The new cancer directive

New guidelines for cancer screening came out a few days ago and these have understandably sparked a big debate. So we are not supposed to do a daily breast exam anymore? As Gail Collins pointed out in her op-ed - Now if dentists would just decide to withdraw the flossing directive, we may have enough additional spare time to learn Spanish.. She had breast cancer too, but it might have been caused by, as she points out, the now withdrawn directive of estrogen replacement therapy for older women. Cynicism is valid; after all for years it has been drilled into us that with cancer early detection is the key and hence, regular breast exams, mammograms and PAP smears are essential. Now all of a sudden they pop-up and go "umm, we don't think so."

My first thought on hearing the news was that the-medical-powers-that-be have also been going on and on about the usefulness H1N1 vaccine and they haven't had 10 years to study that one. As it is, I am very skeptical of medical advice these days as the drug companies have too much influence on our doctors and FDA. Every time I see an ad for Flu vaccine, I wonder who is making money from the vaccine, and is that why they are promoting is so much and can afford to pay the celebrities? I didn't get the vaccine, neither did my children but they are not little babies anymore and I feel the more the immune system gets exercised the stronger it will be, not to mention my growing fear of subtle corporate exploitation. At this rate by next year I will start questioning all vaccines - this is nuts!

Where is the news?

I was reading an article somewhere bemoaning that we no longer have authoritative newsmen such as Walter Cronkite and universally-admired leaders such as FDR. I have already talked about the article about erosion of dignity in our world that others are worried about. That got me thinking, and the more I think the more I am convinced that people such as Cronkite & FDR still exist, or rather they were no different from the people of today. It is just that the lens through which we view them has changed.

In my opinion, it is a simple consequence of the choices we have in media, especially the 24 hour, for-profit news networks and I just don't mean Fox News. These channels are in the business of making money and will do whatever it takes to get ratings. Anger sells, so we have Fox News. Humor sells and so we have Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. This is why Simon Cowell has been a judge on American Idol for so long - people would rather have snark than reason. People would rather be entertained, even when they are being informed, and hence CNN's vanilla-news is regularly losing viewers. Have you seen Bill O'Reilly outside his show? Watch Lou Dobbs on this video. He seems like such a reasonable guy, but what happens to him on his own show? Nowadays, comedians such as Stephen Colbert aren't the only ones assuming a TV persona. The news personalities and even their shows, put on a persona to entertain. They either stoke anger against those who they don't agree with or turn them their opponents into caricatures to be laughed at. This completely de-legitimizes the other side. Bush was president to some and the village idiot to others. Obama is being painted as anything ranging for Lenin to Hitler, and people who disagree with him are swallowing it up. Same goes for the "experts" - there are too many of them to be relevant, and each side is constantly tearing down at the other. With all this name-calling, digging up of skeletons and questioning everything, no wonder it is hard to find a leader to respect. Even Gandhi would have had tough time in this media climate.

We don't have newsmen like Cronkite anymore because we really don't have news anymore. All we have is entertainment. I think our hope lies with shows such as Law & Order, or Boston Legal - that is where I see hard questions being asked and often a nuanced debate about them. Real entertainment, it looks like, might be our only hope for a reasoned debate.

A continuous civilization

I have been watching the HBO/BBC series Rome. I did not study Roman history or culture in school so I am thoroughly enjoying it. I know a lot of it is drama and cannot be considered authentic history, but it does have some factual basis. Having studied Indian history in some detail, I am struck by how similar to Indian culture ancient Rome seems. Any number of ancient Indian kings, queens and gods could be seamlessly substituted in the stories and it would still ring true. For one there is the religion - the numerous gods, and the little altars in every home; the style of worship ranging from specialized-deities to the revenge-mandalas, seeking Gods to bless everything and the blood-rituals. Then there is the style of clothes and the decor. There is also the clear demarcation between the nobility and the "plebs" and the decadent luxury of the rich. And although current India is sexually-repressed, we know from ancient books and temple carvings that this is a fairly modern happening. The only difference is that the Roman culture ended after advent of Christianity, whereas the Indian one survived and kept evolving; kept incorporating ideas and rituals from all the invaders that came through. It is becoming even clearer why India has been referred to as a "continuous civilization".

All this has given rise to a storm of thoughts and I am sure I will be writing more posts about this.

The pledge

There has been an ongoing effort by atheists to remove the word God from the statement "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I think they have been going about it all wrong by stressing the separation of church and state. What they should use is "truth in advertising" laws and request that we replace the word "God" by "Media". That is what we are - one nation under media.

Karwachauth

Today is Karwachauth, the holiday when Hindu women fast until moonrise for the longevity of their husbands. In a certain sense the holiday is antiquated, anti-feminist and enforces the subservience of women in the Hindu culture especially if you read this op-ed in New York Times. I think even my grandfather waited for my grandma on Karwachauth, so the author's family seems to be in a whole different century altogether.

The question arises why do I, a seemingly modern progressive woman, continue to observe this holiday every year – going without food or water for an entire day to honor my husband. I used to ask myself this question through hunger pangs every year. Do I really believe the stories retold every year on this holiday about how bad fate befell a woman who unwittingly had a sip of water when mistaking a lamp in a tree for the moon, and hence breaking her fast before the scheduled time? I don’t think so. Do I think that the life of a woman without a husband is no life at all, and hence must continue to pray that I die before him? Umm no.

I have a deep respect for traditions, and I am wary of doing away with one too easily without first understanding its far-reaching roots. That was the reason I started observing this fast and a few others – simply because my mother used to. Most fasting holidays have a whole ceremony centered on breaking the fast. When the time comes, you don’t just fall upon the food but first have to go through a few rituals. Over time I have come to realize that this waiting for food, even when you are allowed to eat, takes the focus away from food on a fasting day and makes you mindful of why you were fasting in the first place. And so tonight, as I make my offerings to the moon, and go through the little rituals along with my husband before sitting down to have a meal, I will remember and honor the person I have decided to spend my life with, and be mindful of the ups and downs of the journey a marriage is. It being one of the most important relationships in our life, it is no surprise that the prescribed fast for it is one of the hardest. I am glad tradition forces me to set aside a day to reflect on this.

Fox News

This is not really related to parenting, but has been on my mind of late. It goes back to what I said in an older post that we seem to give the most attention to people who shout or otherwise behave badly. We mothers are guilty of giving more attention to the whiny, cranky child at the expense of the calm easy-going one. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, I know, and I am sure there is some survival-of-the-fittest theory behind it.

The same thing is now happening in the media. The nuts on Fox News such as Beck and Hannity, and the protesters they incite seem to be getting all the media attention. Other networks, congressmen, even the president seem compelled to respond to these idiots and their ridiculous biased rants. What this attention given to Fox results in is that whatever the wing-nuts decide to get mad about becomes the topic de jour in our national conversation. Fox News claims that more people watch Fox news than any other news on TV. They are probably right, but I also suspect that those who watch that network are the only people FOX has influence on. Everybody else is put off by them. David Brooks agreed with that in his op-ed today. I particulary like how Joe Gandelman framed it "Rage and attack mode are OK for those who already agree with you, but they don’t win over those who are pondering both sides and don’t like what they see on either of them." Judith Warner said something similar about Michael Moore in her op-ed as well.

People who don’t watch Fox News probably don’t get their news from TV anyway so they are not watching any other show either which explains Fox’s numbers. If you are sane enough to think Fox News is far from "Fair and Balanced", then I bet you are capable of thinking for yourself and you can easily see that CNN is equally ridiculous, and Olberman’s rants don’t sway you either. So here is my appeal to thinking people – can we ignore Fox News just as we would a tantrum-throwing child?

Character and dignity

I came across this article and was reminded how much I admire dignity and character in a person. These are ephemeral qualities, hard to describe or measure, but easy to recognize. The question arises, can these qualities be cultivated? Can I do something now so that my children grow up to be dignified adults with character?

As suggested in the article, George Washington sought to change external habits to “shape inner morals”. Certain acts define graciousness or dignity, and a place to start would be to ensure my children always do them whether they want to or not; simple things such as greeting people, and saying proper goodbyes.

The other aspect of dignity is mysteriousness, or rather restraint in what personal information you reveal to others. In this age of Facebook, when all our friends are intent on telling us everything from what they ate for lunch to what Crayola Crayon they are, restraint seems like a much harder thing to teach kids to value. Add to that our pop-culture where the society is obsessed with the worst of people, and value of dignity becomes even harder to teach. After all, the people who acted insanely during the health-care reform town-hall meetings got to come on TV and express their opinions, whereas nobody noticed the people who asked reasonable questions.

The other problem the ubiquity of so called “real people”, with the help of TV and other media, creates the feeling that it is fine to behave in an undignified manner because others are doing it too. Milgram proved with his social experiments that people are capable of doing nasty things just because other people are doing them as well. The way current pop-culture is going, there are no good role models left for children. Maybe the thing to do is to actively cultivate friendship with the type of people that can be good role models for my kids. Then they can do what the “crowd” does.

As far as building character goes, a major contributing factor is hardship in childhood. In comfortable middle-class families like ours, hardship is hard to come by. What parent wants to deliberately put their kids through hardship? As a friend said, “it is crazy that you are worried about lack of lack”. The other ingredient for character seems to be strict discipline. Discipline is a hardship, in the sense that kids aren’t allowed to just do what they want. We parents however are overloaded with too much information about how to achieve discipline. Should the children be paid for doing chores? If punishing for bad behavior too negative, then isn’t rewarding for good behavior same as bribing? How much praise is too much?

What is a parent to do?