Slim Jim or Slime Jim

I do not consider myself to be one of those fanatic vegetarians and have been known to eat a hamburger or a slice of bacon from time to time but I do believe it is important for us to make responsible and ethical decisions regarding the foods that we eat. To support those decisions and our resulting behavior, it is important that we educate ourselves on what constitutes food, how much should be eaten, where does our food come from, how is it produced and by whom? I plan to attend a workshop led by Rev. Nate Walker of the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia to explore these very questions.

In the meantime, I came across an article in Wired Magazine (August 2009) that detailed the composition of a popular processed snack food (?) known as the Slim Jim. I am curious – am I the only one to find it disturbing and nauseating?

The composition/ingredients are as follows: Beef – but not prime, a utility cut that comes from old steers with partially ossified vertebrae; Chicken – mechanically separated poultry scrapes that are pulverized into a pink paste; Hydrolyzed Soy – also known as monosodium glutamate; Corn and Wheat Proteins – well Slim Jims are made by ConAgra, after all; Lactic Acid Starter – a bacteria/sugar substance to lower the ph level; Dextrose – serves as a food for the lactic acid starter (its alive!); Salt – one Slim Jim gives you more than one-sixth of the sodium your body needs in one day; Sodium Nitrate – an agent to prevent the meat from turning grey and hopefully prevent botulism.

Mm – is it any wonder that a Slim Jim processing plant blew up lately?

Unemployment Rate Drops ??

This past week, the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped last month from 9.5% to 9.4%, which everyone seems to be happy about. This seems odd, since the percentage of adults without jobs actually went up.

The new jobs report shows a faster-than-expected slowdown in the pace of job losses—247,000 were shed in July, when economists had expected 325,000—and an increase in hourly wages. So this is definitely good news to be had. But as the New York Times' David Leonhardt points out that - the top line number that is getting the most attention - the first decrease in unemployment since last April—is a statistical chimera hiding an actual increase in the total number of people without jobs.

The one thing that doesn't deserve much excitement is what will probably garner many of the headlines: the drop in the unemployment rate. It happened only because more people stopped looking for work and were thus ineligible to be counted as officially unemployed. The share of adults with jobs actually fell: to 59.4 percent, from 59.5 percent.

Those people who are conveniently "ineligible to be counted as officially unemployed" are also officially ineligible for unemployment benefits, which are beginning to run across the nation as time runs out on the extensions included in the stimulus package. So we've managed to goose the employment numbers by cutting off benefits to people who don't have jobs and then denying that they exist. It's kind of like saying the cancer rate is dropping because once people die of cancer, they no longer count as having cancer.

Duh - I will drink to that!

Gay men and women are everywhere! They're “out”, being painfully gay, and this offends some folks, including some of the very gays who're out there being gay! For this reason, some gays attempt to convert to straightdom, which science now says is ridiculous.

As reported by CNN, the American Psychological Association conducted an extensive study on gay conversions and came up with some truly shocking findings. Excerpted below is the crux of the report, but just please be sure to sit down before you read any of this.

Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, chairwoman of the task force that presented the report at the group's annual meeting in Toronto, Canada. In addition, the report cited evidence that efforts to switch a person's sexual orientation through aversive treatments might cause harm, including loss of sexual feeling, suicide, depression and anxiety.

Many who tried to change and failed "described their experiences as a significant cause of emotional and spiritual distress and negative self-image," it said.

Gee, thanks for the enlightenment APA. However, we doubt that the Mormon Church or many other fundamentalist religious fanatics will be swayed one iota by your little report.

A Thought

Recently, I was required to complete a very extensive set of questionnaires in preparation for my ministry career assessment evaluation. An autobiographical portion involved recalling and documenting certain events that took place in childhood, adolescence, early and middle adulthood. Since I am somewhat advanced in years, I found it difficult to remember back in time some experiences and in particular how I felt, regarding my strengths and weakness that came into play during the occurrence.

Scientifically, it has been advanced that we humans have a built-in neural process of forgetting, which is why the average human brain is equipped with the ability to filter through seemingly irrelevant details. Since an average person does not have infinite memory resources, it appears to be an evolutionary trade-off that allows the majority of us to focus on the most relevant facts and more current experiences.

Okay, assuming this is factual and it sounds good to me, I suppose I should not be too anxious on not fully remembering what I experienced or felt at the age of five, fifteen, twenty-five, or even forty-five. Five minutes ago, that is a different matter. But a thought that crossed my mind, when we do remember, are we remembering the experience as it actually happened or as we now perceive that it happened? I submit it is the latter. Not only can’t we remember some past experiences and how we felt about them but when we do, our memories are not precisely exact, having been affected by time, experiences, and other’s conveyed recollections.

So what is the point of this rambling of mine? Only that when I related some autobiographic experiences in completing the questionnaire, some of them may not be entirely accurate as to what transpired back when they took place. More probable, the recollections are a current day perception of what happen and feelings about same are more that of today than what I felt back then. But maybe that is one of the reasons for the interrogation – how do I now feel about it and how is it affecting my current behavior? Any thoughts?