What Is Really Causing Our Obesity?

After reading a recent NYT article How the Food Makers Captured Our Brains, the foodie in me just had to check this out. It is about Dr. David Kessler, a former head of the US Food and Drug Administration and his recent book, The End of Overeating.

When it comes to stimulating our brains, Dr. Kessler noted, individual ingredients aren’t particularly potent. But by combining fats, sugar and salt in innumerable ways, food makers have essentially tapped into the brain’s reward system, creating a feedback loop that stimulates our desire to eat and leaves us wanting more and more even when we’re full.

Dr. Kessler isn’t convinced that food makers fully understand the neuroscience of the forces they have unleashed, but food companies certainly understand human behavior, taste preferences and desire. In fact, he offers descriptions of how restaurants and food makers manipulate ingredients to reach the aptly named “bliss point.” Foods that contain too little or too much sugar, fat or salt are either bland or overwhelming. But food scientists work hard to reach the precise point at which we derive the greatest pleasure from fat, sugar and salt.

So what Dr. Kessler is saying is that people who are selling us prepared food are trying to make it as tasty as possible so we buy lots of it. What is so new and unusual about that? Would it be sensible to expect them to behave any differently?

Even for a home cook like me, preparing food that tastes good to me and the people I cook for is a top priority. So what is this all about? It’s not that we have all turned against good tasting food. It’s more about trying to solve the mystery of why obesity has grown to be such a problem in America.

There are lots of theories to go around. Many of those like from Dr. Kessler center around the nature of the food we eat. And there may be something to that. But as someone who is both passionate about food and also “obese” (at least according to those Body Mass Index charts they have in those doctors’ offices) I have my own ideas on the subject.

If I had to speculate on the one most prevalent cause of our expanding waistlines, it would have to be our increasingly sedentary lifestyles — including those of our children.

When I was a child, my recreation was often playing pickup games of football or basketball or even kickball. Wintertime meant sled riding and snowball fights. We often walked to where we had to go and during school, we had recess to play games along with gym class to let off some steam. Fast food was around back then but we got a nutritious lunch at school and mom was home to cook us a tasty and nutritious dinner for the family to share.

It is more than a bit different for many of our youth today. Video games and TV are the main pastimes of many of our youth. Hardly anybody has to walk to where they have to go (or their homes in the suburbs are too far away to walk anywhere).

Many students have now experienced The End of Recess.

As state and federal standards have been ratcheted up, the minutes allotted to the traditional practice of recess has shrunk in 40 percent of school districts around the country, according to recent surveys. Some newly built elementary schools do not even have playgrounds.

Physical education has also been the victim of cutbacks in school.

So, at a time with obesity on the rise, why are schools continuing to cutback on the much needed Physical Education classes in elementary and secondary schools?

Well, two reasons. Budget cuts (imagine that) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The NCLB Act focuses all the strict standardized testing in subjects like math, reading, and writing while other subjects like social studies, art, health, and physical education subjects get pushed to the wayside.

And when the children get home, mom may be out working to earn that second income so many families now need to stay financially afloat. So dinner is often convenience food that each family member gets on the run.

But adults are also having increasingly sedentary lives. My routine as a white collar worker was to get up early in the morning to try and beat the rush hour traffic to work. Then I sat at my desk until lunchtime when I stuffed my face (lunch was one of the few things in the day for me to look forward to.) Then it was the afternoon at the desk followed by sitting in the car through rush hour traffic. When I got home, I was so mentally exhausted that I could do little more than crash in the reclining chair. And not surprisingly, through the years I slowly but surely put on the pounds.

And with workers getting pressure to put in more and more time at work to (hopefully) keep their jobs, there is less and less time for recreation and exercise (assuming one has the energy for it).

Admittedly, some of the food we eat does deserve some blame for our obesity. I think the biggest culprit is not something that is in our processed and fast food but something that often is not — fiber. Without enough fiber in our food it is all too easy to consume far too many calories before we are satisfied enough to stop eating.

But I feel that far too many of us are getting neurotic when they think of the food they love causing obesity. Many of our favorite foods have become forbidden pleasures to some. To its extreme, food becomes the enemy.

I agree with the opposing view, Food Is Not the Enemy as written some years ago by food writer Jeffrey Steingarten whose name you may recognize as the curmudgeonly judge on Food Network’s Iron Chef America.

Scare stories about the dangers of eating are typically inspired by two groups. First are government agencies and nongovernmental organizations whose attempts to keep us ever vigilant toward dangers of food can sometimes goad us into needless panic. More fundamental are the dark forces of anhedonia, phobia and hypochondria -- that vast, joyless, middle-of-the-road conspiracy that tirelessly toils to deprive the rest of us of the spiritual and earthly pleasures of good and ample eating.

So instead of totally blaming the things we like to eat on obesity, we should treasure these foods as things that bring us pleasure and adopt the philosophy that all things are OK in moderation and balance.

And instead of us dwelling on the food we eat as causing all of our problems, we need to understand that our sedentary lifestyles are at least as much to blame for our obesity.

And instead of dwelling on what ingredients makers of processed foods are using to entice us to overeat, we should instead get in the habit of cooking more of our meals from scratch and using these meals as a leisurely family gathering like we used to in the good ol’ days instead of today when we all too often mindlessly gulp down our food on the run. Food that we cook ourselves usually tastes better and is better for us without all of those mystery ingredients along with the excess fat and sugar. And it saves a lot of money!

We are bombarded by ads from companies who promise us we will lose weight if we only eat their food. But what they don’t mention is that diets often don’t work because once we quit eating the diet food, the weight will come right back if we do nothing about the sedentary lifestyle that started it all.

So when you get down to it, obesity is most often a result of our overall lifestyle choices and not just about the food we eat. Once we realize that, we can then really start to do something about it!

The World Is Watching Iran

Iran recently had a very important and relevant election — or so its citizens thought. Elections are not always that way. In totalitarian states, elections often take place but there is literally no choice on whom to vote for. Turnouts can approach 100% because the state deems voting to be mandatory. But their people know the situation and reluctantly accept it. There is usually no revolution. Some freedom loving Americans even support embargoes against countries like Cuba because in adding to their citizens’ misery comes the hope that they will revolt against their leader — but it almost never happens.

But this time in Iran it was different. Spurred on by the enthusiastic support and resulting victory in last year's election of America’s ‘reform’ candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, many Iranians gave their enthusiastic support to their own ‘reform’ candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi. (It must be that middle name.)

Truly this was going to be an opportunity for those many in Iran who had grown tired of the hateful rants of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to finally replace him. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who really pulls the strings of power in Iran had other ideas. Despite the widespread popular support for the challenger, the election was quickly announced as a landslide for Ahmadinejad before a reasonable time passed to even count all of the votes. Iranians having had a taste of real democracy only to have it snatched away had had enough!

But instead of violent protests that would invite violent retaliation, the Iranian protesters showed incredible savvy by mounting peaceful and sometimes silent displays of hundreds of thousands gathering in the streets — which also caught the attention of the world aided by communication over the Internet. Surely Khamenei would not order violence against these peaceful demonstrators, would he?

But there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Doing nothing and hoping the protesters would go away didn’t work. But using military force against peaceful protesters would expose Khamenei as being the despot that he truly is. What to do?

We have apparently gotten our answer.

In a long and hard-line sermon on Friday, Ayatollah Khamenei declared the June 12 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad valid and warned that demonstration leaders “would be responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if protesters continue, as they have pledged, to flood the streets in defiance of the government.

The tough words seemed to dash hopes for a peaceful solution to what defeated candidates and protesters call a fraudulent election last week, plunging Iran into its gravest crisis since the Islamic Revolution in
1979.

And in today there is this report…

…witnesses, quoted by news services, said that thousands of demonstrators had attempted to gather for a scheduled opposition protest on Saturday, but that riot police, using tear gas and water cannons, had dispersed them. Witnesses (also) reported that the black-clad security forces lined the streets of two squares in central Tehran as the city braced itself for a violent crackdown.

Until now, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a tougher stance on Iran not wanting to attract blame by those in power as being a meddler in their internal affairs. Instead, many of us from around the world who enjoy our freedom have instead given our tacit support to those in Iran who are fighting for their freedom.

Still, one senior official acknowledged that a bloody crackdown would scramble the administration’s calculations. The shadow of Tiananmen Square — in which Chinese tanks and troops crushed a flowering democracy movement in Beijing — has hung over the White House this week.

In an interview yesterday, Obama spoke cautiously about warnings by Iran’s supreme leader of bloodshed if the protests go on.

“I’m very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching,”

Indeed we are!

Why We Need Our Sports Teams

Life is good for Pittsburgh sports fans. The city is beaming with pride over its recent Penguins’ Stanley Cup championship in hockey to go with the Steelers’ Super Bowl victory in February. It’s a rarity for a city to have two major sports championships at the same time. Pittsburgh proudly called itself the “City of Champions” back in 1980 when the Pirates and Steelers did the same thing.

For the Penguins along with the Steelers before them and with the Pirates long before them, the local media coverage of the championship seasons was far out of proportion to what a non-sports fan would think to be appropriate. Front pages of newspapers, lengthy parts of newscasts. Why did they do it? Obviously, because this is what many local readers and viewers wanted in order to support the euphoria they were feeling for their beloved teams and the pride of seeing their city being showcased to the world.

And make no mistake; Pittsburgh loves its sports teams! Although the Pirates have been pathetic losers over the last 17 years, Reliving the 1960 World Series victory is an annual ritual every October at the outfield wall of Forbes Field that still remains long after the field has been demolished.

But despite all of this, there is still the assertion by some that we don’t need our professional sports teams. It was just a few years ago that the Penguins were ready to move to Kansas City if a deal couldn’t be reached to build a new arena in Pittsburgh. Who needs the Penguins? many asked. When the Pirates asked for a publicly financed new stadium the same question was asked of them. And when the Steelers also wanted a stadium, a few hard-liners said that they could leave too!

It’s easy to understand the thinking of these people. If we have a shortage of funds for things like helping the poor and repairing our decaying infrastructure, why should we publicly finance sports facilities for rich owners and sports leagues? Maybe it’s because it fills a need.

For those in Pittsburgh where they do have their pro sports teams, it’s easy to say that they can do without them just fine, thank you. But to get the complete picture, it’s necessary to look at those cities that don’t have them or have lost them.

Kansas City wanted the Penguins in the worst way. They were building a new arena and were offering a sweetheart deal to owner Mario Lemieux to move his team there. And despite Mario’s love of Pittsburgh, he was prepared to move to Kansas City if Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and other officials hadn’t finally helped to hammer out an 11th hour agreement to build a new arena in Pittsburgh.

Kansas City wanted a major league hockey team and was willing to pay the asking price. But even more telling are the many National Football League cities who have put together major deals financing new stadiums to lure teams to replace the ones that had just left — ones that most felt at the time that they could do without. The roll call includes Cleveland (to replace the former Browns who became the Baltimore Ravens), Baltimore (to replace the Colts), Houston (to replace the Oilers), and St. Louis (to replace the football Cardinals).

Brooklyn Dodger fans suffered a devastating loss in 1951 when Bobby Thomson’s Shot Heard Round the World won the pennant for the hated arch-rival Giants. Millions of fans in the New York area stopped what they were doing that day to listen to the game on the radio. But it was nothing like the profound hurt that Brooklyn fans felt when the Dodgers left for Los Angeles after the 1957 season (taking the Giants along with them to San Francisco).

Even though they got the Mets to replace these teams, those from Brooklyn old enough to remember following the Dodgers still mourn the loss of the Dodgers to this very day. And many still feel that the heart and soul of Brooklyn was lost when the Dodgers left town and the wrecking ball tore down Ebbets Field.

Of the many teams that uprooted in the 1950s and 60s, the Dodgers have probably had the largest number of public laments over their fans' heartbreak over losing their team. A couple of decades later, Roger Kahn's book The Boys of Summer and Frank Sinatra's song "There Used to Be a Ballpark" mourned the loss of places like Ebbets Field, and of the attendant youthful innocence of fans and players alike. The story of Ebbets Field and the Brooklyn Dodgers' move to Los Angeles were also chronicled by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, figured into the plot of the film Field of Dreams, and were featured in an entire episode of Ken Burns' public-television documentary Baseball, as well as a 2007 HBO documentary called Brooklyn Dodgers: Ghosts of Flatbush.

It’s easy to dismiss sports as being non-essential fluff especially when times are tough and we have real problems to solve. But maybe it's especially when times are tough, we need sports along with other forms of entertainment more than ever to keep our spirits up and carry on. Even in the early years of the Great Depression, countless millions followed Babe Ruth and Bobby Jones through newspapers and newsreels. Indeed, Jones was honored with a New York City ticker-tape parade following his grand slam golf victories in 1930. And then there is the USO which has been there over the years to entertain our troops during wartime.

But entertainment aside, sports teams, especially major league ones contribute to the livability and add a sense of identity and civic pride to our cities. When national sportscasts showed pictures of Pittsburgh as part of their telecasts, Pittsburghers were proud to show the world just how beautiful Pittsburgh really is and that it didn’t deserve to be the butt of jokes about being the ‘Smoky City’.

And finally for those who believe that sports teams are not important to many of its people, there was this crush of people for the parade to celebrate the Penguins’ Stanley Cup championship victory.

Just call it the city of champions.

Four months after celebrating the Steelers' sixth Super Bowl victory, Pittsburgh Police estimated 375,000 people converged downtown again for a parade, this time in honor of the Stanley Cup champion Penguins.

People lined streets -- in some places standing 20 deep or crowding onto multilevel parking garages -- to get a glimpse of the team and the cup.

While 375,000 people attending may sound impressive, the local TV stations carried the parade live so it was seen by perhaps millions more. So for those who think that losing the Penguins wouldn’t have been a big deal, tell that to all of those people!

Helping our Returning Soldiers Go On with Their Lives

A recent NYT editorial, Intolerable Rise in Soldier Suicides serves as a chilling reminder that just because a soldier may return from war physically intact does not necessarily mean that they are mentally intact from their war experiences.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff…predicted the toll this year will top the record of 2008, when the Army suffered 133 suicides. That was twice the number in 2004, before the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns turned into a slog of repeated tours.

About one in five (soldiers) returning home privately admit to post-traumatic stress disorders, but only half seek treatment. Soldiers fear their careers will be compromised if they reach out for help.

So while getting wounded in battle gets a soldier a medal in the form of a Purple Heart, mental stress disorders are all too often treated like so many other mental illnesses — as something to be ashamed of.

Those who saw the Academy Award winning movie Patton will remember the reenactment of the infamous slapping incident during World War II.

According to witnesses, General Patton was visiting patients at a military hospital in Sicily, and came upon a 24-year-old soldier named Charles H. Kuhl, who was weeping. Patton asked "What's the matter with you?" and the soldier replied, "It's my nerves, I guess. I can't stand shelling." Patton "thereupon burst into a rage" and "employing much profanity, he called the soldier a 'coward'" and ordered him back to the front. As a crowd gathered, including the hospital's commanding officer, the doctor who had admitted the soldier, and a nurse, Patton then "struck the youth in the rear of the head with the back of his hand". Reportedly, the nurse "made a dive toward Patton, but was pulled back by a doctor" and the commander intervened. Patton went to other patients, then returned and berated the soldier again.

A lesser known but equally powerful movie The Outsider is a true story about Ira Hayes who became famous as one of the five Marines in the historic photo of the flag raising on Iwo Jima.

After the war, Hayes attempted to lead a normal life, unsuccessfully. "I kept getting hundreds of letters. And people would drive through the reservation, walk up to me and ask, 'Are you the Indian who raised the flag on Iwo Jima'?"

Hayes accumulated a record of some fifty arrests for drunkenness. Referring to his alcoholism, he once said: "I was sick. I guess I was about to crack up thinking about all my good buddies. They were better men than me and they're not coming back — much less back to the White House, like me."

On January 24, 1955, Hayes was found dead, face down and lying in his own vomit and blood, near an abandoned hut close to his home on the Gila River Indian Reservation.

But mental illness in our returning soldiers is a cause of a more common problem but one that we as a country should be no less ashamed of — homeless veterans.

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that 154,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And approximately twice that many experience homelessness over the course of a year.

The vast majority are single, most come from poor, disadvantaged communities, 45% suffer from mental illness, and half have substance abuse problems.

In addition to the complex set of factors affecting all homelessness -- extreme shortage of affordable housing, livable income, and access to health care -- a large number of displaced and at-risk veterans live with lingering effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and substance abuse, compounded by a lack of family and social support networks.

While the very nature of war has always been hard on soldiers, the Iraq War has been especially hard on our troops due to the multiple deployments that many of them have had to endure.

The head of a Iraq war veterans group pegged "multiple deployments" as a culprit (in the rise of suicides), and told MSNBC that it shouldn't be surprising, but the military seems to be grasping for answers.

It is certainly difficult to adapt to the change from civilian life to a war zone. And it can be just as hard to adapt back to civilian life after serving in a war. But with multiple deployments requiring adapting back and forth multiple times, is it any wonder that the strain of this has taken its toll — not only on the soldiers, but on their marriages and children?

This is the first time in the US that an all-volunteer armed forces has been asked to fight wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) on such a scale. Insufficient numbers of recruits to maintain the troop levels being used there has resulted in the need for these disastrous multiple redeployments.

But the all-volunteer military has had an unintended consequence of promoting complacency on how our military is being treated. Back during the Vietnam War when sons, husbands, and boyfriends were being drafted to serve there, many more people were actively involved in whether we should have even been there along with how these people were being treated. Many people marched in the streets and said “Hell no, we won’t go!” and burned their draft cards.

Today there is less guilt by many about sending people to fight our wars like in Iraq. The thinking is that these people volunteered so they will be OK as long as they aren’t one of the roughly 4,300 that have been killed. But even for many of those who have returned without physical injury, they have paid a huge price in the way of mental injury, perhaps leading to divorce or homelessness — or even suicide.

We need to lose this complacency! We need to insist that our military puts in the proper mental health care resources for our returning soldiers. This means screening all of our returning soldiers from war for mental health issues and providing real help in the way of caring mental health professionals and social workers for those who need it — and not just by prescribing pills as some have charged.

We hear so many times from politicians when talking to or about our military personnel that they "Salute Our Troops". That all sounds nice but we need to do more. Of course we need to care about those who have died fighting our wars. But we also need to care at least as much for the living who have returned from battle changed and need our help to go on with their lives!

Reaching Out to the Muslim World

President Obama's address in Cairo was seen by most as a long overdue effort by the West to reach out to the Muslim world.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

Fear and mistrust to say the least! The attacks on 9/11 by mostly Saudi citizens greatly increased tensions with Saudi Arabia which is the birthplace of the Muslim faith and is seen by many as its focal point.

For Americans who are not Muslims that have perhaps visited Mecca on a pilgrimage, their experience with Saudi Arabia may have been in the form of business trips there over the years.

I can’t help but think about my first visit to Saudi Arabia on business back in the mid 80s. Talk about culture shock!

Our incoming plane arrived in Riyadh between 1 and 2 in the morning. That was OK I thought because that meant that the line in customs would be short. Wrong! It took about 2 hours to clear customs to enter the country. Customs agents were carefully going through each and every item of every suitcase to look for anything they felt would violate Islamic law — alcohol, pork, or even magazines with women who were not fully clothed.

TV was heavily censored. At the time there were only two channels available. To go along with the Arabic language channel was an English language channel that did not show any programs where women had any kind of a substantive role. This usually meant westerns or children’s shows. In my final visit there, satellite TV had arrived. It was still said to be illegal, but supposedly the Royal Family was in on the enterprise so nobody said anything.

Even the comic strips were censored. I remember a Blondie comic strip where Dagwood and Herb talked about going out for “bowling and a beer”. But even though many there drink non-alcoholic beer, the word “beer” was written over by hand with the word “burger”.

Women were not allowed to drive. They were not allowed to travel alone. They were definitely not allowed to travel with a man who was not her husband. And they were not allowed to work except for certain approved professions like teaching or nursing. Wives of expatriate workers could do their usual jobs as long as they were behind the compound walls.

And Saudis could not even assemble in public places. There were no sports stadiums and until very recently no movie theaters.

For the first time in three decades, Saudis in the nation's capital did something that most Westerners take for granted — they went to the movies. But it wasn't exactly date night. No women were allowed.

So when most Americans think of Muslims, they think of Arabs in the Middle East — especially the ones who are the extremists. During the presidential election, some of those on the political right claimed that Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim. The woman who took the microphone to ask a question during a McCain rally probably meant to say that Obama was a Muslim but instead said that "He's an Arab", probably because in her mind the two were interchangeable.

Some have even gone as far to say that the extremist behavior exists at least in part because it is the inherent nature of Islam. But what they overlook is that there are many millions of Muslims in other countries around the world outside of the Middle East who have seldom or never caused any trouble for others.

Most notable is Indonesia whose Muslim population of over 200 million dwarfs the 26 million Saudi Muslims. Indonesia has a secular government whose president is freely elected. The same is true for Turkey whose Muslim population approaches 99%.

So the problem is not with Islam itself, but with the countries where Muslim fundamentalists control their governments. As Thomas Friedman opines in After Cairo:

It’s a war within the Arab-Muslim world between progressive and anti-modernist forces over how this faith community is going to adapt to modernity — modern education, consensual politics, the balance between religion and state and the rights of women. Any decent outcome in Iraq would bolster all the progressive forces by creating an example of something that does not exist in the Middle East today — an independent, democratizing Arab-Muslim state.

So the first thing for those of us in the West who want to reach out to Muslims is to reject the false stereotypes that describe all Muslims as endorsing violence. But on the other hand, those Muslim nations who wish to be a part of the world community in good standing need to practice tolerance towards non-Muslims and realize that governments that are being run by religious extremists are the ones that terrorists feel they can rely on to provide a safe harbor for inflicting violence on others in the name of Islam.

On the other hand, nations around the world (including those with heavily Muslim populations) that have chosen to establish more secular governments have tended to thrive because of their greater respect for the human rights of their citizens — especially its women. But ultimately, the choice is theirs!

Why We All Need Empathy and Compassion

It was only a short while after posting my most recent article on the subject of Why We Need Empathy and Compassion on the Supreme Court that we got former VP Dick Cheney's thoughts in favor of gay marriage. Indeed this underscores the value of empathy and compassion in all of our public servants — not to mention those of us who select them.

"I think freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, something that we've lived with for a long time in our family."

Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, is gay and gave birth to a son in 2007, whom she is raising with her longtime partner, Heather Poe.

Of course it is a curiosity when a hard-line conservative Republican endorses a position in favor of gay marriage that is too liberal for even most Democrats (e.g. Barack Obama and Joe Biden).

For a person who certainly is not known for his sensitivity to others, it is not a stretch to say that this isolated example of empathy is due to sharing the family experience of what his gay daughter has had to go through. Or put another way; what would be the chances of Cheney ever supporting gay marriage if both of his children had turned out to be straight?

While this little bit of empathy is better than none, it does raise a disturbing question — Why are so many (especially on the conservative side of the political spectrum) unable to feel the pain of others unless they are exposed to it themselves?

Another example: Those of us in favor of embryonic stem-cell research applaud the efforts of Nancy Reagan despite resistance from President Bush and other pro-life Republicans. But surely the motivation was a possible cure for Alzheimer’s which struck her beloved husband. Would she ever have ever gotten behind such a controversial issue to conservative Republicans otherwise?

And then there is the cold assertion by Cheney that waterboarding is not really torture.

I don't believe we engaged in torture. There were three people who were waterboarded, not a large number. In fact, it was done under the overall guidance of the central elements of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Justice and I thought it was well done.

Conservative Chicago talk show host Mancow Muller didn’t feel that waterboarding was torture either — until he agreed to try and prove his point by being waterboarded himself as shown in this video. As a visibly shaken Mancow said afterwards, “I hate to say this...that’s torture…I mean, that’s drowning!”

Again, would he ever agree that waterboarding was torture if he hadn’t experienced it himself?

So what is the cause of this apparent lack of empathy in so many people? In my view, much of the blame lies at the feet of our politicians, especially those who championed the conservative doctrine of the Bush administration. Despite people suffering economic hardship especially in places like Ohio and Michigan during the 2004 election year, Bush downplayed their suffering and proclaimed the economy to be strong on his way to reelection. And later when more people were becoming aware of the suffering of those without access to health care, it was Bush who said:

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

But in fairness, incumbent politicians of both parties have to share some of the blame. Few, if any want to dwell on the difficulties of those who struggling while running for reelection — especially when their rivals are using this as a reason to get them elected. And let’s face it, it’s human nature to not want to think about things like unemployment and sickness unless they or someone close to them are affected. But the result has been a general state of denial in recognizing other peoples' hardships — until the problems became so widespread that denial was no longer possible.

So this lack of empathy can not only be a social problem. It can also make fixing our problems that much more difficult when we have to wait for enough people to be convinced there really is a problem to begin with! For example, this is the fight that those warning about the effects of climate change are waging.

But as discussed in my previous blog article, empathy is not enough. We also need compassion! Empathy is the understanding of what others are going through; compassion is the willingness to help as Nancy Reagan has done for Alzheimer’s victims.

And while Cheney apparently has empathy for gays in wanting to marry, he clearly had no willingness to help them while he was in power as the VP.

Throughout the Bush administration, the Vice President refrained from directly discussing his daughter's personal life and avoided questions on whether gay couples should be able to marry. In 2007, Cheney bristled when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond to political criticism of his daughter's pregnancy, saying to Blitzer, "Frankly, you're out of line with that question." Today he said gay couples should have "any kind of arrangement they wish."

So if this is how he really felt, why didn’t he provide a voice for moderation on this issue while serving as Bush’s VP? While it likely wouldn’t have changed the policies of the Bush administration, it may have helped to promote more tolerance for gay rights by the Republican Party which is supposedly looking to be more inclusive.

And while some would say that Cheney was just being an obedient VP by not raising the issue, clearly he pulled the levers of power behind the scenes for issues he really cared about — not the least of which was helping to persuade his boss to go to war with Iraq.

So maybe it all comes down to attitude. When we see people struggling with poverty, unemployment, sickness and the like, a person without empathy and compassion sees it as their problems for them to solve. But a person with empathy and compassion will see the struggles of others as being our problems for us to solve. It is these people who working together will truly make our world a better place!