I have not taken the time to write much on Sunday, but today I saw something truly beautiful and noteworthy that to me represents the essence of what Sunday worship should mean and be.

In our church we have a family who’s husband has just left on active duty military service. His wife is now wholey responsible for the care of the home and 5 children (all under the age of 6 and the youngest is just a few months old). When this faithful sister came to church today, on her first Sunday alone, one of our young women saw her, and jumped up to assist. She helped the mother find a seat, get situated, and sat with her the entire meeting helping to care for the kids.

It was a beautiful act of service.

Very few people would have noticed the act, but those of us on the stand did and I know that God did. I teared up knowing that this dear young woman had truly learned the gospel. She knew how to live it!

So often in life we are not called on to do something great. Often we are simply asked to strengthen the feeble knees and to lift those in need of comfort. As Job taught us long ago, those who wish to be truly great will seek out for the cause they know not (job 29:16). God will often inspire us to act in seemingly insignificant ways, but that when these promptings are obeyed it will both increase our joy and strengthen our testimonies.

More than just about anthing else I heard today this young lady’s testimony of Christ in action taught me more than I could have hoped to learn from written word. Actions are a powerful testimony indeed!

Matthew Stearmer

According to eDiets.com the average American eats at a restaurant 159 times a year!

That is an amazing statistic if it is accurate. I looked up how many calories it takes to cook a meal and for me it is about 140 cal, for 1 hours worth of food preparation. If I made just one complex meal a day (typically I do two), then I will have burned enough calories to just changing from eating out, to making my own, to peel off about 14 lbs of fat a year.

For some this will be the difference between obesity, and health, for others it will be the difference between stabilized weight and gaining each year – like most of us do. Just looking at it on the surface makes makes a good case that we should try to make all the food that we can. But that is only half the story. Eating out is only part of the problem. Cooking with whole foods is another step we need to make.

Over the last 50 years the average diet, according to FAO, has changed significantly  – and it is not because of all of the eating out alone.

Here is just a quick run down.

We consume almost 900 calories more a day than we did 60 years ago.

Most of increase has come from refined foods and vegetable oils.

We are eating few complex carbohydrates

We are drinking alcohol slightly more (well – not me anyway – so that is a "we" that really means just you:) )

We eat 2x as much chicken and a little less beef.

Anyway, the list goes on, but the bottom line is that we are consuming more, and more of those things that hurt our bodies worse – all the refined pre-packaged foods. Basically what it amounts to is that we really did not eliminate anything out of our diets, we just added to them all "healthy" stuff that we buy in boxes at stores and snack on all week long. Sure it is low in fat, but it is HIGH in sugar (to try and make it taste good) and that has lead to many of our current health problems according to several government, and intergovernmental groups.

Here is just an example. When I eat at McDonalds I typically order a Double Cheese Burger, a McChicken, a medium fry, and a medium drink. That will fill me up nicely for less than $5 – and 1400 Calories! I will have take at least 1 hour to drive and get it and get back to my home/office.

Whereas if I fix my salad at home – and I make a mean salad – I can put anything that I want on it practically (My typical salad will have the following; spinach, sprouts, cottage cheese, tomatoes, celery, jalapeños, avocado, coconut, raisins, rice noodles, red onions, green onions, carrots, mushrooms, paremsean cheese, almonds and a vinaigrette) and it will not even top 400 calories. Plus, it will have taken me about 1 hour to make and eat (I cut it all from scratch), which burns about 140 calories by itself.

Now, I will be full for hours because there’s over 12 grams of fiber and protein in that salad. It will have taken the same amount of time to go to McDonalds and get fat – as it did to make a really healthy meal and works towards being skinner. I’d have to work out on my elliptical for about 1-2 hours to simply catch up.

So how much time did I save? I thought it was supposed to be more convenient. When we factor in the whole cost there is not really anything convenient about restaurant food.

A commitment to cook more of our own foods from their natural state means that we will not only burn more calories to begin with, but the foods that we chose to cook with will be much more filling and healthy for us.

Be Healthy – Enjoy Life!

Matthew Stearmer

This last week with Thanksgiving was quite nice. We had some family over. Took a nice break from work, and enjoyed a lot of really good food. I worked out every day, sometimes 2-3 times a day just to keep up with the calories I was going to eat. Now, I hope you do not take it wrong. I really do not watch what I eat very much. I just know that if I’m going to be eating more, that I should exercise more. It seems like a nice compromise. I do not give up anything that I love, and I get to be healthy all at the same time. Anyway, I’ve heard it said that people will gain 5-10 lbs over the Holidays. I supposes that is through Dec. So it is not much of a comparison yet, but I know that I will lose at least that much and more over the next several weeks. I certainly did not gain any this week and let me tell you – I ate very well:) Point is we can enjoy life and still be healthy. I hope that you had a great Thanksgiving. Be Healthy – Enjoy Life! Matthew Stearmer

In bad times we grasp at straws. The question is – is this one of them? I would like to consider from both a constitutional perspective and a moral perspective what rights and obligations our national government has during this financial crisis.

Constitutional Arguments.
I think there has been a whole lot of hullabaloo over the differences between conservatives and liberals over spending. The former claims to be “fiscally conservative”, where the later claims – well, they actually make no claims that I am aware of.

Historically the last time we had a fiscally conservative president was Eisenhower. He did not believe in going to war without raising taxes and did a fairly good job keeping the government reigned in during his administration. Since that time we have let the federal budget balloon out of control. Both parties are guilty of that.

But that is not what this is about really. That is a spending policy and I think that both parties are wacked – to put it nicely. I really do not care about their spending interests per se, at least not in this scenario. I want to talk about whether it should even be an option or not given the laws of our land.

For all the talk about fiscal conservatism vs. spending programs that we have I think that there is a general feeling created that spending programs are somehow unconstitutional. That is a concern that needs to be addressed before we move forward to whether it is necessary or not let a lone if it is moral or not.

It may be instructive to go over the specific powers of congress. I will emphasis the ones that I believe are most important for this discussion.

Now, before going forward, I want to be clear that I’m not talking about taxes here. I know that there is a fair amount of concern of the proper means of taxing. We can deal with that another day. I know some of you other political junkies like me will want to cite section 9 and will want to discuss the tax system. Let’s just leave that for now, and let it be sufficient to agree that the United States government does have authority to tax.

So, now into the meat of the discussion.

The main points for me are “general Welfare of the United States”…. “regulate the Value thereof” [money]….” promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors”

In these three areas I find that congress certainly has the authority look out for the welfare of the nation and those citizens who comprise our nation, to follow polices that will stabilize our monetary system and enhance our economy, and to even at times pay for/invest in technology and science in general.

Free commerce promoters may find that a little distressing that the constitution gives the government power to do these things. It is true that it could be quite invasive into the free market system. On the investment side, if there were not a “limited time” clause it might even look like the government was nationalizing resources and turning communist.

I personally do not see that happening, but you could probably make an argument to the affirmative and I think that would be good honestly. It is the very fact that there are those who voice their worries that will prevent it from happening to a large extent.

I am certainly not an expert on all the jurisprudence that has been established in the ensuing years, but the point is that I believe the government is well within it’s constitutional rights and even within it obligation to intervene in the economy at this time.

Now the question is should they, and if so in what way.

I personally believe that the government should intervene. To not intervene in a time of depression economics would be even more disastrous.

Yes, this will increase the national debt.
No it will not be possible to balance the budget for the next several years.
Yes, taxes will need to be raised.

No one really like any of these effects, but if you look at the bubble bust cycles of the past there are good things that can come from this. But right now we are not shaping up to well.

In past bubble busts we ended with more roads than we needed, more dams than we needed, more telephone lines, more internet infrastructure etc. These booms created a litany of resources that would not have been built as quickly in regular investment cycles and even though some companies do not survive they do leave a healthy legacy that future generations can build on.

This bust is not the same.

What is left behind is overvalued homes, empty lots, and excessive personal debt. None of which is particular useful to build a new economy from. This is where intervention can be critically important.

Let’s look at the auto industry. Yes, the Big 3 have made monumentally disastrous   decisions. In my opinion they have been wholly unfit for their office. But to let the companies completely fail at this point would be prodigiously more catastrophic.

It is estimated that there are over a million jobs connected to the auto industry. Now, it would take a larger crisis than we see now to make them all go away – but to risk it would be very foolish.

To let the auto industry remain as it is would be equally foolhardy. One of the major reasons the we are in the mess we are in now is because of the power of the auto industry lobby that has ensured their crack addiction continued to be supplied.

The US congress should act now to break that addiction and move into new technologies. This would be both a constitutionally legal investment to make and a very prudent investment on our behalf.

There will be layoffs during this retooling. Make no mistake, moving to “green” technology is going to be a major shock to the system. But if the government will then also use its authority to invest in good infrastructure projects then we can move any of the displaced into other projects of national importance. By investing in this industry for a time the government will help create an asset where little to none existed before.

Also by taking this step the government will ensure that it is not just keeping people off the dole. To make no moves into the economy will ensure that tens of thousands, if not into the hundreds of thousands, will be unemployed. Through no fault of their own the economy in the short term will not be able to absorb them. They did not set the policies. They did not have a voice in the lobby. They are stuck in many many ways. Yes, over time they can get a new education. They could have chosen a different path to begin with, but it is not their fault that the companies are failing now. Morally I feel we are obligated to assist in a way that will give them an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the economy. To use their skills which do have value still. And to help protect these families from the glut that has been the American auto industry.

All of this these moves in my opinion are both constitutionally legal, financially viable, and morally responsible.

Be Healthy – Enjoy life

Matthew Stearmer
 

I had a few really weird dreams last night. One of them was about solving Rubik’s cubes. I was watching a competition where people were solving the mind bending puzzle in just a few seconds. After the competition the competitors were showing the audience how they did it. The problem most people had solving the puzzle was learning that you had to break down your success in order to move forward.

 Too bad the other 5 sides are a complete mess. But who cares we got the green and the yellow down!

In order to really solve the puzzle you have to let one area of success break down in order to move forward. We cannot obsess over one side not being completely done all of the time. In fact some areas might even get a little more chaotic before they get better. But we are not focused on just the completion of 1 or 2 sides. That cannot be our goal. We need to have a complete life, and if the goal is a complete life, a complete cube we need to focus on that and not on just one side.

I’ve been writing a lot this week on this topic, and I’m doing that because I think that it is extremely important to get into our brains. We have to focus on the whole.
 

I’m not talking about giving up on a side. That is not solving the puzzle either. If we get the gree right, and then destroy it in order to get the blue right, did we really accomplish anything? Not at all.

Life has to be solved in tandum.

I found this video on the net as well about how to solve the cube. Sorry I cannot embed it. He had disabled that feature. He says he is going to help you solve the cube problem in less than 3 seconds. He does so by throwing the cube away. Not exactly a solution, but that is what some of us do about life as well. If we cannot solve it all. Or be happy with only a few sides solve then they just throw it away.

The other thing about the cube is it always seems to get messed up again. No matter how many times you solve it – one of your kids will come around and goof it up again, or your boss, or life in general. But if we learned to solve the whole puzzle once we can do it again and we will do it faster this time. We get better and better at handling all the circumstances life throws at us.

My ecncouragement to you today is to not throw it away. Nor to focus on just one side. But to live a whole life so that in the end we are complete and get better and better at solving the messes life can throw at us.

Be Healthy – Enjoy Life!

Matthew Stearmer

I so relate to Bob Incredible! I remember back in the good old days when I used to take on the evil forces in the universe and stop their sinister plans to take over the earth. Those were the days. /sigh.
 

Once we find our purpose we can move from the Really Strong Fat Man mode to one of health and wellness. We will have a reason to be healthy and continue in a lifestyle that will bring us a complete life. Not one just focused on one thing at a time.

One thing that I really like about Bob is that his end result was not what he looked like in his glory days. He was different, but still looked good. There was a maturity about him that was different.

As I work on transforming my body I realize more and more that I will never by 18 again. On some level that used to bother me. But now, I think that I have a better self image in mind. First off, I’m working on being healthy, not just skinny. And second, because of a focus on health, I am free to let my body become its best self right now. I know that I have matured. I will look different, but I still intend to look really good:)

Be Healthy – Enjoy Life

Matthew Stearmer

I just found a neat tool online that will tell you on average, how long your family lives. Based on genealogical archives the database automatically calculates the average life expectancy of your family compared to all others and then graphs it over a 30 year time frame.

Over the last 30 years my family has about a 10 year longer lifespan than average.

I guess that is comforting. But then I remembered a story a friend of mine told. A friend of his was hitting middle age and decided he wanted to create a 100 year plan. He wanted to live 100 year – and enjoy it. So he went to his doctor to help him develop this 100 year plan. They consulted, ran tests and then evaluated.

The doctor said all of your test came back perfect. Your cholesterol is great. Blood pressure is great. Triglycerides are normal…. And your obese.

What?

The man protested, but I workout ever day. I can bench press twice my weight. Doesn’t that make a difference?

The doctor then went to his whiteboard and wrote "Really Strong – FAT MAN"

The point, there is more to health than just strength, or being skinny, etc. health and living well is much more than that. And if we want to not only live a long time, but really enjoy it we need to be healthy, not just strong, or good in a health measure or two. A real 100 year plan will not just rely on the genes, but will integrate exercise, proper eating, sleep, stress reduction – the whole gamut. When we focus on the whole, not just one piece, then we can have a real 100 year plan that we will want to be around for.

So Be Healthy – Enjoy Life

Matthew Stearmer

When surgery becomes the preferred method of weight loss we are in trouble. In this article from the New York Times doctors are suggesting that those with a Body Mass Index over 40 should have this elective surgery. I personal know what it feels like to have a BMI over 40. That is what I started at about 4 months ago now. So I am not being critical of something that I have no experience with. So hear me out on this if you have been considering a surgery to help with weight loss. In this article they state that I should have had surgery because I was over 40 on the BMI – clinically classified as morbidly obese. Now that obese part is true – but surgery! give me a break. This new procedure says that will help you lose 40% of the excess weight in 1 year – and that this is better than diet and exercise! Heck I have lost almost 75% of the 100+ lbs that I needed to lose and I did it in less than 4 months. So in a year they expect most people to have lost 1/2 as much weight. That just does not seem like a good plan to me After the surgery you have an increase risk of disease, hernia, staff infections etc. And there is a 1% chance of dying in surgery. Gee. Let me think. Sure let’s do that! Winning a slot machine in Las Vegas is a 1/250,000 change. And people think that is good odds – can you imagine 1/100! Do you really want to gamble with your life? Amazing. And at the end of the surgery – you took on all the risk and are no more healthy right after than you were before. Same habits, same lungs, same heart etc. It is all the same. So why not achieve an actual change and avoid the $25,000 surgery and the possibility of death. Personally I would rather really live. Kind of a random post, but important to consider I hope. Be Health – Enjoy Life! Matthew Stearmer

I knew I was going to get it over posting anything let alone joining. The main point was one of caution to the marriage amendment groups. Because I think we can swing too far to the other side as well. My statement “how do we justify laws that discriminate against someone’s freedom of choice”, was meant as critique of the conservative position. So now I will try and explain my position better since I did not do a very good job. And frankly ran out of room. I doubt it will make everyone happy who happens to read it, but since it posted out there to world now I’d better try. Although I’m likely to get myself into more of a bind. Oh well. I’ll post this to my blog (www.stearmer.com/blog) and this will probably lead to a more interesting discussion than weight loss.

For those who missed it on my facebook page here is the discussion that started to happen.

Matt was recruited by Spencer Pope to the cause Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman. Matt says, “This is for certain one of the most complicated issues of our day. On one side you have secularism vs religion. In a secular world how do you justify the marriage amendment without making it a religious argument. It is very hard indeed. From the religious side, how do we justify laws that ‘discriminate’ against someone’s freedom of choice. These are hard questions. In a book called Parity of the Sexes, Sylviane Agacinski (a French Feminist) argues that humanity is made up of both men and women. The dual nature of the sexes is essential to our identity. We cannot grow up in society having been influenced only by one sex. And yes, later in life we will meet both sexes – of course. But the whole template and concept of what “others” are like will be effected by our perception of those different from us at the earliest stages of development. The first “other” we recognize is the difference between the sexes. This progressive French feminist was intuitive enough to find a “secular” reason, for what we believe to be morally right. It has nothing to do with their choice, they can chose what they want, but it does recognize societal needs that trump individual circumstances. They must have their rights and protections under the law. That is more than fair. But we must also protect society, and children and give ourselves that best foundation from which we can build a successful nation”

To which I received this response.

Wow.

“…recognize societal needs that trump individual circumstances.”

So, single parents should have their kids taken away, or just be assigned a new mate within 90 days of the loss of the old one? (Oh, 90 days sounds so heartless. Give’em six months at least)
Also, a fallacy of relying on parity as a justification is the assumption that …  Read Morea same-sex couple live in a vacuum, devoid of interaction with the opposite sex.

Let me first try to clarify my position better, then I will move to the question at hand.

Look, it’s a mess. I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t want any laws that mess with anything that has been done, happened, or happens to any one in the future. Life can suck and the percentage of couples - singles, heterosexual, same sex etc. – that obtain an ideal relationship is ridiculously low (meaning provide an ideal home for kids and love each other in this sense).

Government has little to no business defining moral issues. I think that is the place for religion in our society. Civil right and human rights, the govt has every business getting involved in. So the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness kind of a thing. No killing, stealing, how you can sell things, if you can sell thing (drugs for instance) etc. They certainly play a huge role in life and society.

It starts to get messy when what some consider moral issues start to get moved into the public sphere. This is where gay rights becomes such a lightning rod . As you know some religious groups feel it is a sin. So to them it is a moral issue and they want to legislate to enforce a particular moral code. I think that is wrong – that removes agency. However, we do need laws that protect society as a whole and we still have the responsibility to try to encourage people to live moral lives. 

On the converse side I think that there are groups that want to “equalize” society and laws so much that any group that does not allow them full access (whether it be a religion, club, school, social services agency, etc) can come under legal action to force them to comply with governmental edicts. Just as there has been discrimination against gays and lesbians, we are starting to see groups or individuals who do not want to recognize/marry homosexual couples, or allow them to adopt, being sued, prosecuted,  or forced to close. To me this is also not right.

I’m willing to concede the rights of civil unions, hetero or homo, from a tax and legal perspective if the other side is willing to accept that they have the right to civil union – but not the right to pick who will do it or where it will be performed or to expect that everyone will think it is great and only say good things about it (meaning, no pastors should be prosecuted for hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality). To me that seems fair, does it not? We both get the legal protections we want – and both are still allowed their freedom of conscience and to act according to their beliefs, even to try ot persuade others to their belief system but not to force a belief system (on either side) through legislation.

So in answer to your question above I for one I do not believe if a person gets divorced they should lose their kids. Of course they should be able to keep their kids. If a man or a woman discovers they are gay of course they should not lose parental rights. To me that would be ridiculous. I know the gay and lesbian activist groups are worried that could happen. For all I know it might have happened in the past already. They should be protected from that.

Can we agree then that if you get that legal protection that is already set forth in civil union law, that a church/pastor/group that does not want to perform a same sex couple marriage, or to deny membership to their congregation, or to decline to allow adoption from their private agencies, also has the right to refuse to acknowledge homosexual lifestyles and unions, within their stewardship, without fear of litigation? I think that I would fully support a law that lets any couple obtain the rights of being together (and I do not care what you call it), but at the same time protects any individual or private organization from recognizing/performing it (here I am thinking about religion specifically).

This type of a legal scenario does not allow anyone to be discriminated against from a civil rights standpoint and it does not force the state upon religion.  This is of particular concern for parents with regards to what is being promoted in schools.  Moral issues should not be forced into a school curriculum without parent input and permission.  I would no more allow a book on heterosexual couples living together (in sin as it were), or medicinal marajuana use, or abortion, to come home without my consent, than I would a book about homosexuality and homosexual unions.  This is government interference of parental roles.  Just because something is legal (abortion, pre-martial sex, birth control, etc.) does not mean it is a subject schools should be addressing without parental input and consent.   Societal/moral issues, including books on death, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc. are things a parent can access if they feel like they need other resources in order to address a moral concept in their home – of course, this is what public libraries are for. If federal or state governments want to push education in a certain areas, they can fund public education campaigns.

Now, I should probably describe the Sylviane Agacinski quote better. In her book she is all for gay rights, but has a concern about face of humanity that is presented to children. As a feminist, I think that we need to recognize that humanity is both male and female. Now, what those males and females do with their lives is up to them. Some will marry and some will not, some will be gay and some will not, some will have kids and some will not. Etc. Her arguments suggest to me that what happens to the individual after they grow up is up to them. The concern that she raises is that from a humanity stand point we need to define it (humanity)as man and woman.

She also points out to the numerous studies that have shown that the first “other” type person that we recognize is the opposite sex. How we learn to treat the “other” becomes a template for how we will treat all “others” in the future. I think that most marriages fail at helping children grow up well adjusted. Too often there is abuse within the home that is severely damaging to the child (whether it is between spouses or parent and child). Marriage has become a failed institution in so many ways when you look at it from a 50% divorce rate perspective and that 25% of all homes in some states like New Mexico have domestic violence issues.

Marriage between a man and a women does not come even remotely close to guaranteeing that the children will be raised in an ideal environment.

And I am sure that there are gay and lesbian couples that can and do stay committed to each other their whole lives who could raise a child in a loving home without abuse. And I think that would be more admirable than the child living under an abusive heterosexual marriage.

That being said, I think that a marriage between a man and a women where they work in perfect harmony with each other and then raise children together is the ideal for the children. They grow up in a world without hierarchy. They are protected by both a woman and a man. They are loved by both. In that world I think that the children have the best chance now of operating in the world effectively, and changing the power structure of the world. They learn to not dominate. They learn to love. They learn to negotiate with everyone that is different from them. Just because the ideal of a father and mother in a good marriage and good family situation can be difficult to obtain does not mean that we should just abandon our quest for the ideal.  It is the ideal for a reason and it needs to be defended and protected.

If the child psychologists are right, and the brain has imprinted patterns on it so firmly that before we even enter school our personalities are well formed, then I think that it is ok for me to hold a position that raising a child in a gay marriage would not be the ultimate ideal.

Now, let me quickly clarify that belief and legal issues are different things. Even if all of the above is true, do I think that gays and lesbians should have their children taken away – no. Should a private adoption agency be required to adopt children to a gay and lesbian couple – no. Can a state agency prevent the adoption to a gay and lesbian couple – personally I do not think that they should – but, I would not think the world would come to an end if they did allow it.

I hope this helps explain my position a little better. I’m likely not going to make friends on either side of the issue, but this middle ground approach seems like it both extends all the rights an individual has, protects organizations from discrimination based on their beliefs and allows individuals freedom of conscience.

I’d be interested in your opinion on the issue. Let’s discuss.

Be Health – Enjoy Life!

Matthew Stearmer

I’ve been thinking about feedback loops. I know, its kind of a random topic, but hear me out. I think that it is very important. In our body we have neurological feedback loops. If you touch a hot stove – you do not think, ‘wow, that was hot, I should remove my hand now.’ Before you can even think your body just reacts.  These reactions are governed by the emotional part of the brain. We do not have to think about it, the body just does it. If it did not every 4 year old in the world would be literally scared for life.

More of our body and life are like that. We respond to the stimulus around us. Often without even thinking. It is just what we do. And if we can control the stimulus, or use that emotional reaction to our favor – we will win the weight loss game.

From a weight loss perspective this blog is an immediate consequence for me. I know that I have to post my performance on a regular basis, so I modify my life styles more naturally now that the whole world can see and comment on it. I don’t really think about it any more. It is just what I do

Some foods offer the same thing to me. If I eat chocolate I get sick. That feed back loop ensures that certain things will not tempt me to break my regime.

As my body has become more sensitive to good foods, I crave the bad much less, and I can feel the immediate consequence of indulging.

Unfortunately we have modern medicine that helps us cover up the feedback loops. Here I am thinking mostly of the anti-acid pills we can take to “enjoy” whatever we want to eat. If we let the body suffer the consequences I think that we would be more apt to listen to our body’s feedback and that, I believe, is one of the best keys to weight loss that I can find.

I think that I will post more on this over the next few days – or write an article on it. It is a good topic to continue. If you are interested let me know.

From a weekend goal perspective, I’m going to just live a normal as possible. I’ll get in some good exercise, drink lots of water, try to get some sleep and if I lose some more weight that will just be great.

Be Healthy – Enjoy Life!

Matt Stearmer

I’m testing a new photo upload tool here. It works pretty good!