This is just to let folks know that, in order to keep up with some friends on another site, I am setting up a "mirror journal" at Paganspace.com at the following address:

http://www.paganspace.net/profile/Birchlady

I will be continuing to post here however - the same articles/entries will be appearing here and on Paganspace.

If you are on Paganspace, feel free to drop me a line so that I can friend you there as well!

I've picked up my embroidery again! I'm working on yet another linen-based project; this one is a stitched offering to my ancestors that will hang behind my hoimor. I'm letting the spirits dictate what patterns and designs will go on the piece I am stitching; as such, I don't have a full scale graphic of what the piece will look like when it is done, because it is in the process of being created as I work on it. Embroidery is a wonderful form of meditation; it is easy to enter into a trance state when doing certain stitches, and it is also a wonderful way to calm the mind and focus one's thoughts. The right patterns and colours come as I work on it, almost as if someone is standing behind me selecting them. When things go this way, I know they are going right.

I am going to be taking pictures of the piece as I work on it, kind of like a "photo essay", documenting the creation of the project. Last night I got the linen whip-stitched around the edges to keep it from fraying, and got some preliminary stitching done. The current pattern I am working on is a "sewing cushion" style pattern involving deer and flowers - essentially it's like a continuing geometric pattern completely filling an entire space. The stitches I plan on using are raised knot, cross, and montenegrin stitch for this particular section. I like to combine different stitches for the visual as well as tactile effects - even though this piece will be getting framed before it is hung, you'll still be able to see the effects of the different stitches.

The predominant colours in the whole piece will be red and a very dark green (for you stitchers out there, DMC 321 & 934) - they are two colours that I use most frequently in this kind of work, as they seem particularly pleasing to the spirits I communicate with.

Also on the project board is an article (likely in two-three parts) discussing Tara. I've been thinking of doing something like this for awhile, but just haven't gotten down exactly how I want to open it. Well, during my walk yesterday I finally figured out how I want to phrase the introductory paragraphs, and have been able to proceed with the writing of part one, which I would like to see about posting today, if not tomorrow. Depending on how satisfied I am with it, I may even see about submitting it to Witchvox. I have to admit that that is one of the things that I really like about Witchvox - they provide a wonderful way for writers to put their material out there in a format where it can do the most people benefit. it also gives new writers a chance to test out their wings (always a good thing).

The first part will be discussing some opening information about Tara - such as debunking the idea that she's a deity solely tied to Buddhism and the Himalayas - as well as providing information on her roots in India (where she has much in common with Kali) and her hagiography (according to the Mahayana canon). I am planning on the second part being a discussion of the traits, abilities, emanations, and feats of the Goddess, and the third containing some personal notes from my own worship.

And no, she is not a bodhisattva (although she was at one point, but that was long ago) - she is a full blown Buddha. That's something else that will be getting discussed. Alot of Western resources continually make the mistake of calling her a bodhisattva and not a Buddha; they also try to say that she and Kwan Yin are one and the same. Kwan Yin is a bodhisattva - unless you're a Taoist, at which point Kwan Yin is one of the Immortals - and unlike Tara, who has always been female, Kwan Yin has both male and female forms. While their actions are very similar, they are not the same!

But before I set myself to any embroidering or writing, I'm going to take advantage of the cool, foggy morning the Gods have provided and go for a walk in the mountains. It's a wonderful way to start the day, as well as yet another good form of meditation.

Yesterday I wrote a blog in which I complained about the hypocrisy displayed by certain members of the medical profession here in WV. I was happy but at the same time disappointed to hear that others have noticed the same/similar situations - happy that I was not alone in noting the inconsistencies, but disappointed to learn that these inconsistencies seem to be the norm in more places than not. Now, I am not naieve - I know that this situation is widespread - but admittedly I always leave room for hope that the situation isn't all that bad.

What can I say, I'm an optimist!

That being said, I did some thinking last night and came up with the following:

From earlier and earlier ages, young children are being bombarded with ads for junk food, fast food, sugary drinks, etc. Check out the following stats, from the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood:

59% of children under two watch TV; at six months of age, babies are forming mental images of corporate logos and mascots ("Born to Shop", American Demographics p. 34-39). TV influences how children eat more and more; for every hour of TV watched a preschooler's risk for obesity increases by 6% (more if they have a TV in their room). 32% of all children's commercials advertise candy, 31% are for sugary cereals featuring favourite characters, "prizes" in the box (usually junk), etc. On an average Saturday morning, children see one food commercial (for candy, fast food, sugary cereals/drinks, soda, junk food, etc.) every five minutes.

In short, from very young ages (as toddlers!) our children are being taught that this kind of food will make you happy, popular, energetic, and that it is fun to eat. By incorporating favourite children's toys into kid's meals at restaurants (such as Barbie, Spongebob, etc.), fast food joints hope to entice your children into becoming lifelong customers at younger ages. From the time they are 6 months old, they learn to recognise the Golden Arches - at the same time they're learning to say "mama".

If that doesn't shake your reality, I don't know what will!

Now, my husband and I don't watch TV - we don't have cable, don't intend to get it - but the next time those of you who do watch TV and/or have young children who watch TV sit down in front of the tube, take a pencil and a notepad and make a note of all the references in cartoons to fast food (number of time popular characters eat a burger and fries at a restaurant), and the number of commercials for kids' junk foods (sugary cereals, snacks, drinks, etc.). It's astounding how much advertising young children are bombarded within the course of one hour. In most cases, an hour long show is only really between 42-45 minutes long - 15 minutes at least is devoted to advertising!

With that in mind, is it any wonder that children don't want to eat home-cooked, healthy foods? Our society is educating them from the cradle to eat junk. This in turn is leading to the very health problems that I was discussing yesterday - diabetes, heart problems, weight management problems, etc.

Worse yet, many advertisers get children to adopt a "nagging" approach when it comes to getting kids to buy their products:

"Tell your parents to get [whatever]!"

"Get your mom to buy you [whatever]!"

"Tell your parents to bring you down to [whatever]!"

"C'mon kids, come and play!"

According to studies done on the subject of "nagging" techniques encouraged by advertising, the average parent gave in after being asked nine times, with 11% of 12-13 year olds surveyed stating that they had asked their parents closer to fifty times before they gave in (Takoma Park, MD. Thanks to Ads, Kids Won't Take No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No For An Answer May, 2002). In short, the study showed that parents were more likely to give in as a means of reducing family stress brought about by the nagging, and to maintain peace in their households, not so much to satisfy the child's desire for the item - which is usually fleeting. In short, it's the old "You got your toy, now leave me alone!" routine, and it's pushed by marketers as a means of selling their products. It's also led to an increase in parenting stress, as well as stress between husbands and wives.

Even worse, it's led to children being taught to be materialistic, selfish, and inconsiderate. Children who are more materialistic have a tendency towards lower self-esteem, being more unhappy, and having more anxiety. In essence, these children aren't happy unless they "get something" to "make" them happy. This can lead to the start of a lifetime driven by rampant consumerism - which brings to mind another point I brough up in a blog some time ago. Namely, people spend more on material goods that, in the long run, have a detrimental effect on their health than on items that promote better health.

It goes back to the old organic food vs. conventional food argument - while there are people who genuinely cannot afford organic food at this time, there are some people who can afford to eat out every other night, buy fancy clothes, cars, shoes, TVs, etc. (material items) who make the same statement. In cases like that, it's not that they can't afford to eat better, they choose not to. If they really wanted to, they could afford it - they'd just need to reshuffle their priorities.

But when they've been bombarded by advertising and messages that promote materialism over well-being, or that seek to equate well-being with materialism, from a young age, that can become a habit that is difficult to break.

Which brings me to the final point in this sad charade - the amount of advertising that children are subjected to in public schools is astounding. Just looking at soda sales - 58% of elementary schools allow the sale of soda on their premises; the percentage only goes up from there (84% of middle schools, 94% of high schools). 20.2% of schools have added a Domino's, Pizza Hut, McDonald's, or Taco Bell to their premises, usually a limited menu, but fast food nonetheless. 29.2% of elementary schools, almost half of all middle schools (46.6%), and 72.2% of high schools allow the sale of candy; at the same time this is going on, children who are hyperactive and unable to focus are being labelled ADHD/ADD and being placed on prescription drugs. Interestingly enough, remove the sugar from these kid's foods and most of them would no longer qualify as ADHD/ADD.

At the same time, physical education and playground time is being phased out and/or removed from schools, removing from students a chance to get some form of weekly exercise.

Colleges aren't much better - in fact in many ways they're just as bad, if not worse. When I was in college (Appalachian State, 1997 - 2001), there were vending machines on the first floor of every dorm and building that usually ran like this - 2-3 soda vending machines, and 2 machines that vended cookies, candy, candy bars, Little Debbie snack stuff, etc. Most of the food served on campus was the equivalent of fast food, and the only healthy places to eat on campus were usually so overpriced and on such weird schedules that students weren't able to take full advantage of all options. In addition, not every dorm had a stove or place to cook your own meals - so unless you had a buddy in a dorm that did have a stove, or you were fine with crock pot or microwave cooking, making yourself healthy food wasn't always convenient.

To top it off, check out alot of women's magazines. On the same cover where they announce multiple ways to lose weight, they have a picture of a cake, cupcakes, cookies, etc. and blurbs about recipies for junk made with, well, junk.

What does all this have to do with yesterday's blog?

Simple. By the time that many adults are diagnosed with diabetes, heart problems, weight problems, etc. serious damage has already been done from a lifetime of poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and advertising. Yes, advertising plays a role - and as the statistics have shown, it's becoming more influential all the time and reaching out for the youngest set - toddlers.

Doctors being only human (although I know some would dispute that), they are prone to making the same mistakes as everybody else. That being said, if the medical industry wants people to make changes, it can't just assign them a pill, stick them on a diet, or tell them what not to do. In many cases, an authourity figure of any kind telling someone what to do results in the person doing the exact opposite of what is being asked. Besides, all that pill, diet, etc. does is cure the symptoms and side effects (and even then, it's no guaranteed cure). It does nothing to tackle the true root of the disease.

What doctors need to do - if they are genuinely concerned about people's health - is go after the root cause of the problem, not just tackle the symptoms and side effects. With all the money that the medical and pharmaceutical industries rake in every year (in the billions) you'd think that some of it could be put towards the creation of programs aimed at educating people about their bodies, health, and minds. In short, giving them the kind of education that would help combat the messages sent through the media and other advertising outlets.

Will they do it? Likely not. Why?

Because the same media corporations advertising the junk contribute massive amounts of money to the pharmaceutical companies and medical companies - who in turn provide funding for programs, advertising, etc. Long story short - we live in a society that promotes disease.

So perhaps, in the end, the best thing to do for your health is to get rid of your cable programming. It will bring you peace of mind (and peace in your family), and might go a long way towards killing that advertising virus. Amazingly, most of the ads we're subjected to come from TV - not the magazines, billboards, signs, etc. TV.

Yes, this is something of an angry post, but I need to get it off my chest, because it's been bugging me for some time.

I found out recently that WV has a severe problem in regards to growing numbers of people developing Type II diabetes - including a rise in the number of children with the disease - and that they have a continuing rise in the numbers of women being diagnosed with gestational diabetes, thus contributing to the high Caesarean rate in WV. The overall health and nutrition of people in WV is very poor, so poor that it is one of the top states in the country for diabetes, STDs, and heart problems.

Many times, these doctors and medical professionals advise their patients to change their eating habits to healthier options, to stop eating fast food, to switch to whole grains, eat more fruits and vegetables, get more exercise, stop drinking soda, etc. They also throw in that people should not smoke.

Which all gets very interesting when you consider the numbers of doctors that not only smoke but drink soda, eat fast food, eat conventional food, eat candy bars and sugary snacks, do not themselves get enough exercise, and do not themselves eat an overall beneficial diet. Driving past General Hospital in downtown Charleston on any given day, outside the emergency wing on the sidewalks, you can find any number of doctors and nurses smoking, guzzling soda, eating McDonald's - and obviously out of shape.

The most ironic thing I've seen? A group of three doctors chain-smoking outside a lung-care clinic. If only I'd had a camera that day. In fact, I have seriously considered taking around a camera and snapping photos of everything I've just described, and shoving it under their noses in the form of an art exhibit called "Hypocrisy" at the local cultural center. Why?

Because it's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

How can these doctors and nurses justify dispensing medical advice encouraging people to get on the road to better health when they themselves don't do the same? They want to know why people in this state don't take care of themselves? Who is going to take anything a nutritionist says seriously about cutting out junk and fast food if that nutritionist has, on their desk, a bottle of soda and in their trash can, a wrapper from a Snickers bar, or stuff from McDonald's? Who is going to take a doctor telling a person to lose weight seriously when that doctor could stand to drop more than a few pounds themselves?

The fact is, I am very upset by what I have seen.

I found out from a midwife over the phone yesterday that I am the only person to request an organic-food-based alternative to the gestational diabetes test - which, thanks to the high gestational diabetes rate in WV, I can't refuse to take - because I refuse to drink the glucola or take a jelly-bean test, because I don't consume soda, sweets, or artificially flavoured/coloured/sweetened/etc. products (I hesitate to call them foods).  In fact I'm the only person to do it at their practise, ever - as proof of that, they don't even have information on it! I have to provide it!

Why? Because - according to the midwife I spoke to yesterday - nobody else has had a problem with the glucola because they are so used to consuming high amounts of sugar and skipping meals, that an 8-hour fast and glucola jolt doesn't bug them at all. Apparently some of these other pregnant moms turned in food journals where their breakfast consisted of a large bowl of Fruity Pebbles, a brownie, and a 16 ounce Coke (I'm not joking). So downing the glucola is no big deal. It's practically routine! It's so routine to down that much sugar, they don't get sick or feel side effects!

This midwife seemed surprised that I had such issues with it because she'd never had anybody have such issues with it before.

I told her that another midwife at the practise had mentioned it to me to investigate and I just had some questions regarding what I found. She said I'd be better off taking it to that midwife at my next appointment, because she didn't know how to answer my questions, as she was unfamiliar with such alternatives and had never dealt with those kinds of questions before, because nobody had ever asked them. And you could tell by her tone she felt bad about it. She said she wished more people were as cautious but (and I quote) "You're the only one currently being seen by this practise that does what you do, and the only one we have had in years that does what you do, so I'm afraid that we don't have alot of, if any, past experience to go on for your situation."

Needless to say, I'm frankly appalled.

It's become even more clear to me now why more people aren't speaking up about getting harmful additives, preservatives, and other agents out of their food. It's because they just don't care. They don't care, because the doctors don't really care. I say this because if they did care, they would take better care of themselves before even thinking of telling another patient to do the same.

They could start by completely redoing hospital menus to include healthy food choices, instead of second-rate crap that's no better than what you can get at a cheap fast-food joint.

They could start by putting every doctor in the state on a program to get them to stop smoking, or tell them they're out of a job. After all, if they're going to tell other people to not smoke, it doesn't make any sense that they should smoke.

They could start by making every doctor go on a diet and exercise program so that when they tell patients they need to lose weight/get in shape, they don't look like hypocrites.

They could start by nixing the vending machines, or replacing the food in them with healthy, organic alternatives - not candy bars, chips, cupcakes, and soda.

There's an old saying about all this that sums things up nicely and I think I'll close with it.

Doctor, heal thy self.

This is some excellent news - here's hoping it goes through!

Legislation would place burden on industry to prove chemicals are safe

This is a quote from the article:

“When babies come into this world pre-polluted with hundreds of dangerous industrial chemicals already in their blood, it’s clear that the regulatory system is broken,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG). “The Kid Safe Chemicals Act will change a lax, outdated system that presumes chemicals are safe into one that requires makers of toxic chemicals to prove their safety before they’re allowed on the market.”