I'm with you on this one. To your point:
• Addiction is addiction, regardless if it's food, booze, sex, drugs, ciggies...whatever.
• Addicts are conflicted by their personal pride and standards.
• Addicts are challenged by their inability to handle routine daily pressures.
For generations, Americans have mimicked the behavior of their beloved public figures, regardless of it's merit. Some random historical examples:
• JLo's lipgloss and Greek Goddess dresses. Harmless.
• Jennifer Aniston's 90's "Rachel" haircut--the long awaited sequel to Farrah Fawcett's '70's 'feathers' and Dorothy Hammil's wedge cut in the 80's. Again, harmless.
• Ronald Reagan singlehandedly 'brought back' the brown suit in the 80's. Everybody had one. Harmless, right?
• New parents name their babies after their favorite celebrity. Harmless? Ask the kids in 10 years.
On the flip side, would-be athletes and body builders use steroids because successful professional icons they admire and emulate are "users". Not so harmless. And women pump themselves up with injectables and implants, thinking they have to (literally) measure up to an unrealistic body standard to be perceived as and feel "beautiful".
Let's face it, many people in this country are followers. There's nothing wrong with it--it is what it is. That said, it is crucial to have strong role models. Many parents take their cues from high visibility people. Kids don't come with manuals, and frazzled parents will often take advice where they can get it---even from TV shows--- Oprah, Dr. Phil, Kelly Ripa and Rosie.
Our most prolific leaders are followers of something (religion, exercise, juicing, meditation, etc). It could be said that the behavior of our public figures has an impact on the well being of all people, whether they care to admit it or not. People look to others for insight, fashion trends, news stories, etc. It's the nature of our culture.
Question: With health care being a huge public concern, is it in our best interest to elect a leader who devalues their own health for any reason?
To smokers, I ask how is their smoking habit impacting the health of those around them? Smokers don't generally care that much about others. They really don't care much about themselves. Addicts, and think in narrow, selfish terms.
Is it fair to saddle the responsibility of being the leader of the free world on an addict's already compromised ability to handle pressure?
Sidebar: The first Surgeon General's report on smoking was issued in 1964. Did you get that? 1964---nearly 50 years ago!
Many people shrug these seemingly small, personal issues aside, as they did with the Clinton escapade, in an attempt to convince themselves and each other that 'we have bigger issues at stake.' If someone has low standards for themselves and compromises their own family, what standard will they set for the country? If small issues aren't handled well, what makes you think the really big issues will be well managed?
The answers have already played out in history.
My hope is that we become more conscious of the way we live and how our seemingly mundane and casual lifestyle choices impact the lives of those around us. It's not all about any one of us, rather it's all about the collective. We need to stand up a little straighter and take cues from those who do well with and for others---our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers and strangers who do ordinary things in extraordinary ways.
And what is this endless blather about how our candidates are human? We all have shortcomings. So what? Our performance is not judged by our challenges, but rather our ability to cope with and handle them. This has nothing to do with platforms, issues and acceptable standards and practices. It's about character and integrity.
Any slice of our behavior is a microcosm of how we conduct our lives. It's in the best interest of any organization to 'hire' whomever is best suited for the job, personally and professionally.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Comment Reply
I'm with you on this one. To your point:
• Addiction is addiction, regardless if it's food, booze, sex, drugs, ciggies...whatever.
• Addicts are conflicted by their personal pride and standards.
• Addicts are challenged by their inability to handle routine daily pressures.
For generations, Americans have mimicked the behavior of their beloved public figures, regardless of it's merit. Some random historical examples:
• JLo's lipgloss and Greek Goddess dresses. Harmless.
• Jennifer Aniston's 90's "Rachel" haircut--the long awaited sequel to Farrah Fawcett's '70's 'feathers' and Dorothy Hammil's wedge cut in the 80's. Again, harmless.
• Ronald Reagan singlehandedly 'brought back' the brown suit in the 80's. Everybody had one. Harmless, right?
• New parents name their babies after their favorite celebrity. Harmless? Ask the kids in 10 years.
On the flip side, would-be athletes and body builders use steroids because successful professional icons they admire and emulate are "users". Not so harmless. And women pump themselves up with injectables and implants, thinking they have to (literally) measure up to an unrealistic body standard to be perceived as and feel "beautiful".
Let's face it, many people in this country are followers. There's nothing wrong with it--it is what it is. That said, it is crucial to have strong role models. Many parents take their cues from high visibility people. Kids don't come with manuals, and frazzled parents will often take advice where they can get it---even from TV shows--- Oprah, Dr. Phil, Kelly Ripa and Rosie.
Our most prolific leaders are followers of something (religion, exercise, juicing, meditation, etc). It could be said that the behavior of our public figures has an impact on the well being of all people, whether they care to admit it or not. People look to others for insight, fashion trends, news stories, etc. It's the nature of our culture.
Question: With health care being a huge public concern, is it in our best interest to elect a leader who devalues their own health for any reason?
To smokers, I ask how is their smoking habit impacting the health of those around them? Smokers don't generally care that much about others. They really don't care much about themselves. Addicts, and think in narrow, selfish terms.
Is it fair to saddle the responsibility of being the leader of the free world on an addict's already compromised ability to handle pressure?
Sidebar: The first Surgeon General's report on smoking was issued in 1964. Did you get that? 1964---nearly 50 years ago!
Many people shrug these seemingly small, personal issues aside, as they did with the Clinton escapade, in an attempt to convince themselves and each other that 'we have bigger issues at stake.' If someone has low standards for themselves and compromises their own family, what standard will they set for the country? If small issues aren't handled well, what makes you think the really big issues will be well managed?
The answers have already played out in history.
My hope is that we become more conscious of the way we live and how our seemingly mundane and casual lifestyle choices impact the lives of those around us. It's not all about any one of us, rather it's all about the collective. We need to stand up a little straighter and take cues from those who do well with and for others---our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers and strangers who do ordinary things in extraordinary ways.
And what is this endless blather about how our candidates are human? We all have shortcomings. So what? Our performance is not judged by our challenges, but rather our ability to cope with and handle them. This has nothing to do with platforms, issues and acceptable standards and practices. It's about character and integrity.
Any slice of our behavior is a microcosm of how we conduct our lives. It's in the best interest of any organization to 'hire' whomever is best suited for the job, personally and professionally.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
July 7, 2008 - 12:04amlagunanaturalhealth.com
This Comment
Reply