ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT
ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT
Image: Press conference on Bayshore Boulevard in 2003 on the occasion of declaring candidacy for mayor of Tampa. Billed as the oldest, fittest, fastest and prettiest of the five candidates, the platform called for a city that would be 4F - fit, fun, free and functional.
|
|
| |
| Introduction |
| |
| Greetings and good wishes.
This week's AWR features three short takes on different aspects of REAL wellness, beginning with a restatement of what I mean by the phrase. In addition, enjoy an attempt to identify REAL wellness trends affecting the nature of worksite wellness in 2009. Also find an unusual number of letters to the editor sparked by last week's essay on wellness opportunities in the fiscal crisis and the photo of a few wellness promoters.
Have an epic and triumphant weekend. Be well.
|
| Short Takes on REAL Wellness |
| |
What is REAL wellness? REAL wellness, like regular wellness, is whatever anyone wants it to be and says it is. Since the concept is so new, those who apply it inappropriately (e.g., to advertise a medical practice) usually are unchallenged. An thus more promoters of one thing or another use the term wellness as they please, to label a service, remedy, product or point of view. For these reasons, I invented REAL wellness to describe what wellness really stood for in the first place.
The modifier REAL is intended to convey a deliberate mindset or philosophy inspired by reason, exuberance and liberty. The purpose of wellness is to achieve, maintain and fine-tune a high quality of life. That is not a complicated notion, but it sets REAL wellness apart from wellness vitamins, wellness chiropractic, wellness veterinary services and all corporate risk reduction and medical managementwellness. None of the examples just provided have the REAL elements characterized by reason, exuberance and liberty in service of a better quality of life.
REAL wellness education, materials or programs do not dwell on risk reduction strategies or varied ways to manage illness and/or disease, though these are important aspects of broader health promotion. The key areas of REAL wellness are global awareness/environmental sensitivity (a green consciousness), the quest for added meaning and purpose, ethical awareness and fine-tuning, understanding the dynamics of happiness (and experiencing more of it) and thinking critically using reason, skepticism and doubt. Of course, much more is involved, such as the foundation lifestyle areas of focus (exercise and fitness, management of stress and sound dietary habits, among other positive skill areas).
When you encounter the term wellness, insist on the real McCoy, the real thing or, in this case, REAL wellness.
In coming AWRs, additional characteristics of REAL wellness will be described. Cheers.
The Obama watch - one little item to mention from among countless possibilities. In his splendid inaugural, President Obama's promised to wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs. Good idea but technology's wonders have added greatly to the cost of health care, often while doing little to boost its quality. On the contrary, excessive use of MRI technology and all manner of other wondrous innovations have both raised costs and increased the hazards of medical care. The promise of quality improvements and lower costs with widespread adoption of underused electronic medical record technology is probably less than promoters expect of it. We shall see soon enough, for a transition from antiquated paper-trail documents to electronic data is surely coming. Let's hope for the best - and take responsibility for insuring that our own electronic histories are kept up to date and accurate. In fact, the very best thing you can do is to bust your arse in a joyful way to choose perspectives and behaviors that enhance your physical and mental well-being. Doing so will boost your enjoyment of being alive and minimize the odds of more treatment data being added to your medical records, electronic or otherwise.
Let's put an end to hate crimes - and start by eliminating this category of crime! Under federal law, and the laws of many states, anyone accused of a crime may be charged with an additional offense and receive a longer jail sentence if a motive related to hate is added to the basic charge. This can happen if issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category are suspected as a factor motivating the actual crime (e.g., murder, kidnapping or whatever).
This kind of law is bad for society for many reasons. As if being accused of a real crime is not bad enough, hate crime statues make things much worse. Many others and I believe all hate crime legislation should be revoked. I have at least sevenobjections to hate crime statues.
1. They could restrict free speech.
2. They criminalize thought, which is usually impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt if denied by the offender. Thoughts cannot be determined accurately, so it is preposterous to punish a crime more or less because hate might have motivated it.
3. Let's say, just to make a point, I hate Visigoths. Should I be punished extra for this if I am prosecuted for snatching a purse from a stranger if she just so happens to have been of the Visigoth persuasion? Ask yourself: What kind of bonus sentence under a hate statue might YOU be at risk. Nobody's perfect - we all have some disdain for somebody or other, based on our experiences, struggle though we may to overcome such things.
4. They are arbitrary. How can a prosecutor fairly punish some kinds of hatred based on some characteristics and not others? For example, I could be punished more severely if I streaked naked during a church service but not at a gathering of the NRA. This suggests certain characteristics are more valued than others - who should make such judgments? Why allow anyone at all the power to do so? Should we not try to discourage stereotypes and promote dignity for all segments of the population? They are so unnecessary. Crimes are already punished. Let consequences be appropriate to the crime committed, not the motive attributed to the crime.
5. They risk criminalizing what some religious fundamentalists call blasphemy,speech offensive to their unique sensibilities. There is a serious move within the United Nations to punish hate, defined simply as defaming religion. This would make it difficult to speak freely about matters of faith and reason. Many authors (e.g., Harris, Dawkins, even Ardell!) could be prosecuted in certain jurisdictions.Ron Lindsey asked, If Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens bumps into a Muslim on a subway, should he have to worry about being accused of an assault motivated by hatred of Islam? (See Ronald Lindsay, Freedom of Thought, Free Inquiry Magazine, February / March 2009, Volume 29 Number 2.)
6. Punishing for thoughts or attributed motives gives juries/judges too much discretion, thus inviting a harvest of unintended consequences. Allegations can come from anywhere. Have we forgotten the Salem witch trials? Do you want to open yourself to being questioned about your personal preferences of one kind or another (friends, music, reading, etc.) by inquisitors looking into your motives, should you be accused of an offense? It can happen, you know. The innocent are sometimes accused through no fault of his or her own.
7. Hate crimes are a special threat to minorities. If you hold beliefs, memberships or otherwise seem a bit out of the mainstream, this very fact might be used against you to show bad intent (i.e., hate.)
Naturally, I am opposed to prejudice and incivility toward everyone, no matter the person's race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. Be fair to everyone, I say. I am also very fond of freedom of speech.
Let's keep crimes based on actions, not purported motives or feelings. As Lindseynoted, let's try to change people's thinking-not by punishing them for what they are thinking. Freedom of thought is meaningless unless it encompasses the freedom to have thoughts considered unacceptable by others.
Be well. Your thoughts?
love
|
| Letters To The Editor |
Letters-to-the-editor
|
* Don - I've just managed to stop crying after watching the inauguration -- what a great day. I enjoyed a lot about this AWR, not the least of which is your hairdo in the picture! Thanks, Don.
Lenore Howe, Canterbury, NH (lhowe@seekwellness.com)
* Wonderful report, Don, but the photo of you just a few years ago is at once impressive and shocking.
* Don - Thank you so much for your essay. I love the Frost Valley picture. The inauguration was a joyous event and I'm so hopeful that we will turn this country around. The quotes you picked for the report are truly words of wisdom. It was an event that gave hope for positive race relations and much more. Let's find many ways to contribute and to celebrate all that is being done. Warm regards,
* Don - You must feel really good that your guy is now in charge. Pretty moving experience to watch on TV. One of the historic pivotal events that we will remember the rest of our lives. Kind of like how you would answer when someone asks,Where were you when Lincoln was shot? I'm curious, since you were there both times, how Obama's inaugural speech compared with Lincoln's.
Bob Miles, Tampa, FL (robertmiles@gmail.com)
* Hi Don - Loved the article on looking for opportunity out of crisis. It has been my theme for as long as I can remember. As a counsellor, I constantly deal with people in crisis. That is the nature of the game. The only way forward is found in the search for opportunity. From where I sit, and that's a long way away, without the current crises, America (and the rest of the world) would not have Barack Obama as its 44th president. It took the combination of a major economic meltdown, two wars and climate change for the American people to be brave enough to take the step they did. See - out of every crisis there is an opportunity. America has seized the day.
Rod Lees, Brisbane, AUS (seadove@pacific.net.au)
* Don - I liked the picture...that is how I remember you when we first met. I liked Lutz Hertel's remarks. It is true about the German blue collar types smoking and drinking heavily but it's also true of professional types...much more smoking in Germany than here. The German lifestyle has much more walking and leisure time built in. But all that alcohol and tobacco! So it is a trade off.
Jim Mayr, Pensacola, FL (jamesmayr@gmail.com)
* Don - The photo of the four gentlemen in your last AWR looked less like camp counselors than of four scientists who had just discovered Uranus. Also, you make a brilliant point in that with all the dark clouds of these trying times comes the silver linings of opportunities for improvement and advancement and REAL progress.
Rick Clark, Tampa, FL (rclark03@tampabay.rr.com)
* Don, I really liked that WSJ article as well (by big boys of alternative medicine). You are being a bit of a curmudgeon here. Try looking on the bright side, as you so often advise; an article like that in the nation's major capitalistic print journal suggests we might be growing up. Hope things in Tampa are not too crazy with this weekend's Super Bowl.
Steve McDermott, Piedmont, CA(steve.mcdermott@hpmg.com)
* Regarding your essay in a recent AWR (#469) concerning A Proposed Environmental Agenda For The NWI, I say,Ohmygosh! You are asking the NWI to take a political position? How dare you! Such a suggestion might offend some members. It might even lead to some resignations! (Of course it could also lead to new memberships if probably publicized, but they probably wouldn't think of that.) By the way, I have no connection with NWI (I don't think that I am even a member anymore), not that they don't do good things (like invite you to speak every year). But, one cannot belong to everything - and my list of professional dues deductions is long enough! All the best.
Steve Jonas, Stony Brook, NY (Sjonastriski@aol.com)
* Don - Personally, I disagree with Friedman's suggestion of more taxes on gasoline. Why? Simply, because it unfairly hurts those least able to absorb the increase - the working poor. Blue collar workers, especially those on the lower end of the blue collar spectrum, are already being hammered with rising costs everywhere. Gasoline costs more than it did, say, five years ago. Health care expenses are higher, rent is higher, food is more expensive, auto insurance has gone through the roof, auto maintenance is more costly, electricity and other utilities cost more, etc. Wages have not increased nearly enough to cover these higher costs, so spendable income is lower than five years ago.
On top of this Friedman wants to impose a higher gas tax? Well, I have news for him - most of the working poor only drive their cars when they have to. That makes gasoline expenditures a necessity, not a discretionary item (and I'm convinced that the middle, upper middle class and even upper class drive whenever they wish, without thought of conservation, cost or unnecessary consumption). Forcing the working poor to pay more for gasoline puts an unfair burden on the very people least able to handle it.
A related story: At a soccer game several years ago, the first time gas prices rose significantly, the father of a player on my boy's team really brought it home for me. He said that he didn't care how costly gasoline got, that he was going to continue to drive wherever and whenever he wanted. All he cared about was whether it was available (his exact words).
It sums up the problem for me; those who are affluent enough to absorb the tax won't curb their use (but they will complain about the prices), so a higher tax won't stop them from guzzling gasoline (often for frivolous purposes). Those who aren't affluent enough will be stuck paying the higher cost for their non-discretionary driving, even though they really can't afford it. No, I think there are better solutions than simply raising the taxes on gasoline.
John Sinibaldi, Seminole, FL (john@js-insurance.com)
* Don - While I have a great deal of respect for Tom Friedman and, in principle support a much higher gasoline tax, I have little confidence that it will ever be passed. Furthermore, as Friedman has noted, if it were enacted there would need to be some rebate mechanism for low income earners.
I would like to suggest an alternative mechanism: varying the tax on car purchases, both new and used, based on mileage ratings. This would have the same desired effects of a tax at the pump: reduce gas usage and air pollution and raise needed revenues. The tax should be meaningful so that Hummer owners pay significantly more than Prius owners. Even better, purchasers of especially efficient vehicles could get tax refunds. I think my proposal has a far better chance of getting popular and therefore political support, than a gasoline tax, which has gone nowhere during the past decade.
As always, Don, thank you for an informative and timely essay.
Tony Cupaiuolo, Manchester Center, VT (acupaiuolo@pace.edu)
* Dear Don - I was able to see the inauguration in real time. It was 02:00 in the morning Japan Standard Time. I saw the presidential inauguration for the first time. The content of the president's inaugural speech felt me wonderful very much. It might be different of a national character of the Japanese and the American. I do not know the person who makes a speech like the president of US in the Prime Minister in Japan. I am wishing a good relation to continue.
It is being widely reported by Japan, and a lot of Japanese are being interested in the president inaugural strongly. Moreover, it is friendly to a lot of the reports. A lot of Japanese feel that there is a strong partnership with your country. I feel that very glad. I have not been to your country yet. It was felt that it was strong to visit in your country by all means. I am reading E-AWR transmitted by you now. I wish to express my gratitude always sincerely for your kindness.
Because it knows the Carol is pleased with my mail, it is felt that I am glad. Have a nice weekend!
Toshi Tsutsumi, Tokyo, Japan ( wellness.radc@gmail.com)
|
My Time For Fitness: REAL Wellness Trends
|
I don't consider myself a psychic like Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, Derek Clontz or Miriam Ponder-Hulett,which is a good thing for my self-esteem, since I consider these characters a motley collection of frauds and psychics whack jobs. These and other so-called psychics (psychos might be more accurate) prey on the superstitious, the ignorant and the gullible amongst us. But, that's not to say I can't or won't try a bit of forecasting myself, based not on claims of special powers or a capacity, like Shirley MacLaine (who claims that her dog is a holy mutt who was her companion in ancient Egypt), to perform feats worthy of The Twilight Zone. No, I simply offer a wellness forecast or two based on an awareness of a few strong trends, a partial understanding of current developments and a willingness to go out on a limb, just a bit, to identify possible changes I very much desire that can be sensed in the wind or somewhere that, if accurate, will prove beneficial. The following trends of an exercise or fitness nature would very much increase the quality of life for some folks in developed nations in the Western hemisphere, and would be a big boost to companies, as well.
If you are going to make forecasts, be sure to put conditions on your prognostications!
So, with no further ado, here are a few things I sense could come about relating to REAL wellness in this year of 2009. Of course, given a global crisis unlike any modern era economic downturn short of the Great Depression, the 2009 benchmarks will likely be more dramatic and longer lasting than normal. I'm willing, however, to predict that those of us concerned with health, fitness and/or worksite wellness will witness more than a few powerful watersheds that will come to pass in this New Year.
* A recognition, at long last, that exercise is too important to be considered optional, something to fit in to a busy day, if time permits. Instead, individuals and progressive organizations will make time for fitness - during the customary eight-hour workday. Look for a new standard of one hour a day for employees to set aside for exercise, with creative systems for monitoring progress and assessing results and benefits to organizations and workers.
* A consensus that effective employees need certain characteristics to qualify for and perform well at just about any position. These qualities include a few prerequisites that are well recognized, such as appropriate experience for a given job, sufficient educational background and essential character development, as judged by references and personal interviews prior to employment. Other qualities that have traditionally been taken for granted that will increasingly be viewed as essential to high performance include a willingness and ability to appear for work each day sufficiently rested, nourished and energetic to function at a high level throughout the work period. This means that employees will be responsible for having had the amount and quality of sleep needed for full alertness on the job, for being well nourished and for being fit for work. (At present, 67 percent of Americans might be considered not fit for work, given that this percentage of the population is overweight and, in half the cases, obese.)
* An acceptance of the fact that workplace playing fields need leveling to support a fit workforce. Some employees, such as those in sales or working independently, have flexible schedules and thus can arrange exercise periods at times convenient to their own judgment of most productive periods for doing one thing or another. Team members or others required to be on the job from 8 to 5 or 8:30 to 5:30, with an hour for lunch and a long commute, do not have this scheduling luxury; they are likely to have to choose between surrendering sleep time, meal times or other quality of life time such as family interactions if they want to enjoy quality workouts every day.
Making time for fitness is not easy for anyone, not even busy retired people. In fact, it is apparently not easy for this nation's, if not the world's, busiest executive. Barack Obama, a famous executive who is known for highly valuing fitness in general and his workouts in particular, said in an interview with Men's Health, Most of my workouts have to come before my day starts. There's always a trade-off between sleep and working out. Usually I get in about 45 minutes, six days a week. I'll lift one day, do cardio the next. (Men's Health: Exclusive Barack Obama Interview, October 16th, 2008.)
If the president has to struggle, what can the rest of us expect? We need cultural changes to make exercising the norm, not the exception. I think we will see such cultural changes, especially at the workplace, in 2009 for all the reasons just identified.
I hope you and your company can lead the way in creating a new norm for individuals and for other organizations in America and beyond - fitness is too important to be done IF time is available or at the cost of a good night's sleep and other sacrifices in quality of life.
Be well and always look on the bright side of life. Just one favor to ask - if all or any of these trend forecasts come to pass, please don't think of me as Nostradamus Don, Edgar Cayce Ardell or anything like that. And remember, I don't do horoscopes.
|
|
| |
| Donald B. Ardell, Publisher
The ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT
Aging Beyond Belief |
| order - 218 727-0500 |
|
|
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
Comments
Posted by David Randle on January 29, 2009 11:59 am
You state that Hate Crimes coud restrict free speech but do not explain how? You state that hate crimes criminalize thought. In fact people can think whatever they want. They just can't act on their hateful thoughts.
The general justification for hate crimes in the U.S. is:
Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.'"[25] It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.
When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that: Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.
It does not seem to be in the interest of Real Wellness to promote hate crimes.