This article about how rice cereal may lead to childhood obesity came across my radar today. Even though it’s a few months old, I couldn’t resist using it as an example of how we really have to maintain a skeptical point of view in our modern society. The experts really are so often full of shit, and the fear industry (aka, the media) is all too happy to peddle their inanity. Here’s a quote to get us warmed up…
Doctor Alan Greene says that because white rice cereal is the number one source of calories from solid foods in a baby’s first year he believes it conditions children to prefer sugary processed foods.
Makes sense, right? Or does it…
First of all, I think it’s safe to say that most babies do the rice cereal thing at some point. So, if rice cereal is the culprit, then why aren’t more kids obese? Sure, lots are, and the number is getting bigger every year, but we’re talking about causation here. If you have 100 babies who eat rice cereal and rice cereal leads to childhood obesity, then somewhere close to 100 should turn out to be obese. The reality today is that more like 20 would end up being obese. According to the CDC,
The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008.
Beyond the logical disconnect between what they say may be happening and what actually is happening is the underlying premise that a kid’s preference for one thing or the other impacts whether he or she becomes obese. This is the part that steams me to no end. WHO’S IN CHARGE AROUND HERE???? I could give a shit what my kid prefers as far as food is concerned. I’m the boss. Or rather, my wife is the boss when it comes to nutrition. Kids are like dogs – they eat what you give them. If you see a fat dog, there is only one reason – his owner feeds him too much or he is fed crap. Same with kids. So whether the rice cereal causes babies to prefer sugary processed foods is completely irrelevant if you’re on your game as a parent. Feed them healthy food and obesity will never threaten.
Lastly, I’d just like to point out that Lewis and Clark bribed hostile indian tribes with sugar cubes as they traveled through dangerous territories in their search for the waterway to the west coast. I’m guessing the indians didn’t have rice cereal, but lo and behold, they developed a quick preference for sugary (er uh, sugar) foods. My point is that you can deprive a baby of sugary, processed foods as long as you want, but the moment that first hit of birthday cake crosses those lips, junior will be hooked. The question from there is what will you do about it?
Will you let junior decide what junior eats? Or will you tower over him as he cowers in your shadow and say, “I’m in charge. You eat what I give you or you starve.” From my perspective, the childhood obesity situation is simply due to the fact that most parents are more interested in being their kid’s best buddy than they are in raising healthy, well adjusted children.
(And lest I forget the standard counter-argument about food these days – that poor people can’t afford to eat healthy foods – let me just point out that they can definitely afford to eat less of unhealthy foods.)
I just happened upon this great post over at Tim Ferriss’ blog. You know I’m all about looking inward and working with what we have. This is a guest article written by Ryan Holiday, someone heretofore new to me, and it drills directly into something that underlies everything in this blog – we really do need to take the time to understand who we are and what we want if we stand any chance at all of finding sustained peace and happiness.
Montaigne once used the analogy of a man with a bow and arrow to illustrate the importance of meditation and analysis. You have to know what you’re aiming for before it is even worth bothering with the process of preparing the bow, nocking the arrow and letting go. Our projects, he said, “go astray because they are not addressed to a target.” The idea is that an intimate knowledge of ourselves makes it possible (and easier!) to know what we need to do on a daily basis. He advised us to meditate on our lives in general, in order to properly arrange our day to day actions.
Good stuff. Helps to remind us to focus on what matters. Thanks to Ryan and Tim for that.
Filed under: Culture and Society, Enlightened Living, My Theories | Tags: Enlightened Caveman, it might get loud, jack white, jimmy page, the edge
Last night, I watched the recent documentary called, It Might Get Loud, which revolves around a meeting of three electric guitar virtuosos, each from a different generation. The elder statesman is none other than Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page. The mature, but still in his prime, slot is held by U2’s The Edge, and the younger generation is represented by one of my absolute favorite musicians, Jack White (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, and Dead Weather). It’s a terrific film from a lot of different perspectives, but the ethic espoused by Jack White really hit on something I’ve been dwelling on for quite some time. Right at the beginning, he comes out with this…
Technology is a big destroyer of emotion and truth. Opportunity doesn’t do anything for creativity. Yeah, it makes it easier, and you can get home sooner. But it doesn’t make you a more creative person.
White expands on this idea again and again by talking about his need to struggle as a musician. He purposefully strips things down to make it harder to create something emotionally meaningful. He uses guitars that are cheap and won’t stay in tune. He arranges the instruments on stage in a way that is inconvenient, so even the act of getting to the organ after playing the guitar is difficult. The idea is that pushing through the hardship is what leads to creativity and emotional truth. When it’s too easy, finding truth and beauty is too hard. It seems paradoxical, but I think Jack White is on to something that can be generalized way beyond creating art.
The processes for obtaining the things we want and need are so streamlined these days that I wonder if we aren’t slowly optimizing all of the beauty and joy out of our lives. Before I go any further, let me just say that my focus here is not on technology as an evil; this is not a Luddite’s lament. What I want to talk about is what we’re using all of this technology for. I think I know.
We want everything to be easy. But why? In theory, when something is easy, it takes less time to accomplish. Okay, so we want more time. I’m onboard with that. But for what? So we can work more? Come again?
It sounds crazy, but I’ve been noodling on this for a long time, and that’s the best I can come up with. It seems that those who are the best at optimizing every little thing in their lives also tend to be the people who work the most. At least that’s the world I live in. So the next question is why work so much? I’m assuming that work for work’s sake isn’t the goal. So what is?
This is where the caveman thing comes into play. If we’re not paying attention, we simply fall into the norms of our social group. We adopt the goals of those we interact with the most. At my stage in life, my social surroundings are other thirty-somethings (some with kids, some not), all focused on achievement. It’s trite to say they’re after the brass ring, but it’s not far off. Bust your ass now so you can get the promotion, which requires you to bust your ass even more to get the next promotion. The distant hope is that the brass ring brings a level of happiness and contentment – and ease – that makes it all worthwhile.
And what of technology? Well technology makes it possible to dispense with the mundane so you can focus on work. Why go to the store twice a week when you can go to Costco once a month? Why visit the local library when the Internet is a click away? Why call when you can text? You get the idea.
But what if all of this ease, which just gives us more time to pursue the goals most present in our social groups, is eroding the possibility of finding real satisfaction in life. After all, it’s called the rat race because it is an endless, pointless pursuit – a constant footrace on a wheel that never stops turning. With every perceived success, we take on another goal, which invariably takes up more of our time. How do we get off? For this, we go back to Jack White.
What happens when we try to reject easy? What happens when we purposefully place the coffee maker in the laundry room? I’ll admit, I’m not good at this. There’s an old saying, “Leave it to the lazy man to find the easiest way.” That’s me. But it’s acute laziness, not chronic laziness that afflicts people like me. I want this or that little task to be easy because I want to devote my efforts to “bigger” things that really matter to me. But maybe that’s the problem.
What if this quest to optimize all of the little things is causing me to completely lose sight of the good economist’s favorite axiom – life is about tradeoffs? More and more, I’m finding that what’s really happening is that we’ve collectively bought into this idea that we can have it all. By optimizing here, I can have something else there. In the end, when I would previously have had to choose between two wants, I now can have both. Is this good for me? Jack White would say no, and I’m really beginning to think he’s right.
This is an illusion, this notion that we can have it all. By buying songs one at a time, I’m missing the songs on records that I’d love ten times more than the hits. Tradeoffs never go away; we just lose the ability to spot what we’re giving up.
So is that it? Reject easy? Manufacture hardship? There are consequences, though. Putting aside the obvious changes in terms of “productivity” that come with rejecting easy, what about the social implications? What about that nagging feeling that we’re not keeping up? It’s genetic, ya know, so it will reveal itself one way or another.
Honestly, I don’t know how do this. I just have a feeling that it is the right thing to do. I’m going to start by picking one easy thing every day and doing it the hard way. Who knows. Maybe in a week I’ll realize that this is the dumbest idea I’ve had in a while. But I want to try. It just feels wrong to race to the table at every meal so I can be spoon-fed a huge helping of easy. What am I giving up? I need to find out.
I’ll keep you posted.
Filed under: Books, Endurance Sports, Enlightened Caveman Concept, Enlightened Living, Science
Here we go. Round two. It’s on the schedule. If you haven’t read Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen, tune in to hear why you should. If you have read this book, tune in and participate in the discussion. I’ll provide a brief overview of what’s there – for the uninitiated – and then we’ll get into the good stuff – from how I personally have changed as a result of reading the book to the notion that our society is slowly disintegrating the best of our humanity. The latter idea ties very well into the Enlightened Caveman concept, so I’m excited to get into that. And I’m excited to have some people call in with their own stories and points of view on these topics.
Same deal as last time – go to my Blog Talk Radio page at showtime and click the “Click to Listen” link. I hear that sometimes the page seems to have nothing on it. If that happens, just keep refreshing. The service is free, and I suspect they periodically make it suck to lure hosts like myself into paying for the premium service. Such is the strategy in a world of freemium. Anyway, when you get to my page, you’ll see a number to call in if you want to be part of the show. Be sure to send an email to me at the email address you see in the masthead above. In the subject line, put your phone number – the one you’re calling in on. Then in the body, tell me what you want to talk about. This is poor man’s phone screening, but I think it’s workable.
Okay – hope you can make it. If not, stop by after to grab the podcast.
I’ve talked before about my theory of consciousness. The essence of it is that we have this big screen in our minds that is occupied by the aspects of our mental proceedings that are winning the moment-by-moment competitions that are going on continuously below the surface. What we experience (sight, sound, etc.) on the big screen is what we are conscious of. It’s all about attention.
What are we paying attention to? The answer drives such a monumental part of our experience, yet few of us routinely ask ourselves what is on our big screens. That’s probably because no one else has posited the big screen metaphor – at least I’ve never come across it. Nevertheless, visual metaphors can be extremely useful, and this one is at the high end of the utility scale. Perhaps an everyday example.
You’ve just come from the grocery store. You walk in the door to your home and find that your wallet or purse is not with you. It’s no shocker what’s on your big screen for the foreseeable future until you recover what you’re missing. You’re completely absorbed, which is to say that your big screen is occupied by one thing almost entirely. Yes, the big screen in our heads, unlike the one at your average movie theater, has split-viewing capability. In fact, it more resembles those walls you’ve seen that are made up of dozens of TVs – they can each play individually, or they can work together to produce several multi-TV experiences, or even a giant, cohesive experience. So, in that context, losing your wallet is an absorbing conscious experience, but most things are not.
In this multi-tasking world with so many have-to-dos right next to so many want-to-dos, it’s obvious that our big screens are in multi-image mode most of the time. We’re thinking about the people in our lives, our jobs, our problems, our hopes, and whatever happens to be going on from second to second. The big screen is a melange of ever-changing images and sounds. Most of life is a fragmented conscious experience. I have found that simply being aware of this concept has profound effects on how I can modulate my conscious experiences, and thus influence my levels of contentment and awareness. (Sounds all zen and meditative, huh? Not really.)
We all have things that pop up on our big screens that we’d rather not think about, and we all have our ways of ushering those experiences off the screen. It is my sincere opinion that most people are really good at getting rid of things that they should keep, while they have almost no ability to get rid of things that have no place on our big screens. This, I believe, is mostly a function of our caveman heritage. For example, most people simply have not learned that status in a modern, largely anonymous world is irrelevant. Dave Ramsey, the radio consumer advocate, is fond of saying that people are all the time spending money they don’t have to buy things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like. That about nails it – we’re doing what we’re programmed to do – we don’t know any different. And what about the things we should keep on our big screens?
Though some folks may disagree with me, I would argue that at least 80% of the population is absolutely unwilling to accept truths about themselves, even the ones they know, but try to deny. My most recent boss was an absolutely abysmal manager, and he had indications almost weekly that confirmed it. Nevertheless, were he asked, he would undoubtedly proclaim his skill at governing and guiding the actions of other people. We’re talking about a massive blind-spot. How does something like this emerge, you ask? By kicking the truth off your big screen when you don’t like how it makes you feel.
The hallmark of human maturity is self-awareness, and it only comes by letting the rough stuff have its 15 minutes on our big screens. I’m not about to say that I’m the most mature guy in town – I do stupid shit on a regular basis – but I will say that I have a good handle on where I’m strong and where I’m weak. In other words, I would argue that I don’t have any blind-spots, at least no big ones. I may overestimate or underestimate some aspect of my personality, but I know who I am, and one thing I know is that, though I may resist, I always eventually manage to accept the truth when it reveals itself to me. This is because of how I control my big screen.
Occasionally, things absorb my screen that I’d rather not experience. Instead of invoking a default program to wipe away the unpleasant and replace it with the pleasant, I split the screen. Next to the negative experience, I add a vignette about why this experience is so unpleasant to me. Nine times out of ten, it’s because the answer is some truth about myself that I’d rather not accept. (A disclaimer – this is personal best practices stuff, which means I try to always do this. Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail and have to try again later. Such is life.) Maybe I’m being selfish in a way that is unacceptable. Maybe I’m being vain – as in when I lost my tooth recently. Whatever. The point is that the mind always knows when we’re going astray. It’s up to us to listen when it throws our foibles up on the big screen. If we don’t, we’re just asking for pain later.
The bottom line, folks, is that truth will get you in the end. It always does. You may live in a fantasy land, and it may hold up pretty well, but one day, truth will burst your bubble. And when it does, the agony will far exceed what you’d have experienced if you’d just have watched your big screen a little longer when it wasn’t feeding you candy.
So the next time you’re absorbed in something, think about your big screen (which will, incidentally, immediately split the screen). If what you’re absorbed in – say, a rock concert – is worthwhile, then you can take pleasure in knowing that your mind is tuned into something positive that is giving you pleasure. (There’s nothing like good art to reboot a fragmented big screen.) Conversely, if you’re obsessed with envy at your supposed best-friend’s good fortune, your newly split big screen will also let you know that you’re being a shallow douchebag. That, too, is something positive, so pay attention.
Original Post (with comments)
That word is simple – work. Yes, we’ve heard it a million times, but that’s because it’s true far more often than it is not. Maybe people get confused by this because they think in snapshots instead of movies. If you take a snapshot of your romance or friendship or family relationship when things are going well, it’ll be hard to reconcile the idea that relationships are work with the picture you get. It’s the not-so-great times that drive the point home. A good example in my own life is raising my son.
I’ll admit this, even though I know some folks will shudder – I wasn’t particularly into my kid for at least the first fifteen or so months of his life. Now, don’t make too much of this. Of course, I loved him in the way that nature programmed me to love him – I would have gladly thrown myself in front of a bus for him, even when he was a cute little eating, shitting, sleeping, crying bag of fat. What I’m saying is that I didn’t get much out of the beginning of his life. Yes, I’m a selfish bastard – just like everyone. The point is that, despite the fact that the personal benefit balance did not seem to be tipped in my favor, I clocked in.
I changed my share of diapers, and I spent as much time with my son as my life would allow. It was hard, especially since he cried incessantly for the first three months of his life. Nevertheless, as I am a long-term thinker, I knew that the work would pay off, and it has, like nothing I could have ever imagined. What I have now is a 24-month old son who absolutely loves his daddy. Now I can’t get enough of him. Have I transitioned into the blissful part of relationships? Was it just a “pay your dues” and then reap the benefits situation? Yes and no. Things have changed, but they’re still tough.
One thing that Brian Tracy talks about in Something for Nothing (see my review) is the idea that we should place the people we care about most in the center of our lives. We should build our worlds around them, placing the highest priority on spending time with each and every one. In fact, Tracy said something that I had never heard and is perhaps one of the most prescient statements in the book – How does a child spell “love”? Answer: “T-I-M-E!” How right he is, but there’s a bit more to it.
In some ways, my relationship with my son is the simplest, most wonderful thing in my life. But, it’s still work. You see, just spending time with a child isn’t really enough. You have to actually interact with them. You have to engage them on their level, and that’s not easy if you’re used to multi-tasking and thinking about all manner of complex philosophical and occupational subjects. Even now, I think of my time with my son as work, but it’s truly a labor of love.
I so look forward to the time we have together, but I have to admit that I find myself watching the clock after a while, looking forward to when I’ll be “off-duty.” How crazy is that? Just when I think I’m a good dad, I take a glance at my watch and then cringe at what a loser I am. Then, I take a step back.
I used to feel unbelievably guilty about this, but not any more. The fact is that raising my child is not unlike many of the other types of work I engage in – even though the good things outweigh the bad, the unpleasant or difficult parts are still there (That’s why it’s called work, right?), and they still have to be dealt with. I’m just fortunate that child-rearing gets more and more enjoyable as time goes on. The key is that the focus is on interacting with my son so that I can teach him how to be a well-adjusted little person.
How many people pay lip service to the idea that we have to spend time with our loved ones to keep the relationships producing that ever-important two-way flow of love? Maybe they think proximity equals spending time. This would explain the ever-present DVD players with screens aimed at the backseats of SUVs and mini-vans. Now, I’m not judging here – all kids are different, so who I am to say when the “mesmerizer” is or is not justified during travel times? But there’s no question that when the little ones are absorbed in a video, they are not interacting with anyone else in the vehicle. They’re locked onto Bob the Builder or Winnie the Pooh to the exclusion of all other stimuli, including the words of the folks in the front seats. This, to me, is not spending time. It’s sharing time, and in investment terms, the contributions are pretty much nil, which means the payoff is inevitably similar. Same thing with daycare, nannies, and on and on.
Of course, I understand that we all have to do what we have to do when it comes to raising our children. As the child of a single mother, I was in full-time daycare from week seven of my life. There was simply no other way, but when mom got home, it was all about me, and I knew it. This is what matters. Surprising as it may be, one of the best concepts about children that I ever heard came from Bill Clinton. It was somewhere around 1995, and Bill was in the midst of one of his classic “it’s about the chiiildren” speeches. He said, “More than anything else, every child needs to know that he or she is the center of someone’s universe, that there is nothing more important than him or her to that person.” Wise words, indeed. Now let’s place that idea right next to the idea that time interacting spells love to a child.
If kids interpret their importance in the minds of their parents or primary care-givers in terms of the amount of time they spend interacting with them, then the inescapable conclusion is that people who have children have an obligation to clock in. There’s no other way. If what you want is a great relationship with your kids, then it’s going to cost you. You’re going to have to suck it up and get down on their level for extended periods of time. The good news is that once they get to a certain age (18 months or so, for most), the rewards are intoxicating.
When my son wakes in the middle of the night and cries out for daddy and not mommy, I stagger to his room with the biggest smile on my face. Interestingly, it only happens when I’ve spent the whole day with him. If I’ve been traveling or have been too busy to spend more than a couple of hours with him, it’s all mommy. Simple things like that have a profound effect on how I plan my schedule. Mind you, it’s not a competition. I just know that mommy is his number one person, so any time I’m top of mind, I know I’m doing something right. My investments are paying off in the kind of love that I could never have dreamed of three years ago, but they are investments all the same.
In the final analysis, the conclusion is clear – relationships are like everything else – there is no free lunch. There is no something for nothing. So if your relationships (with your kids or otherwise) are not what you’d like them to be, it’s time to take stock. It’s time to honestly evaluate how much time you spend with them. More importantly, it’s time to evaluate how much time you could spend with them, but spend doing other things that maybe aren’t as much work. If you’re honest, you’ll find that you could be giving more.
Lest I come off as one who stands on the high ground shouting to my lessers, I’m no different. My life is a constant struggle to stay focused on what’s important, and like everyone else, I fail on a regular basis. But these are what I like to call personal best-practices – the things we know are right and strive to do at all times. What matters is that we recognize what we need to do – spend quality time with our loved ones – and we commit to sacrificing whatever we have to to do it. It’s work, but nothing is more worth it.
A recent post led to a fairly extensive thread that wandered into the subject of morality. At issue is whether morality can be rationally conceived, and whether it really makes that big of a difference. I think it can be and that it makes all the difference. Our welcoming wench, Alice, however, has finally got my number. Or does she…
Alice: Chris. You believe that there is a right way to proceed. You believe that free markets are always better than collective schemes. You believe that the only reason Hitler emerged is because of the Treaty of Versailles. You think the only way to insure having a good marriage is to move in together and have a trial run at it. You have a much clearer vision than I do.
I believe in the ebb and flow method, that there is rarely a clear path to anywhere and it is all of the myriad influences which are present which will produce the outcome.I believe in accidents. I think when things work out well, such as the formation of the United States, it’s an accident. Something which happened because of a confluence of events, not because of one or even a few men.
When you say it that way, my position sounds so Type A. More explanation is apparently needed. Perhaps a story.
I know a guy who has a brother. In his house growing up, parental discipline was pretty much non-existent. Nevertheless, both he and his brother have turned out fine – good jobs, family, stability, etc.. But it turns out that his two sisters are majorly messed up. There were never any consequences for doing stupid things when they grew up, and they are both now literally incapable of living responsible lives. They sign leases and break them. They buy cars on credit and end up having to have their parents pay for them. One even has two kids that are now being raised by my friend’s brother. It’s tragic.
There’s no question as to the cause of these girls’ misfortunes. Their parents simply failed them. They should have recognized that, though successful, well-adjusted people *sometimes* emerge from consequenceless homes, too often they do not. They ebbed when they should have flowed.
My position is not about some delusional prediction about what happens every time you do this or that – that would be quite contrary to my Kantian view of the universe – uncertainty is the starting point of all thought. It’s about probabilities and the stakes of mistakes.
I do happen to believe that free markets are always better than collective ones, but only because there has never been an example of a collective one that led to prosperity without coercion. I believe there are lots of Hitlers lying around this planet, and that the Treaty of Versailles created the conditions necessary for one to obtain absolute power. I don’t think the only way to have a good marriage is to move in together first. I believe that moving in together ahead of time dramatically increases the chances of the couple, should they end up marrying, going the distance happily. It’s an extended interview process – how is that interpersonal due diligence is so anathema to you? Is that rational?
In all of these areas, I believe the actions that are taken, based upon the prevailing morality – the person in question’s measure of right and wrong – have important ramifications on how things unfold later on.
This is no different than wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle – if the goal (the moral) is to stay healthy, and you can assume there’s a reasonable chance you’ll wreck (your fault or not), and you can assume that hitting your head at speed will be disastrous to your health, then a helmet is the obvious choice. It’s not about a clear vision. It’s about being informed and having an idea where you want to go in life.
So my point in all of this is to say it is possible to rationally conceive of our view of right and wrong, and that this is extremely necessary because our choices and actions have larger consequences than we often imagine. And in a society increasingly obsessed with instant gratification, awareness of this is that much more critical.
And lest I ignore an important historical sidebar, Alice also has this to say:
Take the Treaty of Versailles for instance. That begot the Marshall plan. It wasn’t invented out of the blue, it came about because people saw that punishing the loser didn’t work too well.
This is what I mean by ebb and flow. People are only smart in retrospect. We ain’t psychic.
More proof to my point. The aspects of the Treaty of Versailles that caused the problems that created WW2 were the punitive ones – the ones that forced Germany to accept full responsibility for the war, the ones that forced Germany to pay exorbitant reparations, the ones that forced Germany to relinquish colonies and territories. None of these were present in Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, which was the US model for the Treaty.
In fact, Clemenceau (the French guy, for the historically challenged) and Wilson were quite at odds through the entire process of establishing the Treaty, heatedly so. The French, having been severely ravaged by the war, and because Clemenceau was a bulldog of magnificent proportions, won out in the end. Nevertheless, someone did know better than to do the Germans as they were done, and that someone was the leader of what has become the greatest nation on this planet. He was enlightened, in a sense, which means he understood enough about humans to know that the French need for revenge would end up coming back to bite them, and maybe everyone else. His morality and his knowledge of his species were the guide to his vision. Several million people would be alive today were it not for an ebb when there should have been a flow.
Lastly, in response to my assertion that individual human action has been one of the most dramatic forces that have shaped human history, specifically my statement that without George Washington, there would be no USA, Alice comes back with this:
…to that I would say, no King George, no USA. If England had acted differently and had been in a different financial position and had not imposed such heavy taxation, it is unlikely the colonists would have agreed to revolt against the mother country.
See, it was the confluence of events. AKA, an accident.
No, it was not an accident. You’re quite right that King George’s oppression of the colonies was the catalyst for the revolutionary war, but his attitudes and actions were not accidental, not by a long shot. They were a direct result of his morality, which was based upon inherent absolute power of the monarchy and the obligation of all English peoples to bow to it. It is well known that there were those in Britain who recommended just cutting us loose. George would have nothing of it – his pride and his vision of how things should have been (his morality) were being challenged. He, too, ebbed when he should have flowed. It was the widespread dissemination of enlightenment ideas by people like Thomas Paine and John Locke that alerted the masses to his error. Just as Thomas Paine risked death by writing Common Sense, so did the colonial army in defying and clashing with the British, and both because of their morality, the one that was rationally conceived by a new generation of intellectuals.
At every step of the way through life, there are choices to be made, forks in the road. Each path corresponds to a ripple through the future – some are big, some are small. It is our morality that guides us in choosing a path, which means it is incumbent upon us to conceive of our morality methodically through the use of reason. More importantly, it is incumbent upon us to reject moralistic ideals that do not stand up to rationally scrutiny (read, dogmatic morality). This is a lynchpin in the enlightened modern mind.
(Sorry for picking on you, Alice, but we simply outgrew the comments area. This is an important and clarifying difference of opinion, and if anyone can take it, I know you can.)