Uncategorized – Page 14 – The Divine Latitude

Rules for Eating

Matt Baldwin, a close buddy of mine, has had a truly transformative year. In one of his more recent blog posts, he recognized his own need to set up dietary rules that were specific to him. What is useful is how he goes through a process of reflection, adjustment and recalibration. In a way, it’s a practice that contemplative and spiritual. This year, I’m going to do the same. The fundamental insight I’ve gained from him is that it is about movement and improvement.

I have some good habits already: I’m not much of a sugar junkie. I gave up sodas, candy bars and ice cream years ago, as well as most white food. I’m good about cooking and avoiding processed food, although I do sneak a Zone Bar occasionally. I have three major issues: I’m a heavy drinker; I eat starchy foods, especially rice and potatoes; and I eat very fast. Add a habit of wings twice a week, chicken vindaloo with two cups of rice, and you’ve got a Padre Mambo with a spare tire as a partner.

I’ve read numerous books on dieting, understanding that this is really about a lifestyle change and not merely about making temporary changes. Most fundamentally, there must always be a practice of discipline. I doubt it is possible to stay healthy in this culture without being attentive and diligent. There are, simply put, too many factors, interests and institutions who have an interest in people eating fatty, salty and sweet foods.

So I’ve read the literature. I’ve especially been influenced by Mehmet Oz, Joel Furhman, David Kessler, John Gabriel, Susan Roberts, Brian Wansink and Various paleo authors. Here is my list that will guide me, I hope, until Easter, when I will recalibrate and see what’s successful and what’s not.

I’ve formerly been successful at losing weight. Two times had to do with women. One didn’t drink; we ran a few times a week together. During this time I would have either eggs or oatmeal in the morning; a salad with tuna for my afternoon snack; and a Cambridge shake for dinner. It was a South Beach Diet variation, low carbs. I stopped drinking beer. In August of 2003 I weighed 145. We never dated, alas. The work was for naught.

I met someone else, during which I gained 42 pounds, reaching a morning weight of 187 in October, 2006. My roommate at the time only ate white food, and would buy large packages of potato chips and french onion dip, both of which were comfort foods for me. We’d make popcorn and pour 1/2 cup of butter on it. We ate lots of pasta. We would treat ourselves to ice cream. Then my girlfriend and I broke up, and I changed – or restored – my eating habits.

I followed one primary rule, which helped me lose 25 lobs. I learned to feel when I was becoming full. I tried to eat slowly, and would only eat half what I ate. I would eat nuts before I went out, and was attentive about drinking water. When I had wings, I shared them. I also stopped drinking beer and eating rice, but these were secondary. I kept a very basic food diary.

My goal is to get to my ideal weight, which may be anywhere from 130 to 150 lbs. I have a thin frame. I’d like to reduce my waistline to 36, which would be close to losing about 40 lbs for me – which would bring me to 142, from 182. It’s possible.

I’m also participating in Crossfit Stamford, which is an inspiration for me. I’ve spent this week mainly in prayer and consideration, recovery from writing for my thesis, and mental preparation for this change, and am ready to hit Crossfit on a every day basis, starting on the 11th.

So here are my new rules.

One pint of beer on Sundays and Thursdays. The rest of the week no more than 2 glasses of wine an evening. Mondays and Saturdays dry.
Share all calorie dense food (say, wings).
Pay attention and eat slowly, at a table.
Eat on smaller plates.
Half of all plates should be vegetables.
Drink Water.
Eat at least one salad a day.
Say wonderful things about myself and how in control I am.
No less than seven hours of good sleep every night.

I will be adjusting these, testing them occasionally. I think they are a good beginning. I don’t exclude anything, but that may come when I start the Paleo challenge on January 23rd. Several of my friends are teasing me about this, but we’ll see.

Lent also begins on February 17th, so as Paleo ends I’ll also be completely giving up alcohol and refined sugars (including grains) until Easter. It will be a big shift for me, in part because I’m a heavy drinker, and have used it as a reward for a long day. Your encouragement will be essential as I begin this journey to greater health and power.

January 8, 2010January 9, 2010

Gawain de Leeuw2 Comments

The Health Care Bill

A few things:

First it’s not a perfect bill. Everyone knows that. But politics is the art of the possible, and for the first time government is trying to do what one task it should do: coordinate. It’s more like a bill a liberal Republican in the 1970’s would have passed than a Democrat, who throughout the century have worked for a federal plan.

Second, this bill will help more poor people, and more African-Americans in concrete ways. The long term effects will be enormous, and will go a long way to mitigate health care challenges between the races.

Third, this bill will put more pressure on insurance companies, big pharma, hospitals and doctors to work together.

Fourth, by 2016, it will reduce the likelihood of families being bankrupted by poor health.

Last, this bill demonstrates Obama’s strong, sensible leadership. If he had pushed harder, he would have not gotten any further. He allowed the bill to come from the legislature, not from on high. He’s done what no president has done before. It is clearly political leadership – not prophetic leadership. It is practical leadership, not idealistic leadership.

The difference, perhaps, between Obama and the previous president is that Obama was conservative enough to let institutions do their work. He was a strong enough leader to make them do it.

It’s a conservative bill. It’s not a perfect bill. But it will help millions of people and reduce long term costs.

December 24, 2009

Gawain de Leeuw1 Comment

Silent Monks do Handel

A New Anglican's Journey: Just Delightful

December 17, 2009

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Better than Nothing

Senate Democrats on Monday evening dropped a plan to expand Medicare, winning the support of moderates and the reluctant acquiescence of liberals, in another major step toward building enough support to pass a health-care overhaul.

It’s better than nothing.

Nate: Yes, it is.

Rev. Currie disagrees.

Quote of the day: Socially transformative legislation doesn’t happen at once. It evolves. Obama takes the long view.

Revealed: why Lieberman opposed expanding medicare – Liberals supported it.

December 15, 2009December 16, 2009

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

On the Recent Episcopal Elections

Most of you know that I’m a reexaminer when it comes to the current theological debates. Although I believe that marriage is the best option for peace between the sexes, and that traditional church teaching is designed to protect women and children, I’m also flexible on how the church manages what is properly normative. I’m agnostic about what God says complementarity and marriage.

That said, I believe, unlike reasserters, that the economic and technological changes brought by capitalism have delinked sex, property and death in a way where church teaching has revealed competing traditions. I believe that sex is a tertiary issue, not a primary one.

But progressives, like reasserters, have a blind spot. They look at statements of belief rather than effective evangelism, as tool for judging effectiveness. This is a mistake. It’s interesting that we knew what candidates for the episcopacy believe. But I wonder how relevant belief is to institution building.

Progressives and reappraisers have been especially weak in the area of institution building and leadership. The theology that got us to the current place – one that put pastoral care at the heart of ecclesiology – destroys priests and diminishes communities. It created a culture of priests as being called to be nice people who couldn’t hold people accountable.

Conservatives, however, really believe the stuff they preach. So they demand effective leadership. They find ways to share the message with others with creativity and panache. Remarkably, they are willing to change the medium so that the message can be spoken. I still find liberals who are more committed to traditional liturgy, often at the expense of creating a thriving congregation. As someone who’s tried to have more exuberant, praise filled music in the church, I get resistance: “We aren’t those kind of Christians.” And thus, the church continues to die.

On one hand I’m glad that The Episcopal Church is continuing to identify itself on the side of hospitality and trust. It’s great the moderate bishops who have been elected believe what they do – I believe the same things. But I worry that these same leaders will not have the tenacity, the severity, the power to stand up to the forces of the culture and speak the Gospel. I wonder if they will be hindered by the oppressiveness of an institution that would rather try to please everyone, and unwittingly kills itself in the process.

Admittedly, I was disappointed that Fr. Mitchell was not elected in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. He was a conservative I respect. He builds communities. And that is what the Episcopal Church should be doing. That said, God Bless both dioceses.

December 14, 2009

Gawain de Leeuw1 Comment

Bah, Hitchens

Radosh takes Hitchens down. Hitchens is an atheist who uses a fundamentalist definition of religion and faith. Radosh is a non-theist who schools him.

Thanks, Daniel.

December 14, 2009

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Where the Real Work Is

It’s one thing to elect a bishop. It’s another to house the homeless. Good for the Diocese of Long Island. Call me a cultural imperialist, but this seems a little more Christlike than, say, execution.

Link to a good site with crisp, charitable analysis, Box Turtle Bulletin.

December 9, 2009December 9, 2009

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Michelle Malkin’s Bad Advice

Michelle Malkin is looking for better Republicans.

“Better” means a certain kind of list.

Small government. No Veteran’s Administration, Medicare, or Medicaid. Fewer unemployment benefits. Probably less agribusiness, also but you won’t read about that on her site.

Pro-life. She doesn’t talk much about contraception, but I imagine she shies away from that topic.

Strong Military, although privatizing it is probably OK, even if it costs more money for taxpayer.

Especially Amerika for Amerikans. Her view: if an insane person decides to shoot up people at work, it’s probably because he’s a foreigner, a Muslim, or a liberal. Not because he’s insane.

Malkin’s advice is that the RNC should find “pure” Republicans who follow the line.

I will confess, reader, that I’m a registered Republican. But I’m not an ideologue. I’m not a party politician. Old patrician school. I have always, however, appreciated the class of prosperous Americans who loved the country, distrusted any kind of ideological purity or utopianism, and were dissatisfied with the ethnic politicking of the Democratic Party. They hated corruption and agreed with basic principles of fairness, including civil rights. They were pro-choice.

Their conservatism stemmed from a distrust of the Soviet Union and Left-Wing idealism. While they didn’t believe government solved all problems, the worked with other institutions. They believed in the power of education, didn’t blame the poor, but still encouraged individual responsibility.

If you wanted the Republican party to win in a Democratic district, you could run a conservative who responds to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. And lose.

Or you could go the liberal Republican route. Good liberal Republicans could win in moderate districts.

Malkin hates liberals. She’d rather have a corrupt Democrat than an honest Republican who supported Democratic policies.

For this reason, Malkin wants to remain in the party of opposition.

Joseph Cao is in a predominantly African-American district, a liberal one. He’s an example of a Republican who can caucus with the Republicans but occasionally vote the other party.

Michelle’s suggestion for the Republicans: find someone better. And they could, probably. Someone better, who would lose to a Democrat.

That’s her advice.

I want to suggest the following:

A Republican can win a Democratic district if s/he does the following:

Help their constituents;
Maintain a high level of personal integrity;
Work with Democrats;
Compromise when necessary.

Malkin’s general view is that ideology trumps helping constituents; it’s all pork. Integrity is solely the purview of conservatives. Working with Democrats is enough to to taint any Republican.

What Malkin doesn’t understand is that Liberal Republicans won’t let Democrats use parliamentary procedure to halt discussion prematurely. They’d be supportive of good rules; and challenge corruption in both parties. Diversity within a party strengthens a party. If it weren’t for liberal Republicans, chances are there would be NO current checks and balances in the current health care debate in the Senate. Michelle would rather have two Democrats in Maine than two RINOs. But where would that take her policies?

Malkin has a general skepticism that one can, in good conscience, oppose economic libertarianism, social authoritarianism, and resentment driven populism for good reasons.

So if you were a Republican who wanted to win in a predominantly Democratic, or politically moderate, district, learn to manage government well. Challenge cronies, support good policies, and let the government support good programs. You’d support good policies from Republicans, while also crossing the aisle occasionally when useful.

So Republicans: don’t follow Michelle’s rules about finding the most conservative candidates. They’re already in congress, doing their conservative thing. She is happier with ideological purity than effective governance, sacrificing the desire to get anything done to the idol of a true faith.

Instead, if you would like to be a useful organization, support liberal Republicans who critique the corruption in the Democratic party, monitor the excess of government spending, and provide a beacon of integrity in the political process. There won’t be many. But there should be a few. Without them, the Republican will become a regional party, representing white populism, ineffectively.

November 9, 2009November 10, 2009

Gawain de Leeuw1 Comment

Astrid Storm Keeps It Real

The Rev. Mo. Storm causes trouble, reminding us that there were good reasons we left the Catholic Church.

A couple tidbits: the clergy scene in Rome certainly seems very gay — and, particularly once cocktail hour was well underway, fun. But more importantly, I realized that the relatively few Anglicans (“Episcopalians” in the U.S.) involved in these dialogues — and thus the Anglicans that the Vatican probably comes into the most (perhaps sole) contact with — seem to wish they were Roman Catholic.