Burger Kings. He shows how high-school teenagers are exploited by the minimum-wage fast-food job market. He talks briefly about the fattening and the blighting of the health of the Nation and the World. He shows how Idaho potato farmers are exploited by the Ore-Idas, Simplot and Lamb Weston companies - he interviews the aged multi-billionare J.R. Simplot himself who grew his fortune by learning to dehydrate potatoes, then selling the idea to McDonalds. He shows how slaughter-house workers, mostly migrant workers, many illegals, are exploited, trashed, and discarded by the giant slaughterhouses like IBP and Conagra. The most striking parts of this book are the descriptions of the abattoirs in the midwest which he visits. He interviews many managers, workers - he describes routine amputations, decapitations, and workers' bodies falling into the machinery - the ongoing production of meat continuing nevertheless.

He describes the filth, chaos, and brazen anarchy in the meat-packing industry, the impotence of OSHA and all federal safety inspectors as the USDA is now controlled by the cattle industry (with the actual president of the cattle industry acting as the head etc.). He gives a thorough reporting of the Ecoli 0157:H7 contagion spreading throughout the country with emotional recounting of the deaths of six-year olds as told by their parents from eating spoiled hamburgers (remembering the Jack-in-the-Box incident in 1997 as well as the well-covered-up incidents involving McDonald's and Wendy's). As he writes on p197: "The medical literature on the causes of food poisoning is full of euphemisms and dry scientific terms...Behind them lies a simple explanation for why eating a hamburger can now make you seriously ill: There is shit in the meat." He includes one statement which seemed poorly researched (based on examining the "Notes" he includes in the back): he implies that Charles Gerba, microbiologist at Univ of Arizona found more fecal bacteria in the typical American sink than in the typical American toilet - he states that you'd be better off eating a carrot that you drop into a toilet than one that you drop into your kitchen sink. This may be true in your kitchen sink, but not in mine (in your face). In general, you'd have to conclude that he has an activist agenda against the Fast Food Industry and that he is unlikely to provide much positive information on this industry - nevertheless the information he provides is extremely entertaining, very important and very believable for the most part. He ends with a chapter on the globalization of the American fast-food industry and its portentious consequences.

Fast Food is Disgusting

Morgan Spurlock is a "dumb redneck" from West Virginia, now living in Manhattan, who stars in and produces Super-Size Me, a mockumentary on the Fast Food Industry, mainly designed to induce disgust in fast foods. Most of the scenes shown are pointless, but the film is fairly entertaining and provides some very good information in a format chosen for mass appeal, thus may offer the promise of exposing the most fast-food-prone people to its influence. Spurlock reveals in an extra feature on the DVD that Schlosser's Fast Food Nation was the predominant progenitor of his film and his interview with Eric Schlosser is a nice bonus.

The Science of Marketing
When I was at Penn, I spent some time at Wharton's Business School where I first became acquainted with Eric Marder's The Laws of Choice. This is a book I would not recommend to anyone due to its very non-riveting writing style. It mainly describes the STEP (strategy evaluation program), VEST (volume estimation test), SUMM (single unit marketing model) which are measurement tools used in the marketing of products by just about all the large corporations. It provides specific examples, many equations and graphs which allows you to calculate the probabilities of market share, market penetration, and describes specific product testing and measurements of such, describing the links between the product testing and the actual market performance and how the two correlate based on the performance of testing. He describes the Principles and "Laws" governing product choice, product performance, and product sales in the real world as captured and "pre-described" by the STEP, VEST, SUMM tests. It is initially extremely boring, yet at the same time fascinating, and ultimately, the realization comes upon you that marketing, the human behavioral response to influence peddling, is in many ways, a true Science.


Money is so all-powerful in the US that it buys everything - from the Presidency, down the various levels of government, to the public school system, and even the minds of your children, and you yourself. It's always sickening to watch the influence of money during the Presidential election cycles. I think many Americans, and the Corporate mindset especially, will compromise all their ideals of Democracy and most of their personal beliefs when seduced by the power of Money and the promise of Great Wealth. Juliet Schor interviewed a couple of former marketing executives who admitted they "should burn in hell" for what they did (advertise unresponsibly to small children). Money from the Great Corporations such as McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Disney, Nickelodeon has corrupted our nation, has purchased the influence of our Congressmen and Senators. Government's major purpose is to keep its citizens safe; the widespread corruption of the individuals elected to serve as cogs in governance has nearly broken apart Government's justification for existence. In the inner workings of our government, He Who Has the Most Money wins. Thus laws which should by all reasonable minds by adopted are repeatedly shot down - forbidding advertising aimed at children was deemed "impractical", the safety nets for the food supply have had giant holes punched in them by people in the USDA and the cattle and meat industry (and others). The existing regulations are largely window dressing which deceives the American Public into believing that they are indeed being protected, and that their taxes are being spent responsibly to pay responsible people charged with running the large government agencies. There are good people in the government and over-generalizing is histrionic, but unless Government does its Primary Job better - that of acting as the control valve, this worship of Money will continue and this Anarchy of Greed will reign.
Here's something:

They Will Say

Of my city the worst that men will ever say is this:
You took little children away from the sun and the dew,
And the glimmers that played in the grass under the great sky,
And the reckless rain; you put them between the walls
To work, broken and smothered, for bread and wages,
To eat dust in their throats and die empty-hearted
For a little handful of pay on a few Saturday nights.
--Carl Sandburg

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Re-examined

Reviewing our electricity usage over the past year and over the past 2 years, and keeping in mind my previous discussion regarding the use of compact-fluorescent light bulbs throughout our house (see right side bar, or click http://septembersong.blogspot.com/2004_06_30_septembersong_archive.html), I’ve found a significant reduction in our monthly and daily electricity usage over time. As you can see in the raw numbers below, if you compare the Kilowatt usage averaged daily from 6/2/2004 to 1/5/2005, and compare to 6/3/2003 – 1/5/2004, you’ll see the difference. On 6/3/2003, the average temperature was low, 66F, a rather cool late Spring month – yet we used 2065 KWh or 65 KWh daily averaged. On 6/2/2004, the average temperature was higher, 74F, yet we used just 1515 KWh that month or just 54KWh averaged daily. The next month comparison, 7/2/2003 vs 7/2/2004 shows temperatures of 74F vs 76F (i.e. warmer this past year thus you’d expect again more air-conditioner use etc. thus more electricity use). Yet KWh usage is 1912 vs. 1526. The comparisons break down like this:

Compared months........ avg Temp’03vs’04....... KWh used... Avg Daily KWh use

June 2003 vs 2004............... 66F vs 74F............ 2065 vs 1515........... 65 vs 54~

July 2003 vs 2004............... 74F vs 76F............. 1912 vs 1526........... 66 vs 51

August 2003 vs 2004........... 78F vs 79F............. 2213 vs 1850.......... 71 vs 58**

Sept 2003 vs 2004............... 79F vs 75F............. 2443 vs 1670........ 76 vs 56~

Oct 2003 vs 2004................. 69F vs 71F............. 1397 vs 1310........ 48 vs 44

Nov 2003 vs 2004............... 60F vs 62F.............. 904 vs 657........... 31 vs 23

Dec 2003 vs 2004................ 56F vs 55F............. 1006 vs 770......... 31 vs 23**

Jan 2004 vs 2005................ 41F vs 43F.............. 1246 vs 932......... 42 vs 31

I’ve marked with ~ those months compared where the temperature difference is 4degrees F or greater, thus allowing one to argue that the comparison is somewhat confounded. I’ve marked with ** those months where the temperature difference was within 1 degree F, thus making comparison more believable. In those ** months, you can see that the difference in average KWh usage is 8-13KWh or 18-26% less. Averaged over these 8 months compared, the difference average is 22% less Kilowatts per hour used. And furthermore, there are no months where we spent more this past 6 months than in previous 6 months periods of the same time frames.

The difference in terms of money spent?

Compared months.... billed difference.... how much less?... Percentage less?
June’03 vs ’04............. $165.05 vs $123.75......... $41.30...................... 25%
July ’03 vs ’04............. $173.03 vs $140.32........ $32.71....................... 19
August ’03 vs ’04......... $199.17 vs $168.63 .........$30.54 ......................15
Sept ’03 vs ’04............. $219.15 vs $152.90......... $66.25 ......................30
Oct ’03 vs ’04.............. $128.30 vs $121.44......... $6.86........................ 5
Nov ’03 vs ’04............. $76.88 vs $58.77........... $18.11........................ 24
Dec ’03 vs ’04............. $84.35 vs $67.68............ $16.67........................ 20
Jan ’04 vs ’05............. $103.01 vs $80.46.......... $22.55 ........................22.... avg 20%less

data compared to 2 years ago’s numbers:

June’02 vs ’04............ $146.00 vs $123.75........ $22.25....................... 15
July ’02 vs ’04............ $197.96 vs $140.32 ........$57.64 .......................29
August ’02 vs ’04....... $205.57vs $168.63......... $36.94....................... 18
Sept ’02 vs ’04 ...........$175.31vs $152.90.......... $22.41....................... 13
Oct ’02 vs ’04 ............$159.05 vs $121.44.......... $37.61....................... 24
Nov ’02 vs ’04 ...........$106.41vs $58.77............ $47.64...................... 45
Dec ’02 vs ’04 ............$119.05 vs $67.68........... $51.37 .......................43
Jan ’03 vs ’05............ $147.05 vs $80.46........... $66.59...................... 45 ....avg 29%less

Speaking cumulatively, we’ve saved $234.99 over this past 6 months as compared to the same time frame 2 years ago. Averaged, we are saving $29.37 per month compared to the previous year’s data, and saving $42.81 per month compared to 2 years ago’s data ($342.45 total). The critique in the argument might be that the temperatures are different, but if you look at the data, the temperatures differ by an average of 4% between years ’03 and ’04 month-by-month with a range of 1-11% difference, and most importantly, the temperatures are not consistently higher or lower month by month but differs randomly (additionally, the lows and highs averages are very similar year to year also). In any case the 20-29% savings is not explained by temperature differences of 4%. The other critique could be that we are behaving more frugally and thus cutting back significantly in our electricity usage. This definitely has some merit as shown in the following graph provided by my utility company:

As you can see, we have been using electricity less in the just completed past 12 months than in the previous 12 months, thus demonstrating our renewed commitment to frugality. The temperature curves overlaying also once again shows that the temperature difference is not what explains the differences. Yet the difference in the bar graphs in the 6 months prior to our changing over to compact-fluorescent bulbs is visibly MORE than in the most recent 6 months!! I can believe that we have been much more frugal this past 12 months, but were we such horrible spendthrifts in the previous year with electricity? Based on this graph, you would have to say YES! Yet we’ve also tried to save on water usage by not wasting it. In fact my wife and I are pretty reasonable people overall in terms of not wasting resources, so I’m a bit surprised at the difference that a little bit of extra care seems to have made in terms of our utility bills. In fact, when looking at our water bill over the past 6 months compared to the same 6 month time-frame years previously, I find that there is not a big difference and in fact there are more months this past year where we actually spent more water than a 6 months period a year previously (4 of 7 months) – this potentially blows a hole in the argument that we have been behaving less frugally over the past year than before in terms of utility usage.

WATER USAGE DURING THIS TIME PERIOD

Comparison period..................#Days................Daily Usage...........Total Usage (gal)
June 2003 vs 2004.....................30 vs 31...........146.33 vs 111.94....... 4390 vs 3470
July 2003 vs 2004......................30 vs 29............76.33 vs 100.69..........2290 vs 2920
August 2003 vs 2004..................32 vs 31...........99.06 vs 109.35...........3170 vs 3390
Sept 2003 vs 2004.......................28 vs 32...........122.86 vs 139.06........3440 vs 4450
Oct 2003 vs 2004........................30 vs 30...............127 vs 128...............3810 vs 3840
Nov 2003 vs 2004........................28 vs 32...........151.07 vs 107.19.........4230 vs 3430
Dec 2003 vs 2004........................29 vs 29...........120.34 vs 138.97........3490 vs 4030


But water usage is difficult to alter too much short of not flushing toilets and other unsanitary behaviors. And water usage may have gone up for us because our children have been growing up and requiring more baths, more dishes with eating, etc. Though this argument should go for electricity usage too. In any case, a max of $43 per month saved on electricity is nearly the cost of our cable-modem fees, and more than our local and long distance telephone bills, more than our average natural gas bill. So we have potentially saved the equivalent of this monthly averaged out over the year mostly by behaving more frugally in terms of our electricity usage. Importantly, I also began actually reading the dials on our electrical meter and calling my utility company to let them know if there was a difference so that they could come and re-read it (– I made them come by to re-read twice). This served the purpose of mainly letting whomever at the utility department and my meter man know that I’m watching the meter and their performance as well (so that they won’t try to rip me off). In general I’ve found over the past half year that the meter man reads pretty much on the money so that I could probably let that part of it go until I get a very anomalous reading.

Summation: Should you go change out all your light bulbs to compact fluorescent? I think you should, mainly because it sets you in the frame of mind to conserve as well as the potential savings of $62 over the life of the bulb versus equivalent lumens of incandescent lighting (According to http://www.newdream.org/consumer/cflfactsheet.html ). Does CF lighting definitely save you in monthly electricity bills? I would have to say it seems to in superficial analysis as above, but there are many confounds and like I said, CF bulbs sets you in the frame of mind to conserve, thus you may be conserving electricity in other ways too which would confound the comparison – being willing to tolerate more heat and cold, turning off lighting more often, using your appliances more efficiently, turning off TVs and computers more frequently, etc. These other measures in combination is probably going to surpass the savings you get directly and solely from changing out your light bulbs. So what part of the 20-29% savings we saw could be directly attributable to the change to CF light bulbs? I wished I could spout a believable figure but based on looking at the raw data and the bar-graph comparisons, I could guess that it is the low end or 20% which could be believable. Or I could guess more conservatively that it would be something like half that or maybe 10% savings, maybe even less.

Remember from my previous post on installing CF light bulbs, I spent $361.30 total to purchase all those CF bulbs for the house. It looks like I've almost saved that much in half a year through the use of CF bulbs throughout the house and (maybe) other frugal behaviors. In any case, I'd say that you could safely assume that you can make back the initial investment in compact fluorescent light bulbs within 1 year, and by 10 years (if these bulbs do last that long), I could potential have saved thousands of dollars! We'll have to see.
------------------------------------------------------------

LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A NON-SAVINGS

I've heard that All-Clad pots (http://www.allclad.com/) are good because it heats food faster. This I've shown to be not true. I took an All-Clad stainless with the aluminum core 3 quart pot and a Revere 3 quart stainless steel only pot, place 6 cups of identical cold water in each, put one on an identical sized oven eye and simultaneously turned on the stove to HIGH for each eye.

The All-Clad pot took 13 minutes to boil the water. The Revere el-cheap-o pot took 10 minutes to boil the water.

Just in case one of my oven eyes were bad, I switched the pots after allowing 3 hours of cool-down time:

Again the exact same result: The All-Clad pot took me 13 minutes to boil 6 cups of cold water, the cheapo pot took me 10 minutes to boil the 6 cups of cold water. So All-Clad stainless pots take longer to heat water, I assume because of the 3-ply construction, thus taking the contained water further away from the heat. Their Cop-R-Chef collection might boil water faster, but I'd be skeptical of that too. The main proclamations by All-Clad themselves I've found is not that they heat food faster but that they heat food more evenly, thus causing less searing and burning; that they impart no metallic tastes to the fo0d; that they become heirloom-like items lasting several generations. Perhaps these are true. But can you justify $635.00 expenditure on basically 7 pots/pans with lids for 3 of them? I somehow did and purchased them, but I think this is an example of affluenza without any obvious evident benefit except for the Luxury quotient.

De-Cluttering

I've been getting rid of a bunch of stuff that sits around the house un-used. Over the past 15 years I've accumulated an enormous mound of useless garbage. I received an impetus to start getting rid of major items when I checked out Material World: A Global Family Portrait from my local library. I first heard of this book back in 1998 or so on the documentary Affluenza on PBS - for an excellent website which organizes some of the ideas in those documentaries click here. I had to wait 2 months to get this book as there was a qeue of something like 10 people in Wake County looking for this book! It shows a spectacular disparity of possessions among various peoples around the world - it would have been even more interesting had the authors included many more countries. They were trying to get the "average" family in a given country to display their entire material possessions in front of their residence. I was trying to imagine what my family's possessions would look like displayed in front of our house and it was an ugly scene to imagine. It made me decide to get rid of all the little junky crap my wife and I seem to horde. I set up a seller's account on ebay and promptly sold 8 items over 2 weeks and netted a profit of $688 after paying ebay fees, shipping fees, and paypal fees. It was actually quite fun to sell on ebay and I may resort to this again. One interesting turn of events was that I was forbidden by email from ebay from selling any medical equipment. There is an enormous bureaucracy behind the selling and re-selling of health-care related equipment - an example of government control over a field of activity gone amuck. Meant to protect a patient from bad medical devices which could harm the patient thus resulting in the patient sueing the pants off the manufacturer and the government, this FDA branch prevents someone like me from selling a spirometer or a simple diagnostic equipment to another health care provider - a ridiculous waste of everybody's time and energy. I failed to sell a set of 5 Simpson's plastic dioramas with figures - an immature use of my money on a trendomatic, worthless waste of money and space - I guess everybody else feels the same way about the Simpsons now. In any case these are the 8 items I did manage to sell:

1.my old cellphone/PDA device (the kyo 6035)
2.my over-complicated multi-battery charging device which I've hardly used
3.a set of 5 Maurice Sendak Where the Wild Things Are plasticine figures (too scary for my kids)
4.a cash register
5.my old credit/debit transaction terminal
6.an old fountain pen
7.an un-used nebulizer machine
8.a time-stamp clock

I also donated items with abandon to various charities in my neighborhood. To Dorcas Thrift Shop (Christian Communities in Action) I gave:
1.My son's 8-piece drum set (received from Santa Claus last year, he played with it 3 times)
2.A Sanyo VCR
3.Lamp Shade
4.A heavy steel trash can
5.A box of about 20 mugs/cups
6.A box of trashy novels/garbage books
Dorcas turned down my offer of several garden hoses and a Xerox XEfx90 all-in-machine

To GoodWill I donated:
1.that Xerox XEfx90 all-in-one machine
2.Component stereo system: Pioneer turntable, Pioneer double-cassette deck, Sony Receiver/amplifier, 2 AIWA speakers - remember these ancient stereo systems every "audiophile" had to have? Who needs them now?

To Guardian Angel Thrift (Alzheimer's research) I donated:
1.30gallon aquarium with top (this leaves me with still 7 more aquaria, a 5g, 10g, 20g, 40g, 55g, and two 75gs, only one 75g and one 40g is in use now)
2.3 Aquamaster 350 aquarium filters nicely cleaned and bleached out
3.Sears 3hp gas-powered edger
4.An abdomenizer (my one and only purchase from a TV-infomercial con-job - 1994)

To Habitat for Humanity I donated:
1.2 clean toilet seats
2.A brass chandelier
3.2 sets of black track lighting

I plan to call back Habitat for Humanity to donate: a large Pappasan and ottoman my wife bought from Pier-1 back in 1994 or so, my wife's old student oak kitchen table for two with 2 oak chairs, 3 black leather and chrome/steel stack-on chairs from Target, 2 butterfly chairs, 2 plastic out-door fold-up chairs, maybe a child's play table with 2 chairs (plastic), maybe 4 heavy office-wall dividers, maybe my wife's old Perception kayak with oar and skirts etc equipment. There is also a beaten up, run-down old ugly wooden rickety office chair and a rusty old metal two-seater porch swing which our former neighbor gave my wife 6 years ago which she absolutely refuses to give away now that he is dead (he was an old man) - I would do almost anything to get rid of these items.

My wife has been fighting me all-the-way to try to keep most of these items as she is a greater pack-rat than I ever was. My son is also a bit of a pack-rat like his mother. Therefore I've had very little luck trying to rid our house of toys. Last Spring I convinced them to sell off many useless large toys at our yardsale, but they are not budgeing on the remaining gargantuan stash of toys. They are actually adding on as I speak. My wife said tonight that my decluttering is creating a vaccuum which makes her want to purchase more stuff to fill in the emptiness. As you can see from the lists above all the junk I'm trying to rid are items I can't imagine us using any time soon. I also sold several dozen of recent sellable books to Edward McKay Used Books and Mr.Mike's Used Books - I got a couple of books in return as well as some money - the danger to trying to sell books for me is that I often end up acquiring even more books simply by going into a used book store. I've made a habit of acquiring vast collections of used books since I began frequenting an Edward McKay Used Book store in Fort Bragg and Fayetteville NC back when I was a middle-schooler. As I went through my book collections, most of them were books which nobody else would ever want - what I've found is that the used book stores in the area no longer want those old 1960s binding books. They all want the recent best-sellers or prize-winners which I'd tend to hold onto for a second reading sometime. I considered selling these books on Amazon.com which seems to sell well, but the thought of such hundreds of nickel-and-dime transactions is just mind-numbing. What I've found is that the thrill of selling and shipping off the items at my local UPS store becomes stale after about 8 transactions.

My greatest hope is to be able to get rid of most of my medical equipment. I own a $4200 EKG machine on a rolling cast-iron cart, a $2900 vital signs monitor on wheels, a $2800 portable spirometer, a $2500 cholesterol screening machine, a $1400 cryosurgery system with 20lb N2O tank, a ?$1000 autoclave, a $650 urinalysis machine, an $800 exam table with vag illumination system, a $700 audiometer, IV pole, instrument table, 2 exam stools, an orthopedic exam bench, exam light, also I own 4 cabinets full of medical supplies such as sutures, needles, syringes, bandages, ace wraps, KY jelly, scalpels, iodine, drapes, tongue depressors & cotton swabs, alcohol wipes, forceps and clamps, some very expensive (and expired) medicines etc. Probably >$16,000 worth of equipment which clutters up the house. I tried to ebay equipment as I mentioned above. I got fast bids on an item before ebay shut down my solicitations. Apparently I forgot to mention that I don't have the original boxes for my equipment - without the original boxes, the FDA forbids resale of the items - quite a silly rule for the type of equipment I was selling. I could try selling the equipment on labX at high cost, or I could just hold onto them as I will never get back the money I paid for them. I've already used these items quite a bit as a favor for family and neighbors believe it or not. How did I end up with this decadent stash of medical equipment? My father retired from practice around 1995 and left me with a bunch of stuff, then I closed my own private practice in 2002 and joined a group as an employee (as a scut monkey). Overall I enjoy being an employee more than being an owner - my personality was not suited to be an owner. As an employee, I can leave my troubles behind when I leave work - a priceless commodity. I believe I have a latent fear that I must one day work again self-employed, therefore I am holding onto all the equipment, but I think more and more that I'm better off as an employee indefinitely. It takes leadership skills and lots of self-motivation to own your business - alas I do not have such qualities. A decent movie, About Schmidt, addresses the pathetic notion of such mediocrity: especially the case with the no-good son of Kathy Bates who has his room wall plastered with "participant awards" from his childhood; not even a 2nd place showing in sight. I'm not quite that pathetic, but could probably sympathize with that kid more than not. There hasn't been a whole hell of a lot I've been "number 1" in - perhaps in my high school class I was not bad, but once in college, I've been simmering ever-since in the cauldron of mediocrity. My 3.2 GPA from my undergrad school, itself a mediocre Ivy-League school (Penn), attests to it, as does my showing in the bottom of the top third of my medschool class, as does my "competent" but not spectacular showing during my residency. Confucius teaches us to strive for the Golden Mean and I believe I have attained that quite well. Another movie (since I'm talking movies) which addresses mediocrity is of course Amadeus seen from the perspective of the mediocre Salieri - and I am Salieri.

In my mind, mediocrity and clutter somehow are entwined, but it's hard for me to articulate this principle precisely. Maybe it has something to do with my mediocrity causing a feeling of emptiness inside me and my attempts at trying to fill the void with something of substance, just as my wife said "to fill the vaccuum with more stuff." In which case then, why am I trying so hard to declutter my house? Maybe I'm trying to get back to the center of my void in order to understand it? Maybe I'm hoping that I can learn to accept and be happy in my mediocrity once I can see it clearly? It reminds me of something by Nietzsche, like his Human, all too Human. I think looking over that Material World book made me think that our possessions are helping us delude ourselves into thinking that we are better than others (or more superior). When once we are stripped of our possessions, we are naked and nothing but humans like any other person in the world, no better, no worse, just a "mediocre man."

The Negatives of TV Viewing
stolen directly from p.125-129, Marie Sherlock's Living Simply with Children (Three Rivers Press, 2003)

"
1.TV Transforms Our Kids - And Us - Into "Consumer Units"
If there was ever any question about the relationship between TV viewing and kids wanting more "stuff," a study reported in the June 2001 issue of Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics concludes that, yes, indeed, kids who watch more TV bug their parents to buy more toys. The study involved a school-based effort to reduce television. By the end of the school year, those students who'd watched less TV were 70 percent less likely to have requested a toy during the previous week.
TV advertising works on adults too. A survey by economist Juliet Schor concluded that respondents spent an extra $208 annually for each hour of television they watched weekly. Betsy Taylor, Executive Director of the Center for a New American Dream, aptly calls the television a "direct I.V. of manufactured want."

2. TV Gives Us inferiority Complexes
The premise of most TV advertising is to make the viewers less-less cool, less attractive, less popular - if we don't buy whatever they're selling. The message is that, by buying these items, we'll be complete, we'll be part of an "in crowd."
And the "in crowd" has changed too. Television shows and movies aren't portraying the Cleaver family anymore but a very upscale Jones family. We essentially need to keep up with ever more affluent reference groups. Consequently, we need ot spend more and more to keep from feeling "out of it."

3.TV Promotes Violence And Other Negative Values
Remember the statistic quoted above about the 200,000 dramatized acts of violence and 40,000 dramatized murders that our children, on average, witness on television before they turn eighteen? According to a variety of sources, there is overwhelming evidence that violence on television - and at the movies and in video and computer games - is one of the causes of violent tendencies among young people.
Any doubt about the cause and effect of violent programming was put to rest by a joint statement in July 2000 by the Amercian Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. They said: "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life."
It isn't just the violence on TV that is harming our kids. Other negative "values" are reinforced on television, among them disrespect, greed, the notion that looking good and being cool is of paramount importance, and an attitude of entitlement and selfishness.

4. TV Induces An Addictive, Trancelike State
Another reason to be TV-free involves the psychological effects of television viewing. A number of studies conclude that the simple act of watching TV is harmful to children, whether it's "Sesame Street" or "NYPD Blue." Among the many negative effects that television viewing has on children is the trancelike state it produces, the sensory overkill, and its addictive qualities. The pernicious effects of viewing are amplified by the quantity of TV the average American kid watches. A twenty-year longitudinal study conducted at Yale University concluded that children who watch excessive amounts of television tend to be less imaginitive, more restless, more aggressive, and have poorer concentration.
Television's hypnotic, addictive effect is only getting worse. In his book Culture jam: The Uncooling of America, Kalle Lasn explains that television content contains "jolts" that he describes as "any 'technical event' that interrupts the flow of sound or thought or imagery - shift in camera angle, gunshot, cut to commercial." In 1978, television shows contained about ten jolts per minute; by 1998, the number of jolts had doubled. some channels and programs deliver many more of these "technical events," like MTV with sixty events per minute. Lasn and others contend that jolts release hormones that trigger the fight-or-flight response, and that the viewer's attention is riveted by upping the incidence of jolts, inducing essentially an addiction to that release of hormones.
The real world does not work this way, notes down-shifted mom Debbie Newman. She believes that this aspect of television programming may even be the cause of the "epidemic" of kids with ADD and ADHD. "If we were going to take, say, an alien from outer space and train him to have a short attention span, what would we do?" she asks. "Probably we would sit him in front of a screen and flash pictures in front of him that change every fraction of a second." Just park him in front of the tube - instant attention deficit.

5. TV Creates Couch Potatoes
Excessive TV viewing contributes to weight problems in children. According to the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the more children viewed TV, the heavier they were. Children who watched four or more hours of television a day were, on average, 17 percent heavier than those who watched less than two hours per day. A recent study at Tufts University revealed that kids who watch a lot of television end up eating more of the types of foods advertised -- that is, fast foods, convenience foods, candy, and soda - than children who don't watch as much television.

6.TV Inhibits Learning
Too much television also leads to poor academic performance. A number of studies conclude that the less TV a child watches, the better that child will score on achievement tests. Similarly, as TV viewing increases, reading ability decreases.
The negative effects of television on young children are so pronounced that, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement recommending that pediatricians "urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of 2 years."

7.TV Is A Time Vampire
So far the negatives I've listed have, more or less, been related to the programming, advertising, or psychological impacts of viewing television. But there's another, more straightforward and potentially much more negative impact of television viewing: the simple amount of time it takes away from other activities. A 2000 study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that kids ages two through seventeen spend an average of 4-1/2 hours each day in front of screens - TV, computer, video game systems.
That it takes away from time spent on physical activity and reading is implied in the last two negatives discussed. But there are many other activities that are lessened and sometimes obliterated because we're zoned out in front of the tube.
Family time together is a huge one! A 2001 study by Professor Barbara Brock of Eastern Washington University revealed that TV-free families spent an average of 385 minutes each week in meaningful conversation with kids, ten times the national average. Families without televisions spend much more time playing, creating, and just "hanging out" together than their TV-immersed peers. TV-free families also have more time to spend getting to know neighbors, helping younger siblings, working around the house, learning to play an instrument, volunteering - in short, virtually any of those activities listed later in this chapter and in Chapter 12. This failure to spend time on pleasurable, relaxing activities could explain why, as a 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation study revealed, youngsters who watched more TV tended to be less content than their TV-free peers.

...And Yet We Watch
Marie Winn has written extensively on the effects of television on us and our kids. In 1974 she instigated what may have been the first "TV free" experiment in Denver, Colorado. Fifteen families turned their televisions off for a full month and kept diaries on the results. The improvements in family dynamics and happiness seen during that month were impressive. The families reported better communications between children and adults, a more peaceful atmosphere in the home, greater feelings of closeness as a family, more help around the house by the children, more leisurely meals with more interesting mealtime conversations, more reading by both parents and children, and more real play among children. The negatives says Winn, were minor. Some family members missed their favorite TV programs, some kids mentioned experiencing a "weird" feeling (coud it have been withdrawal?), and parents reported a few discipline problems without TV deprivation to use as a threat!
The positives of doing without television are noted over and over again by experts. Family therapist and author Mary Pipher notes that her standard suggestion for families in crisis is that they turn off the TV for a at least a couple of nights a week and, instead, watch the sun set or take a walk.
But here's the rub: Having experienced all of theses benefits - and with knowledge of the many negatives of TV viewing - all fifteen families in Winn's Denver experiment returned to watching TV to some extent after the experience!
With virtually no positives to recommend it and numerous negatives, television continues to hold the country in its viselike grip.
It doesn't have to. Simple living families almost universally have taken one of two actions with regard to television viewing: Either they have no TV in their home or they strict limit TV viewing. Here's a look at each of these alternatives.
"
...continues on in "Reclaiming Your Kids, Part II"
More on this topic written by others are here, here, and here.

School Is In Session



So I now have a couple extra hours of free time in the daytime. My 7year-old goes to school 8a-3:30p. My 2 year-old takes a 2 hour nap daily. My son just changed schools - from a private Montessori school to a Charter School Montessori. Both he and I like this Charter school much better. Private schools from our 2 years of exploring and interviewing at various ones around town were not at all impressive. Their biggest attraction is that they can expel kids at the drop of a hat for various infractions, so theoretically, you keep all the punks and disruptive kids out of class. What you see in real life however is a class of fairly conservative/conforming, well-to-do white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant kids. You also see a lot of wimps and basket-cases who couldn't cut it in the real world of public schools. Surprisingly, you don't see a lot of smart kids in private schools. I attended private school from grade 5 to 12th grade (graduated from one). I had the same experience as described above - a bunch of spoiled rich stupid kids. I have to admit though that the sheltered environment made for a fairly stable, safe environment with very little fighting or other violence. Our plan is to let our kids attend well-selected public or charter schools at least up through middle school or so. This not only is the frugal way to go, but I think provides the better, more diverse and grounded educational environment.

As many parents who send their kids to Montessori schools do, I read most of the recommended Montessori books. Maria Montessori's The Montessori Method and her the Absorbent Mind are the best of the bunch. Her history, her theories and practical applications and her descriptions of her teaching methods make the Montessori method incredibly attractive. I can't see how any parent would look elsewhere once they read her books. The many books by her disciples and adherents (Lillard, Gettman, Hainstock etc.) similarly make this educational method seem unbeatable. But of course, the reality does not fit the hype. I've seen some classes where the method is closely followed and the children seem to behave in the ways described. But more often, the teachers of the Montessori method do NOT adhere closely to the methods - they take liberties here and there and improvise their own "take" on the Montessori method. The final corrupted product often leads to poor results - you can end up with an unfocused, lazy, overly-concrete and uncreative child who can't take standardized tests well. You have to realize the short-comings of the Montessori method - this method was originally designed to work in a day-care-like setting among kids whose parents were working all day long and unable to bring up their kids well.

As such, the "teachers" use efficient techniques to corral and organize learning activities individually assigned to each child - they minimize their interactions with each child partly because there are too many children and not enough overseers. Therefore a very curious, bright, out-going child might do poorly in this environment where they are unable to obtain maximal attention from their "teacher." Of course the Montessori teachers would say this method of supervision is designed to encourage independence and self-motivation etc. There are kids whose personalities fit the Montessori method absolutely perfectly. I think more often this method comes up somewhat inflexible and more kids than not lose by it if this method is used alone. There is also no evidence that this method works at all beyond the middle elementary years. John Chattin-McNichols describes most of the recent research on the method in his The Montessori Controversy - what you find is that not a lot of research is out there and what there is doesn't reflect too favorably on this method when it comes to actual testing.

Homeschooling is a great option if you as a parent are adequately trained, educated, and motivated. I think ideally you need a deep, broad and solid background in childhood education. You also need to be very proficient in the various mathematic fields, the sciences. You need to know the details of world history, you need to understand, not just appreciate all the great movements in the Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Politics, Music. You need to be extremely well-read. If you are not, you are potentially short-changing your own kids. You of course need to have the free time to run a "school" in your home. Also, you need to have the type of sunny disposition and great relationship with your kids that can allow them to tolerate sitting and taking lessons from you for hours a day everyday for years at a time. If your local school district does not have well-trained teachers, then homeschooling might be an acceptable, though not always optimal, solution. From what I've seen many home-schooled kids turn out very well, and the WORST home-schooled example is very likely to turn out better than the WORST public- or privately-schooled kid, and the BEST home-schooled kid is also likely to out-perform the BEST product of the public/private schools. But I think there is quite a bit of selection bias here - the failed cases of homeschooling are likely to go into hiding and not announce what happened. Also the most uneducated, unreasonable, and frankly, most stupid parents often have no insight into their own inadequacies and therefore will inflict their own homeschooling on their unfortunate kids. Conversely, often the most ideally educated and trained parents I've seen often suffer from feelings of self-doubt and will NOT homeschool their kids for this reason and because obviously, the most highly educated parents often can and will earn much more money in the work force rather than staying at home with their kids.

What we've settled on is letting our kids go to public or charter schools, do additonal "homeschooling" at home to reinforce and confirm what they know/don't know. We're going to give Montessori methods more looks before giving up on them.

A new school year is so exciting in so many ways - especially when you change schools like we just did. I changed schools 7 times before I hit 4th grade so changing schools was pretty unremarkable for me. My wife only changed schools at the elementary-middle and middle-high school interfaces so changing schools seems much more traumatic to her. We are also for the first time Car-pooling with 2 other neighborhood families. This is to save on our commuting costs in terms of time and money (no school busing at charter schools currently). It's still early (just 2 days) but it''s working out so far. Overall I think the whole situation fits into our simple living ideologies well. My wife wants to take the results of two recent tests (WoodCock Johnson and Iowa) my son took to his teacher to show her that he is pretty much an "academically gifted" child - I'm worried this is going to only cause troubles for him. I think many teachers don't really enjoy the smarter kids in class - the conforming middle-of-the-road students are so much easier to deal with. I can imagine how a long-time jaded teacher could prefer a class full of mediocre kids who do what they are told and turn in the results expected - punch in, punch out, go home and worry about my own life instead.


I used to fantasize about how I could be a spectacular teacher and have a handful of brilliant and talented students who endlessly stimulated each other and our class. In real life of course, I'm much too reserved, introverted and non-dynamic to be any good as a teacher. When I was a resident I think I did a better than average job as a teacher to medical students and interns on the wards, but I was never the spine-tingling dynamo of a teacher I fantasized about being. Teachers in the Wake County region are paid ok, I've read something in the range of $35,000/year - far better than they used to get, though admittedly they should be able to make much more IF THEY ARE GOOD. Compared to say what a medical resident makes after completing medical school, this is not bad. I made $31,000 as an intern just out of medical school and I thought that was pretty good money at the time (of course I had never made any real money to talk about previously so my perspective on money was skewed downwards). I was looking at various governmental jobs online and what they offered - typically we're talking salaries starting around $20,000 or less right out of college with no job experience. These are for jobs requiring you to forfeit your entire day Monday through Friday - a pitiful sum seen in this light. I know that college professors can make greater than $100,000/year once tenure is earned and their track record is established. From what I've seen from my college years (Univ of Penn), I can't say that many of my professors deserved a six-figure salary. The ones that earned that kind of money really seemed to perform minimal duties and the the hardest workers, usually the graduate students or junior faculty, seemed to do most of the work.
Whenever this time of year comes around I get little tingly feelings of excitement and anticipation, even though I've long finished my schooling. I almost want to start back in 2nd grade like my son and do it all over again. I think I was not like other kids because even as a child, I never hated school - I used to have trouble sleeping at night because I would get so excited thinking about going to school the next day. I had perfect attendance from Kindergarten to 12th grade - I missed the very last day of my Senior year (the Awards Presentation Day) out of some bizarre sense of rebellion and rejection of my perfect attendance record. I actually ENJOYED taking tests and preparing for them! These are all things that I would never confess to my own friends. School was always a wonder for me - the babble of kids and all the clashes of personalities and histrionics, the lessons and tests, and the goal of trying to get "100"s on all the tests - the sheer satisfaction of seeing that "100" with a smiley face on a difficult Pre-Calculus or English or Biology Exam. Later in college, the studying was much more difficult but the satisfaction of seeing an "A" on an Organic Chemistry Exam was so much more exalted. My college years were much harder and while I was doing them, the years were much more miserable than earlier, but in looking back my college years were so much more intense and wonderous. Medical school and residency was mostly fun and really not as challenging as my undergraduate education. I hope I could take some courses at a local college when I'm retired years from now - maybe I can get another degree purely for fun. They say Youth is wasted on the Young. I think School is wasted on the Schooled - if they only knew how rich their school years are.

Contemplating the Passage of Time

Someone asked me whether I remembered when I was in Kampala this weekend. I didn't know how he knew I was there at all, but I've since realized I once spoke about it in small-talk with a gastroenterologist - he must have spread this news. It's funny that the first thing I told him was that I remembered monkeys in the trees - I was between 8 months old and 2-1/2 when I was in Kampala and I don't remember much. But I do remember this and I also remember being inside an automobile going down a rough dirt road and watching the passing trees as I drifted in and out of sleep. I remember some dreams about Africa also. It is peculiar to think that I actually lived in Africa at one time in my life. My father was a surgeon working for a British hospital there - he describes doing C-sections on tribe-women in such huge numbers that it was like working on an assembly line. At some point he had his fill of this type of work and we all came back home.

In fact those earliest of memories stand out for me and seem to be time standing still stretching backwards infinitely. It's like the cliche of time accelerating as we age. My life does seem to be leaping by in large chunks of weeks nowadays. I'm sure time will be humming past in monthly blocks for me within the next score of years.

What struck me about being asked about Africa was that I had recently been reading about how hopeless this continent seems to be in Laurie Garrett's The Coming Plague, the tome detailing the litany of diseases which have struck and is yet to strike mankind over the past hundred or so years. It describes more than Africa but the most interesting parts of the story is about the "Andromeda Strain"-like viruses endemic to this region particularly. Nowhere else has viruses like the Marburg or Ebola killed so many thousands of people. It makes it seem so inevitable that in the long view, we will be wiped out by a final incarnation of an aerosolized zoonoses developed from a rodent or ape. Last week I read Philip Ziegler's Black Death which is an old 1960s book about the Bubonic plagues which swept through Europe in the mid 1300s wiping out about 33% of the European population - tens of millions of people. It is so interesting how mankind can at one moment be so shocked and outraged over a single murder by a husband of his wife (as with the cases going on in Utah and California currently in the news), yet in another time and space, mankind can become so inured to hundreds of dead bodies littering the streets of his own neighborhood. Philip Gourevitch's haunting description of the events surrounding the Hutu-Tutsi genocides in Rwanda in We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: is a perfect example. Not that Africa owns a monopoly on genocide - we all know about the Nazis, and Stalin, maybe we need to talk more about the KimIlSung-KimJongIl regime. Kang Chol-Hwan's The Aquariums of Pyongyang recounts the horrors of the current regime's silent genocide. I think it was Stalin who said when you kill one person, it is murder, when you kill thousands, it is a statistic.

6 years ago I applied to work overseas for Medecins Sans Frontieres, an organization which I thought at the time was admirable. I was promptly rejected for lacking foreign language skills required and they urged me to seek further training and re-apply. Since then, my family life has interrupted this mode of behavior. When I was in college I was quite a liberal - I put up posters for Amnesty International. I voted for Dukakis, then Clinton twice. Over the past decade I've taken a More Thomas Hobbesian view of civilization, Maybe a touch of Adam Smith. Was it Turgot who described first the principles of laissez faire? Maybe I've got all my political philosophers all mixed up. In any case, the World's problems seem both more hopeless and less important to me at the same time. Voltaire keeps repeating the phrase "you must cultivate your own garden" in his Candide - I'm coming around to this way of thinking more and more. I think this is why I voted for GW Bush the last election - the first time I voted Republican. As unadmirable as GW is, you have to admit he provides the requested benefits for his constituents. When all the world is falling apart, it can be comforting to pick lint out of your bellybutton. And so I'm now thoroughly domesticated, tending to my suburban bourgeoisie Capitalist life here in NC. Last week while emptying out our safe deposit box, I came across my passport which showed it had recently been renewed. When trying to recall why I had so recently renewed, my wife reminded me in an offended tone that I had planned to skip out on the family by going over to serve with Medecins - it was a jolt to realize that I had actually intended to abandon my way of living in that way so recently. In fact, I was probably under a lot of stress and was looking for an escape hatch; I was probably too apathetic and lazy even then to actually go into a warzone.

When you think about the mass death of humans in the various parts of the world at this time, you must balance this fact with the problems of global warming, global over-population, and the overall inexorable destruction of the Earth from the by-products of human industry (as described perfectly in the film Koyaanisqatsi).

If you believe Adam Smith, there is a guiding hand in all this, but this is magical thinking. I tend to favor a Darwinian view over all this so I don't think humans are any more favored to survive than the Dinosaurs. If you'll detach yourself emotiaonally from it all, it's almost an artistic denouement to imagine that the "cradle of mankind" is where the seeds of mankind's destruction may spring from - this is assuming Garrett's fears outlined in her Coming Plague comes to fruition. With the super-resistant species-jumping superviruses boiling over in Africa and Asia, why do we continue to prescribe antibiotics, anti-virals, and anti-fungals to hopeless vegetative patients in nursing homes to deflect lawsuits or to persistently irritable children to allay whiny parents, or to hordes of animals in stockyards in order to maximize meat profits? But then again, we will lose the war against disease in the end anyway won't we?

WHY SHOULD WE DRINK TEA?


The early history of tea is shrouded in myth - it is said an emperor/scholar Shen Nung in 2737BC sitting under a Camellia senensis bush was drinking hot water when a sprig of a leaf fell in his cup - Eureka. Kuo P'o first describes the drinking of tea around 350AD and around 780AD Lu Yu wrote Cha Jing - "the Classic of Tea" commissioned by tea merchants of the time. Brick Tea spread via the Silk Road around 618AD into Turkey, India, Russia, and the West. Our current leaf tea steeped in boiling water was developed during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) - the first teapots were also developed as they are used now during this time also. Around 1644 in the Quing Dynasty, tea makers discovered the secrets of controlled fermentation (oxidation) and the first red and black teas were developed. The Portugese discovered tea around 1516 and the Dutch and the English discovered the pleasures and benefits of tea around 1615. Tea plantations were first established by the British in India by early 1800s.


Tea can only be made using the fresh tips of the Camellia plant - the scarcely opened buds that start to grow in Spring. Once a leaf is fully developed, it becomes too coarse for use. The drying of tea leaves must be done within 24hrs of picking or the juices will begin to oxidize. The main difference between Green Tea and Black Tea is in the lack of oxidation in Green Tea. In the preparation of Green tea, warm (not boiling) water must be used or a bitter taste is developed - ideally around 160degrees Fahrenheit is recommended. With Black tea boiling water should be used in steeping in order to release the flavors.

There are many rituals and traditions which have developed in the Far East with regard to tea preparation, presentation, and consumption, but I prefer the JUST DRINK IT protocols instead. Here's what I do: I put 2 or so heaping teaspoons of my favorite tea leaves in a tea ball - I pump in boiling hot water and set a timer for about 4-5 minutes. I pull out the tea ball (I re-use 2-4 times depending on what type of leaves - you can use green tea leaves 4-6 times), then pour the tea through a Kensington strainer into my tea cup - I'll sometimes add a teaspoon of sugar. I begin with pure water - I have a reverse osmosis/deionization water filtration system in my basement which produces water of 0 conductivity (distilled quality) at 200gallons/perday rate when I need it. I keep a water cooler in the kitchen filled with this water at all times. This is the water my family uses to drink and cook with also:


WHY DO I FILTER AND PRODUCE MY OWN DRINKING WATER?
Simply put, you can't trust anybody including Spring Water peddlers, your municipal water supply, etc. Here is a test I ran a year ago after I went to my local grocery store and purchased a sample of every water brand they were selling:

..........Chlorine(ppm)..Ammonia(ppm)..Nitrates (ppm)...Conductivity(μS/cm)*
“Spring Waters”
CrystalGeyser...0.........<2.5..........5...............232
1.9¢/oz
DeerPark........0.........<2.5..........<2.5............193
2.6c/oz
Evian...........0.........<2.5..........<5..............556
3.7¢/oz
FoodLion........0.........<2.5..........15-20...........236
1¢/oz
Nestle..........0.........0.25..........10..............521
0.8¢/oz
“Filtered Waters”
Aquafina........0.........0.............0...............8
3.9¢/oz
BlueMist........0.........0.............0...............0
2.3¢/oz
Dasani..........0.........0.............0...............51
3.8¢/oz
LeBleu..........0.........0.............0...............0
2.9¢/oz
My RO/Deionized.0.........0.............0...............0
~0.1¢/oz
Tap Waters
Cary(Aug 2002)..2.6.......1.0..........2.5.............313
Cary Jan 2003)..5.........1.0..........0...............194
Sink Carbfilt...1.0.......0.25.........0...............193
source: JordanLake (CapeFearRiverBasin)
Holly Springs...<0.2......trace........5...............279
source: Cape Fear River & Falls of Neuse Lake
Raleigh.........0.8.......0.5..........<2.5............256
source:Falls of Neuse Lake
Apex............0.........0............<2.5............166
source: groundwater, well

Back to Tea again...What are the Properties of Tea?
The primary beneficial aspect of Tea is in the antioxidant activities of the Camellia sinensis plant leaf. This activity can be measured using cumene hydroperoxide/hemoglobin methylene blue method - this measures the activity of the various polyphenols present in tea. A King's College study in 10/2002 documents several of these polyphenols found in teas: EGCG, 4 different Theaflavins, epicatechin gallate, alpha-theagallin, quercetin-3-rutinoside, 4-caffeoylquinic acid, flavon-3-ols, flavonols, gallic accids, hydroxycinnamates, etc. According to a report in the Japanese Journal of Clinical Pathology [51(9):859-63,2003Sept],
here are the antioxidant activities of:
heated Green Tea = 207 nmols/ml
non-heated Green Tea = 280 nmols/ml
powdered green Tea = 481 nmols/ml
black Tea = 215 nmols/ml

Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemisty [51(15):4427-35,2003Jul16] documents in 45 samples of various teas how green tea has higher contents of catechins than black or Oolong teas also. They show that the oxidation process reduces the levels of the catechins but actually elevates the levels of gallic acids. In general polyphenol levels were less in oxidized (black) teas.

What is the in-vitro and in-vivo effects of tea? There are several polyphenols in tea of which epigallocatechins (EGCG) are the most studied. Tea has been shown to cause a ~2mmHg lowering of systolic blood pressure in women, to inhibit bladder tumor growth, to inhibit the growth of prostate and breast cancer, and cause anti-leukemic effects on leukemic cell lines.

According to Antiviral Research {58(2):167-73,2003Apr], EGCG has anti-adenoviral activity via several mechanisms both inside and outside the cell.

EGCG has been shown to inhibit platelet aggregation in an Austrian study in 2002 following women using black teas for greater than 1 month.

An Indian study in April 2003 on the hot water extract of black tea seems to demonstrate an antidiarrheal effect on all models used.

A Case Western study from 10/2002 showed EGCG inhibits the cartilage resorption in arthritis suggesting possible benefits for arthritis sufferers.

An NYU study in 1/2003 using Black Tea on teeth showed the exposure to regular black tea reduced caries 57% on subjects with regular diet, and reduced caries by 64% on a cariogenic Diet - so tea may work as well as brushing with fluoride.

Archives of Internal Medicine [163(12):1448-53.2203Jun23] reported in a Vanderbilt Univ study that with use of a capsule of theaflavin-enriched green tea extract (375mg) vs placebo for 12wks, levels of LDL fell 16 mg/dL, total cholesterol fell 11mg/dL, and levels of the "good" HDL actually rose 23mg/dL. These results are comparable to low doses of the hundreds of dollars a month HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors like Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor etc.

A recent Asian study demonstrated that Tea increases the 24hour energy expenditure and thereby helps in weight reduction. Anti-aflatoxinogenic properties were noted in coffee and teas due to the their levels of tannins. Regular consumption of Green Teas have been shown to reduce chronic halitosis significantly, mainly by anti-bacteriogenic properties. In-vitro studies have shown an insulin-potentiating effect of tea's EGCG, tannins, and theaflavins. Interestingly the addition of milk (5g of 2%), non-dairy creamers, and soy milk decreased this potentiating effect by 33%. Therefore to obtain maximal anti-diabetogenic benefits of tea, you should drink it black (or green).

Several mechanisms have been proposed as the basis of all of these activities:
1.epicatechin may bind and activate an allosteric site that enhances P-glycoproteins overall function and efficiency. P-glycoproteins transfer a wide variety of compounds from the cell interior across the lipid bilayer membranes. This includes drugs, toxins, xenobiotics, carcinogens.
2.GTE or EGCG interferes with signal transduction and activities of avarious protein kinases are thereby inhibited. The expression of nuclear proto-oncogenes declines thereby and the activity of ornithine decarboxylase is reduced. Ornithine decarboxylase catalyzes the rate-limiting step in the biosynthesis of polyamines and is closely linked to cell proliferation and carcinogenesis.
3.Increased polyamine depletion bhe the polyphenol activity of tea extracts could also be the mechanism.

What are the Potential Negatives?
Tea is a fairly strong stimulant. A Mayo Clinic Trial in 2003 in patients with metastatic prostate CA tried Green Tea in large doses (6 cups/day) - this tended to reduce the PSA levels over 2 months possibly but toxicities were noted including Insomnia, Nausea, Diarrhea, mental status changes.

If you thought tea might reduce the risk of colo-rectal cancer, there was a trial published in the US follwing tea consumption and colo-rectal cancer incidence over time. There was no association in this large study - neither a slight + nor a slight - effect.

Green tea extracts used in large doses have raised concerns over binding non-heme iron and thereby possibly worsening anemia in people who may have this problem. The Am. J. Clin. Nutr. [2001 Mar;73(3):607-612] article that raised this concern did not study black teas.

There have been concerns over organo-phosphate pesticide levels in the old-fashioned "brick teas" (levels 1000mg/kg), but levels as high as 500mg/kig have been measured in some green teas as well. More studies will need to be performed but in general, pesticide use has been reduced and regulated for most large tea plantations.

The caffeine content (the stimulation effect) of tea is viewed both positively and negatively by people. Using Fourier transformation infrared spectrometry, the caffeine levels of various tea samples can be determined easily as published by Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry [374(3):56-5,2002Oct]. In general the levels will vary with tea leaf brand, preparation method, concentration used etc. But using the general "One heaping teaspoon of tea leaves per 6 ounce cup in fresh boiling Spring Water" instructions most use,
The Caffeine Content of TEA/COFFEE Comparison (per 177ml = 6oz cup):
milligrams of caffeine.....Beverage
60-90......................Espresso coffee
60-180.....................Drip coffee
6-16.......................Green Tea
12-55......................Oolong Tea (Semi-black)
25-110.....................Black Tea

The beauty of tea is that you can easily "decaffeinate" your product. 90% of the caffeine content of tea is infused out of the tea leaves in the first 30 seconds of steeping. So if you pour off this first infusion after about 30seconds, you have a 90% "de-caffeinated" product - this removes 35mg of caffeine and as a bioproduct you lose 4-10% of the flavor of tea. I found this information from the website of a tea connoisseur.

So What Type of Tea is Good?
There is as much connoisseurship when it comes to tea as there is with wines and beers. The primary producers of tea in the world are in India (28% of world's tea), followed by China (23%), Sri Lanka (10.4%), Kenya (8%), Turkey (5.8%), Indonesia (5%), Japan (3%), Argentina (2%), Malawi, Zimbabwe, etc.

The undisputed highest quality teas are produced in Japan - the "Matcha" produced in the Nishio region in Aichi (on Honshu Island) Japan and regulated by the government in terms of standards/quality is a shade-grown green tea consumed in powder form and used in the Chado (tea ceremony). In Japan and Korea, only green tea is used even today. In China, green and Oolong Teas are favored.

The highest quality black teas, the type of tea preferred by the British, Europeans, and Americans, are probably produced in India - the Darjeeling Teas produced in the foothills of the Himalayas is a very refined black tea with light oxidation and high polyphenol activity. The Nilgiri teas are produced in the southern hilly regions also resulting in lighter oxidation. The "Ceylon Teas" of Sri Lanka are also famed for their refined flavors - the Kenilworth, St.James, Nuwara Eliya, Galaboda, and of course America's favorite Lipton Teas. China is famous for the delicate Keemun tea which also makes a good ice tea, smoky Lapsang Souchong, and the old standy "Gunpowder" Teas so-called for their balled tea-leaves.

We currently have vaccuum jars of Darjeeling, Nilgiri, and Japanese Sencha Green Tea sitting on our kitchen counter. I used to drink a lot of Keemun tea but I prefer to spend the money on Nilgiri or Darjeeling teas instead. My wife and mother notices that when I drink a lot of green tea, my breath smells fresh and good. We own a 8cup capacity "Brown Betty" earthenware teapot produced in England which we use to infuse all our tea. I never wash it according to directions, simply rinse out quickly in tap water and let dry. The antibacterial anti-oxidant activity of tea elixirs prevents any mold or bacteriosis in this pot.

A good convenience, though blasphemy according to tea connoisseurs is using a "hot pot" on standby:

Mine is a "Tiger" Brand made in Japan and has been in service for over 3 years. Zojirushi produces the most famous of these.

I've read maybe 6 or so books about tea, I heartily recommend Okakura's Book of Tea which can be purchased, but borrowing from your library is recommended. John Blofeld's Chinese Art of Tea is a good book as is Jane Pettigrew's the Tea Companion.

WILL CHANGING OUT ALL LIGHTBULBS IN MY HOUSE TO CF MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

According the FTC.gov website for lightbulbs 90% of the electricity used by standard incandescent lightbulbs is lost as heat. Standard light bulbs (incandescent) burn about 750-2000 hours whereas compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs tend to burn about 10000 hours - i.e. 10 times longer than standard bulbs. The light output of a 60Watt regular incandescent bulb yields about 855lumens; a 15Watt CF bulb yields about 900 lumens (brighter at 1/4 the watts used). The upshot: "The benefits of compact fluorescent bulbs are clear: lower operating costs, longer operating life and more efficient use of energy." The ftc website estimates that a 15W CF bulb would cost you $1.20/year to operate versus $4.80/year for a standard bulb when you factor in the cost of electricity. The downsides of the CF bulbs: 1. the expense (they can be very expensive especially compared to the cheap standard bulbs) 2. CF bulbs contain a trace of mercury (Hg), so special disposal is recommended - take to hazardous waste disposal sites in your town/county 3.CF bulbs have a slight "delay to full brightness" effect, though much less than standard fluorescents (those long tubes used in most schools and offices) 4.Some CF bulbs have a tendency to buzz slightly - usually defective ones.

With the summer coming on, I was thinking that replacing all the incandescent bulbs with CF bulbs may also reduce the amount of heat generated within a room, especially if enclosed, and also reduce the fire hazard of hot burning bulbs. It might even potentially reduce the air-conditioner usage (?!) by not generating additional heat in the house? Who knows. I had always tried a few CF bulbs in various fixtures, and I always used CF bulbs to light aquariums with plants and I found these CF bulbs lasted years and years - decades in fact, though the light output would very gradually diminish over time. While perusing various lighting websites, I came upon a Kansas store called lightbulbs etc. or lightbulbs direct and found a decent deal for mini-spiral 60watt bulbs - $11.98 for 4. I impulsively decided to go for the gusto and buy a CF bulb for every damn fixture in my house. It turns out that lightbulbsdirect.com did not have a good deal for candelabra bulbs (as compared to my local hardware store I'm saying), but I went ahead and purchased all of them from this one store http://lightbulbsdirect.com/. It took a good 10 days for them to deliver the bulbs and the shipping charges were fairly high. My total cost for all the bulbs were $361.30 to replace every damn bulb in my house.

Here's how the bulbs came:


And here's a comparison of a mini-spiral 4Watt next to a 60W standard bulb, and a "torpedo" candelabra base 4Watt CF bulb next to a standard 25W candelabra base bulb:


Another thing I worried about was that for some of the decorative fixtures in the house, the CF bulbs might ruin the "decorative" aspects of the lighting. I think overall you tend not to notice it unless you are really watching for it. Here are two examples. One is a ceiling fan light, another is a candelabra fixture, both with the CF bulbs installed on them:


Though I ordered about 75 CF bulbs total, I found only 1 defective light bulb in the whole lot. And only that one defective one "sang" with the rumored buzzing before burning out within a month. I'd say a decent quality control overall for generic CF bulbs.

Here's how the costs sorted out for my house. Using lightbulbdirect.com's own prices (to be fair in comparison), though I think prices can be higher for both standard and CF bulbs at my local home depot or Lowe's, I found:
Standard Incandescent set-up:
60watt bulbs - 31 bulbs x $.30 = $9.30
25watt candelabras - 31 x .47 = $14.57
100watt 3yr bulbs - 4 x 1.85 = $7.40
40watt Globe bulbs - 4 x 1.05 =$4.20
25watt miniGlobes - 2 x .79 = $1.58
150watt floodlight - 1 x 3.49 = $3.49
50/150/250w 3way bulb - 1x2.99 = $2.99
50/75/150w 3way bulb -1x1.79 = $1.79
75watt bulbs - 3 x .30 = $0.90
40watt bulbs - 1 x .30 = $0.30
total wattage: 3885watts total cost of these bulbs: $46.52

Whole-House Compact Fluorescent set-up:
Like I said, I spent $361.30 including shipping for 48 mini-spiral 15watt bulbs, 24 mini-torpedo candelabra 4watt bulbs, and 1 75watt reflector bulb. Total wattage as installed in the house: 879watts total. So the immediate painful drawback is in spending an extra $314.78 which included a bunch of shipping and handling charges. The immediate payoff is in a brighter house overall and in the knowledge that I am using 3006 fewer watts potentially throughout the house.

Fortunately, my electric company (Progress Energy) allows me to follow my usage and billing history online. This will help me better judge in real time the difference in my kilowatt-hour per month from when I was all incandescent to now that I am all compact-fluorescent. This comparison is complicated by the fact that until this past December or so, I and my family were spendthrifts not only in terms of eating out and recreational shopping, but also in how we used electricity for air-conditioning, lighting, etc. Since we made a concerted effort to be more frugal and simple, we've been trying to reduce our lighting, we've been shutting off the oven or stove a couple minutes before cooking is "complete," we've gone out and taped extra insulation around our outdoor air-conditioning unit's tubing and our indoor water-heater tubing, we've dialed up our AC thermostat from our previous 72-75F to our current 81F (and plan to dial down our winter heating thermostat from our previous 75F to about 65-68F), we've been dialing our dishwasher to rinse in cold water, we've been trying to take lukewarm to room-temperature showers instead of hot showers, we've set our hot-water heater to heat at 122F. All these efforts have made a notice-able difference in our KWH usage, but has made a smaller difference in our monthly charges due to the rising cost of electricity in the past year. So as you can see, the comparisons are going to take some fine discerning and counter-compensating.

In any case here are the raw data for a 4 month period last year (when we were all incandescent and all spend-thrift), versus a 4 month period this year (when we are all-CF and more frugal):

We were Spendthrifts, We were Incandescent:
Month ..KWH/month usage..electricity bill..avg climatic temp
April 2003........1794...........$144.30......53F
May 2003..........1843...........$148.03......58F
June 2003.........2065...........$165.05......66F
July 2003.........1912...........$173.03......74F

We are Frugal, We are Compact-Fluorescent:
April 2004........991............$83.36......52F
May 2004..........936............$79.11......61F
June 2004.........1515...........$123.75.....74F
July 2004.........1526...........$140.32.....76F

These comparisons will need to be charted out for the next year and I'll have to come up with some reasonable way to factor out our additional frugality measures and also to factor in the rising cost of electricity along with temperature patterns (this is actually done for me by Progress Energy on their website). I think I see real savings in the utility bill already but it'll take a few more months of comparing and figuring/factoring to determine a ballpark "percentage figure" of savings per month, per year, and per life of CF bulb.

Hey, this is just one of the "frugality measures" I'm trying out - whether it turns out to be a failure or not, I don't know. Some frugality measures don't really give you a good bang for the buck. My wife and I have always calculated gas mileage whenever we fill-up our cars by dividing our odometer reading since last fill-up by the total gasoline filled(used). I've found that I can add about 2 miles-per-gallon to my usual weekly work commute by NOT using any air-conditioning during the drive - actually a borderline trivial difference in terms of cost even with gasoline in our area at about $1.919/gallon, especially considering the sweaty misery you pay for in exchange for the higher gas mileage.

The loose ends to this story is this:


That is, what do I do with the 74 standard incandescent light-bulbs I have left after changing out all the lighting in the house? Here are some possibilities: 1.Try selling them at the next yardsale (?who would buy used bulbs? How to price them?) 2.donate them (?who would accept used bulbs in donation? How much should I deduct for tax purposes?) 3.keep them around to use as emergency replacements 4.Use them to stop traffic (Spanky did this on one of those old 1930s "Our Gang" movies - here's how it works: you throw down a light bulb and it makes a popping sound and makes everyone on the road stop and get out to see if their tires popped - problem is modern tires don't pop that easily and modern drivers couldn't hear such outside noise in their hermetically sealed driving environments).

which makes me wonder why those old Little Rascals comedy shorts are no longer to be found anywhere on TV. I was thinking that the politically-correct-police made all networks forego airing those episodes, just as theatres and video outlets no longer will show Disney's Song of the South, or many of those old Looney Tunes cartoons, or the old 1940s Superman cartoons, or any more Benny Hill masterpieces etc. A great loss for us all.