jump to navigation

Homo Ludens—Is Playing Good for Us? November 30, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy of Human Nature.
Tags: , , , ,

 Years ago a Dutch researcher, Johan Huizinga, came out with a book, Homo Ludens, “The Playing Human,” which claimed that playing is older than human culture, that even adults play for the fun of it, and it’s good for us. That was actually an eye opener for most people at the time. Since then the scope of play behavior analysis has been extended to studying social animals, (see Bekoff and Pierce (Wild Justice) ) suggesting that social play allows for the development of a sense of fairness and justice, not only in humans, but in some species of animals as well.

In this article, “Why We Can’t Stop Playing,” we see the positive analysis of play continued—but this time the spotlight isn’t on playing as a social activity, but very much a solitary experience: “Casual games” that are played on our computers and our cell phones, mainly to pass the time while waiting for appointments:

Why do smart people love seemingly mindless games? Angry Birds is one of the latest to join the pantheon of “casual games” that have appealed to a mass audience with a blend of addictive game play, memorable design and deft marketing. The games are designed to be played in short bursts, sometimes called “entertainment snacking” by industry executives, and there is no stigma attached to adults pulling out their mobile phones and playing in most places. Games like Angry Birds incorporate cute, warm graphics, amusing sound effects and a reward system to make players feel good. A scientific study from 2008 found that casual games provide a “cognitive distraction” that could significantly improve players’ moods and stress levels.

Game designers say this type of “reward system” is a crucial part of the appeal of casual games like Angry Birds. In Bejeweled 2, for example, players have to align three diamonds, triangles and other shapes next to each other to advance in the game. After a string of successful moves, a baritone voice announces, “Excellent!” or “Awesome!”

In the 2008 study, sponsored by PopCap, 134 players were divided into groups playing Bejeweled or other casual games, and a control group that surfed the Internet looking for journal articles. Researchers, who measured the participants’ heart rates and brain waves and administered psychological tests, found that game players had significant improvements in their overall mood and reductions in stress levels, according to Carmen Russoniello, director of the Psychophysiology Lab and Biofeedback Clinic at East Carolina University’s College of Health and Human Performance in Greenville, N.C., who directed the study.

In a separate study, not sponsored by PopCap, Dr. Russoniello is currently researching whether casual games can be helpful in people suffering from depression and anxiety.

Hardly an incentive for further development of one’s sense of fairness and justice, like social play! But it may still have merit, if it can offset the unnaturally high levels of stress most of us labor under. For one thing, we can conclude that playing games by oneself adds an important dimension to the play behavior phenomenon; for another, I find it fascinating that the article doesn’t end with a Caveat such as, “You’re just being childish, needing approval from the world,” or “If you play too much you’ll become aggressive/a mass murderer/go blind” or whatever. For decades we’ve heard about the bad influence of computer gaming, as a parallel to the supposed bad influence of violent visual fiction. But the debate is ancient: to put it into classical philosophical terms, Plato warned against going to the annual plays in Athens, because he thought they would stir up people’s emotions and thus impair their rational, moral judgment; Aristotle, who loved the theater, suggested that  watching dramas and comedies would relieve tension and teach important moral lessons. In the last two-three decades most analyses of the influence of entertainment have, almost predictably, ended with a Platonic warning about the dangers of violent TV, movies, and videogames. Are we slowly moving in an Aristotelian direction? That would be fascinating, but here we should remember that Aristotle didn’t want us to OD on entertainment: the beneficial effects are only present if entertainment is enjoyed in moderation. 15 minutes of “Angry Birds” ought to be just enough…


Patriotism GOP Style November 29, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
1 comment so far

Republican Richard Luger, a foreign policy expert and one of the few rational Republicans left in the Senate, is urging his Republican colleagues to ratify the New START treaty. “Please do your duty to your country” he implores. Apparently, his colleagues led by Senator Kyl  are not listening.

As Mark Kleiman reports:

Brent Scowcroft, another solid Republican, says he can’t figure out what goal Kyl & Co. might be pursuing by their opposition to the treaty other than the goal of denying the President a foreign policy victory. (A secondary goal might be squeezing Obama for even more wasteful government spending on warheads we’ll never actually use.)

If the START treaty is not ratified the U.S. will have no means of verifying the nature of weapon systems in Russia and the Russians will have no incentive to work with us on our policy with Iran or Afghanistan.  There is no U.S. interest served by holding up this treaty.

Kleiman continues:

If patriotism means the willingness to put, in John McCain’s words, “country first,” then the party that just won the midterm elections may be the least patriotic party since … well, since the Republican isolationists almost let Hitler win World War II.

I perfectly understand why the few remaining moderate Republican politicians don’t switch parties. They’ve made their choice. What I don’t understand is the persistence of moderate Republican voters. Your party is irrevocably in the grip of a group of reckless, cynical, and largely ignorant extremists. Time to go. Noisily

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

The Art of Talking and Listening November 22, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy of Gender.
Tags: , , ,

Elizabeth Bernstein from WSJ, as I speculated a few blogposts ago, has apparently still not read Deborah Tannen, but even so, her latest piece , “She Talks a Lot, He Listens a Little” is pretty interesting:  Is it true that women talk more than men? Yes indeed, it is. And do men listen less than women do? Apparently.

…”He doesn’t tell me to get to the point because he knows it would be a big insult,” says Ms. Macaluso, 43, a homemaker. Says her husband: “I made the mistake of telling my wife to speed up—just once. She started over and made me sit through the whole thing again.”

Do women talk more than men? Not always, of course. Some men are big gabbers, just as some women are silent types. And yet, the stereotype that women talk more than men holds pretty true.

There are environmental reasons—many men are raised not to share their feelings. But biology plays a surprisingly strong a part, as well. There is evidence that women’s and men’s brains process language differently, according to Marianne Legato, a cardiologist and founder of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at New York’s Columbia University. She says that listening to, understanding and producing speech may be easier for women because they have more nerve cells in the left half of the brain, which is used to process language, a greater degree of connectivity between the two parts of the brain and more of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the part of the brain that controls language.

Although the ability to understand and process language diminishes in both men and women as we age, it does so earlier for men (after age 35) than women (post-menopause). Women also get a boost of oxytocin, the feel-good hormone, when they speak to others, and estrogen enhances its effects. While men get this, too, testosterone blunts its effects. “This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view—men can’t defend their families if they are burdened with high levels of a hormone that compels them to make friends of all they meet,” says Dr. Legato, author of “Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget.” “Thus, men in their prime with high levels of testosterone are the least likely to be interested in social exchanges and bonding to others.”

Bernstein’s piece ends on a sour note: there’s nothing we can do, women will want to yak to the tune of 1000 words per day, and men will want to close their ears after the first 750 words. So, says Bernstein, maybe we have to find partners whose style of yakking/silence will complement our own. But had she read Tannen, she could have gone in another direction. Because it isn’t just that women talk more than men, we also tend to talk about other things, and with other expectations. Women often engage in what Tannen calls “troubles-talk,” where they share their moments of frustration and irritation, but without expecting a solution. Men, on the other hand, find it very hard to listen to such talk without wanting to help, and provide problem-solving. So the phenomenological value of talking for the purpose of sharing an experience is entirely different than the sharing of information for the sake of problem-solving, or the typical trash talk about a common interest, such as sport.  And this is where Tannen’s approach gives us more guidance than merely pointing out the fact that women like to talk, and men don’t: Because Tannen believes that while our linguistic styles are to a great extent gender-hardwired, we can learn to appreciate the style of the Other, understand his or her expectations, and perhaps even adapt to his or her style. Sometimes women want to tell a long story, in great detail, and all they want in response, says Tannen, is “Poor Baby!” Even a man of few words can handle that, and be the perfect listener…

That being said, with Thanksgiving coming up, I hope you’ll all have some good conversations with people you care about. And I hope you’ll find the right moment to talk, and the right moment to listen! Sometimes we forget that listening is an art, too, and as Tannen points out, just because your husband doesn’t look at you while you’re talking and he’s driving (if the traditional style of family driving persists in your family), doesn’t mean he hasn’t heard what you said…

John Tyner’s Junk November 22, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,

I am really unmoved by all the flap about TSA’s new screening procedures. I am especially unmoved by the much praised John Tyner. The very people who are complaining so much about intrusive pat-downs will be the first to complain if there is a successful terrorist attack. I agree with Jacques Berlinerblau:

Reading through the professions of outrage over the TSA’s new passenger screening procedures, I experienced a series of painful flashbacks. Listening to Mr. John Tyner (now viralized, lionized, and perhaps soon to receive a Congressional Medal of Honor) liken a pre-flight pat down to “a sexual assault” and expounding on the integrity of his “junk” evoked a flood of really bad grad-school memories.

Before I start reminiscing, let me get something off my chest: I too really hate those pesky security checks at airports. I hate the snaking lines. I hate taking off my cuff links. I absolutely hate it when the TSA dude confiscates my 14-ounce bottle of contact-lens fluid.

But you know what else I really hate? I hate when my plane blows up. God, I hate that!

I could have sworn that conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will and the editorial board of The Washington Times hated that as well. I always liked that about conservatives.

But what is revealed by their reactions to “Nutgate”—a Google search leads me to believe that I invented this term and I’m insisting upon paternity because it works on so many levels—is the degree to which anti-government ideology has replaced “national security” as the new coin of the conservative realm.

In this mindset, the TSA agent represents a government (with a Democrat at its head) bent on molesting law-abiding citizens. The guy prattling on about his genitals is depicted as a folk hero and a patriot (as guys who talk about such things often are).

But my question is this: Do we have any reason to believe that the TSA’s procedures overestimate the ruthlessness and resolve of our enemies?

Juan Cole explains why all of this is foolish:

The old scanners and procedures designed to discover metal (guns, knives, bombs with timers or detonators) are helpless before a relatively low-tech alternative kind of explosive that is favored by al-Qaeda and similar groups.

The inspectors are looking for forms of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, which is from the same family of explosives as nitroglycerin and which is used to make plastic explosives such as Semtex.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, used PETN, as did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the crotch bomber, last year this time over Detroit. PETN was in the HP cartridges sent by a Yemeni terrorist in cargo planes recently. And, a suicide bomber put some up his anus and used it in an attempt to assassinate the son of the Saudi minister of the interior (which does counter-terrorism). Yes, he was the first ass bomber, and he missed his target, though he no longer cares about that, what with being dead and all.

The problem with PETN is that it cannot be detected by sniffing dogs or by ordinary scanners. But if you had a pouch of it on your person, the new scanners could see the pouch, and likewise a thorough pat-down would lead to its discovery.

The TSA guys are trying to look more systematically for PETN. That is why they have adopted these more intrusive methods. And, there has been chatter among the terrorist groups abroad about launching attacks on American airliners with this relatively undetectable explosive.

None of us likes the result, which is a significant invasion of privacy.

But if al-Qaeda and its sympathizers could manage to blow up only a few airliners with PETN, they could have a significant negative effect on the economy and could very possibly drive some American airlines into bankruptcy. Al-Qaeda is about using small numbers of men and low-tech techniques to paralyze a whole civilization, which was the point of the September 11 attacks.

Since the Bush administration hyped the ‘war on terror’ trope half to death, many in the American public no longer want to hear about this danger. But it is part of my business in life to deliver the horrific news that the threat is real.

The question is really what level of risk Americans are willing to live with. On the one hand, studies suggest that the crotch bomber could not really have brought down the airliner over Detroit last year, even if he had been able to detonate his payload. And, 500 million Europeans decline to take off their shoes when they travel by air, but there haven’t been any successful shoe bombings over there, nevertheless.

On the other hand, it would only take a few small teams making a concerted effort at bombing airliners, to spook travelers and consumers. With the US at risk of a double dip recession, this moment might appeal to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda wannabes to strike. Al-Qaeda in Yemen is openly talking of a low-tech, high-explosive war against US economic interests, a war of a thousand cuts. Its planned method? PETN-based mail bombs.

I doubt it is possible to outlaw or control PETN. The only alternative to looking for it systematically on air passengers and in cargo would be to just take a chance that no al-Qaeda operatives will be able successfully to detonate a PETN based explosive on an airliner.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Do the Rich Need America? November 15, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,

Bill Moyers (former press secretary for Lyndon Johnson and long-time journalist) has always been an acute of observer of American politics. Moyers recent speech at Boston University neatly lays out the consequences of increasing inequality that threatens our nation’s future.

Here is a short excerpt:

So the answer to the question: “Do the Rich Need the Rest of America?” is as stark as it is ominous: Many don’t. As they form their own financial culture increasingly separated from the fate of everyone else, it is “hardly surprising,” Frank and Lind concluded, “ that so many of them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of the American people.”

You would think the rich might care, if not from empathy, then from reading history. Ultimately gross inequality can be fatal to civilization. In his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the Pulitzer Prize-winning anthropologist Jared Diamond writes about how governing elites throughout history isolate and delude themselves until it is too late. He reminds us that the change people inflict on their environment is one of the main factors in the decline of earlier societies. For example: the Mayan natives on the Yucatan peninsula who suffered as their forest disappeared, their soil eroded, and their water supply deteriorated. Chronic warfare further exhausted dwindling resources. Although Mayan kings could see their forests vanishing and their hills eroding, they were able to insulate themselves from the rest of society. By extracting wealth from commoners, they could remain well-fed while everyone else was slowly starving. Realizing too late that they could not reverse their deteriorating environment, they became casualties of their own privilege. Any society contains a built-in blueprint for failure, Diamond warns, if elites insulate themselves from the consequences of their decisions, separated from the common life of the country.

Yet the isolation continues – and is celebrated.

[…] Socrates said to understand a thing, you must first name it. The name for what’s happening to our political system is corruption – a deep, systemic corruption. I urge you to seek out the recent edition of Harper’s Magazine. The former editor Roger D. Hodge brilliantly dissects how democracy has gone on sale in America. Ideally, he writes, our ballots purport to be expressions of political will, which we hope and pray will be translated into legislative and executive action by our pretended representatives. But voting is the beginning of civil virtue, not its end, and the focus of real power is elsewhere. Voters still “matter” of course, but only as raw material to be shaped by the actual form of political influence – money.

The whole speech is worth reading as he dissects the inner workings of American plutocracy.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

What the People “Want” November 11, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Interpreting the results of the recent election as a mandate is not only risky but logically impossible. From Ed Kilgore:

Frightened by joblessness, “the American people” rewarded the party that not only opposed the stimulus but also blocked the extension of unemployment benefits. Alarmed by a ballooning national debt, they rewarded the party that not only transformed budget surpluses into budget deficits but also proposes to inflate the debt by hundreds of billions with a permanent tax cut for the least needy two per cent. Frustrated by what they see as inaction, they rewarded the party that not only fought every effort to mitigate the crisis but also forced the watering down of whatever it couldn’t block.

In philosophy, we call theseperformative contradictions. As assertions, contradictions are meaningless in that they express no coherent idea. But as signals of irrationality they could not be more clear.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Intellectual Giants November 10, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: , ,

House Republicans are deciding who should be chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Apparently a leading candidate for the job is John Shimkus Republican from Illinois who thinks:

(1) We don’t have to do anything about climate change because the Bible says God promised not to destroy the world again after Noah’s flood.

(2) We shouldn’t reduce carbon emissions because it would be “taking away plant food.”

(3) “Today we have 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I believe in the days of the dinosaurs, where we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.”

(4) “When we breath in, we breath oxygen. When we breath out, we breath out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic emittent.”

This is the sort of person we depend on to solve the variety of problems this country confronts.

That Shimkus is a candidate for this committee tells us a lot about the intellectual capabilities of congressional Republicans and the people who put them in office.

It also tells us something about our increasingly slim chances of surviving for another century.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

This Is What They Get Paid For November 9, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
add a comment

According to the standard Washington narrative, repeated ad nauseum by commentators on cable news and the fish-wrap, was that Democrats over-reached during their time in power, passing lots of legislation that the public didn’t like, and and thus were defeated in the midterm elections.

And the Washington press corps had one question repeatedly on their minds—Was it worth it?

I doubt that “over-reach” explains the defeat. If the economy were humming along we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But besides that, the question “Was it worth it?” is a strange one to be asking a politician in a democracy.

William Saletan in Slate had the best take on this:

“[I]f health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.”

Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren’t going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.

And that’s not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he’ll be lucky to match her achievements. […]

It’s funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves. Even the chief operating officer of the party’s leading think tank, the Center for American Progress, says Obama failed to convince Americans “that he knows their jobs are as important as his.” That’s too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs — and in many cases lost them — to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn’t lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.

When I vote for politicians, I expect them to do what is best for the country; not whatever will keep them in power. Democrats ran on a platform that included health care reform as a priority; to not pass it would have been a breach of trust.

As Steve Benen writes:

Call me old fashioned, but I thought the point of getting elected is to try to make a difference. Acquiring power just for the sake of having it is hollow exercise in vanity. Once in a great while, officials have an opportunity to use their power to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and make the country considerably better off.

I get the sense this week that some would have counseled Democrats to let the opportunity pass for the sake of their careers. “We didn’t do much,” Dems could say this week, “but at least we’re still in charge.”

What nonsense.

Democrats started 2009 with an abundance of political capital, which they proceeded to invest. The efforts didn’t pay off on Tuesday, but the dividends for the country will be felt for years.

The question “Was it worth it?’ just misses the point—which is what one would expect from the institution formerly known as “journalism”.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Stem Cells Without Scruples? November 8, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Science.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

I think we bloggers often express several kinds of misgivings about the future on this blog, for different reasons, but here’s something that should make us rejoice: medical news has reached a stage that I could only dream about when I devoured science-fiction novels in the 1980s to prepare myself for the what-if scenarios of good ethical discussions (and also because I enjoyed a good space yarn):

 First, the prospect of lab-grown livers is now becoming a reality:

The researchers created “working livers” the size of a walnut which functioned normally in laboratory conditions.

They believe that in around five years they will be able to upscale the process and transfer the procedure from laboratory to hospital.

 The development could eventually solve the transplant shortage and also remove the need for powerful drugs to prevent the body rejecting the organ.

“We are excited about the possibilities this research represents, but must stress that we’re at an early stage and many technical hurdles must be overcome before it could benefit patients,” said the project director, Associate Professor Shay Soker from the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine in North Carolina.

 The technology opens up the prospect of growing other replacement organs, including kidneys or pancreases, for patients who are able to donate stem cells.

Artificially grown livers could be transplanted into patients or used to test the safety of experimental drugs.

 This could be a milestone—not only because it may solve the transplant shortage, but also because it will remove the fear of, and hypothetical need for, reproductive cloning for the sake of organs, the scenario in the movie The Island, for you movie buffs. Which means that other, more realistic arguments for and against cloning can proceed.

And here is the other amazing piece of news, about creating artificial blood supplies, perhaps even in abundance:

Canadian scientists have turned human skin cells directly into blood cells, the first time one kind of mature human cell has been converted into another, they reported Sunday in the journal Nature.

The transformation was completed without first rewinding the skin cells into the flexible pluripotent stem cells that have most frequently been used to grow needed tissues. By skipping the pluripotent step, the researchers believe they have skirted the risk that the replacement cells might form dangerous tumors.

The team created blood progenitor cells — the mother cells that multiply to produce other blood cells — as well as mature blood cells, according to the report. Both types of cells could be useful in medical treatments, said study leader Mick Bhatia, a stem cell scientist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

“There is a great need for alternative sources of human blood,” Bhatia said. “Since this source would come from a patient’s own skin, there would be no concern of rejection of the transplanted cells.”

For some of us the idea of therapeutic cloning, using stem cell research to further life-saving medical intervention, is not a morally questionable issue at all, but there are many Americans for whom the thought of using stem cells is morally repugnant, and while I don’t share that view, I respect it. It isn’t clear what the source of the liver stem cells is, but the creation of blood progenitor cells bypasses the entire moral issue of using embryonic  stem cells, because it comes from the adult person’s own skin.  We can always be cynical about the ultimate cost, availability, and potential for political manipulation of such new methods, but for now let’s just rejoice that there’s good news to report!

The Emperor’s Feast November 8, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Culture, Dwight Furrow's Posts, Food and Drink.
Tags: ,
add a comment

From the famed cookbook of Apicius, (A Roman cookbook from the 4th Century)

The proposed menu for a banquet:


Jellyfish and eggs; sow’s udders stuffed with salted sea urchins; patina of brains cooked with milk and eggs; boiled tree fungi with peppered fish-fat sauce; sea urchins with spices, honey, oil and egg sauce


Fallow deer roasted with onion sauce, rue, Jericho dates, raisins, oil and honey; boiled ostrich with sweet sauce; turtle dove boiled in its feathers; roast parrot; dormice stuffed with pork and pine kernels; ham boiled with figs and bay leaves, rubbed with honey, baked in pastry crust; flamingo bioled with dates.


Fricassee of roses with pastry; stoned dates stuffed with nuts and pine kernels, fried in honey; hot African sweet-wine cakes, with honey. (h/t Brian Leiter)

Does anyone know where I can get sow’s udder in San Diego?

Meanwhile back in the contemporary world, empire just isn’t what it used to be.

From Talking Points Memo:

The Cheese Industrial Complex

Here’s an article in the Times that is both disturbing and oddly comic, if darkly so. The US government is now making a major push to combat obesity. It’s the First Lady’s big cause. But for years Americans have been moving away from full-fat to reduced fat or skim milks. And this has created a surplus of whole milk and milk fat.

So what to do? While trying to get Americans to reduce fat intake and eat better, the USDA has also created a marketing arm called ‘Dairy Management’ which has the job of teaming with companies to find ways to get more cheese into consumers’ diets.

The story in the lede is about how ‘Dairy Management’ helped Dominos overcome sagging pizza sales by introducing pizzas with 40% more cheese. It’s been a rousing success and sales have doubled.

Is this progress?

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com