Radical Womanhood

Playing Chicken With Your Food Safety

2010-02-10T00:05:00-05:00

Though tangential to this blog's focus, I'm continuing the food safety series today. Here's another appetizing article from the Washington Post that I read ... while eating chicken. Of course. The article carried the results of the latest Consumer Reports' food safety study. This time, the subject was chicken. And the results weren't that encouraging.

The Post reports that Consumer Reports had an outside lab test 382 chickens bought last spring from more than 100 supermarkets, gourmet- and natural-food stores, and mass merchandisers in 22 states. Three top brands were tested -- Foster Farms, Perdue and Tyson -- as well as 30 non-organic store brands, nine organic store brands and nine organic name brands. These were whole broilers, two-thirds of which harbored salmonella and/or campylobacter, the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease.

The message is clear: Consumers still can't let down their guard. They must cook chicken to at least 165 degrees and prevent raw chicken or its juices from touching any other food.

Each year, salmonella and campylobacter from chicken and other food sources infect 3.4 million Americans, send 25,500 to hospitals and kill about 500, according to estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I had no idea that more than 3 million Americans are infected each year from these pathogens! The study was just a snapshot in time, but among the results were these findings:

Among the cleanest overall were organic "air-chilled" broilers (a process in which carcasses are refrigerated and may be misted, rather than dunked in cold chlorinated water). About 60 percent were free of the two pathogens.

Perdue was found to be the cleanest of the brand-name chickens: 56 percent were free of both pathogens. This is the first time since Consumer Reports began testing chicken that one major brand has fared significantly better than others across the board.

Tyson and Foster Farms chickens were found to be the most contaminated; less than 20 percent were free of both pathogens.

Store-brand organic chickens had no salmonella at all, but only 43 percent of those birds were also free of campylobacter.

I used to only look for the best prices for poultry, buying organic whenever I could afford it, but now I have a reason to also be brand-specific.

If you are unsure of how to handle raw chicken safety, there are a number of best practices that will help minimize contamination, including how to protect your groceries from leaking chicken juices, what temperature chicken needs to reach, how to thaw chicken, and what to do with leftovers--all of which are outlined in the Post's article.

The Limits of Our Knowledge

2010-02-08T12:34:55-05:00

Just for fun--and to add to the ominous feeling of the DC Snowpocalypse--I watched a PBS documentary over the weekend on the 1918 influenza epidemic. It was well produced and very informative, but I was left thinking about the limits of medical knowledge at that time. They had microscopes to be able to see bacteria, but they couldn't see viruses. So doctors were trying to create vaccines to fight the suspected bacterium, but of course the vaccines didn't work because it was a viral respiratory infection that left people literally dropping dead on the streets. The early 20th century had made so many advances in medicine that people assumed that doctors would be able to solve any illness, but this flu pandemic humbled everyone.

And so we find ourselves humbled once again nearly a century later. The Washington Post recently carried an article about how some patients in a "vegetative state" were discovered to have alert brains:

Many of the patients were labeled with the same grim diagnosis: "vegetative state." Their head injuries, teams of specialists had concluded, condemned them to a netherworld -- alive yet utterly devoid of any awareness of the world around them.

But an international team of scientists decided to try a bold experiment using the latest technology to peek inside the minds of 54 patients to see whether, in fact, they were conscious.

One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person's would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

"It was incredible," said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. "These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies -- even blink an eye or move an eyebrow -- but yet are entirely conscious. It's quite distressing, really, to realize this."

As I read this article, I thought of Ian Murphy. Many of you are familiar with Ian's story--how three years ago, he suffered a tremendous brain injury in a car accident. And how he was not supposed to live, then not supposed to leave a comatose state, then not supposed to talk, then not supposed to walk, etc. By the amazing mercy and grace of God, Ian has beaten every prognosis (though he is not completely recovered). Along the way, he has had the jaw-droppingly faithful support of his girlfriend, Larissa, and his family. He has thrived even through sad difficulties such as the sudden death of his father from brain cancer last October.

Two days after his accident, the doctors said Ian's brain death was imminent. As people around the world, literally, began to pray for him, he eventually showed brain activity. But as Larissa told one reporter, she prayed that God would help them communicate more directly:

Even if Ian did remember and still loved Larissa, there was no way for him to communicate it. For months after the accident, he barely was able to open his eyes, much less communicate his affection. He couldn’t squeeze her hand, wink at her or whisper that he loved her. There were days Ian couldn’t even acknowledge her presence, but Larissa said she prayed that God would guard her heart and reassure her, when she couldn’t seek assurance from Ian. She prayed that God would give her signs that Ian still loved her.

“From the beginning, when I would go into the room and talk to him, his heart rate would increase,” Larissa said. “God always gave me signs that Ian still loved me and knew who I was.”

Larissa persevered through many months of disappointment and deferred hopes. She was honest about how painful it was to watch other friends get engaged and married, moving on with their lives as she waited for Ian's healing. Then on Christmas Eve, I heard the good news: they were engaged! As happy as she is upon her engagement, Larissa writes about their future marriage with remarkable wisdom:

Marriage is a huge decision. Every couple pursuing marriage must count the costs of a lifetime commitment. For some couples the cost can be as big as giving up a career to move to a new place, or as "small" as giving up holiday traditions to make new ones with in-laws.

The cost of our marriage seems more extreme. And it's not a "picture perfect" wedding that it sometimes feels like the rest of the world has or will have. Ian has a brain injury. Steve died from cancer. We have very little financial means. It's a possibility we won't be able to have children. The list of the "costs" goes on for awhile.

But all of these costs could happen in every single marriage. It's just that we know them in advance. There are no guarantees that anyone will ever be spared of these hardships and "costs." What's guaranteed is that we will have troubles.

So, I guess that logically brings us to why would we get married? Well, as simple as it is, because we love each other. And we enjoy each other. And we believe that Ian was created to be my husband and me to be his helper. Our marriage will look way different than we imagined four years ago. But it must mean something that I can't look at Ian without smiling. And that he has struggled every day for three years to get better--for me.

I hope this doesn't sound preachy. (no offense to our pastors who read this :) ) This is just the truth that I have to come back to at the end of the day through our engagement, as we wrestle through all of the costs and blessings this marriage will bring. Our marriage could last one month, five years, fifty years, until one of us goes to be with God. The most wonderful thing I can think of doing while anxiously waiting for that to happen, is to go through this crazy lifetime, as long or short as it may be, as husband and wife.

I've written about Ian and Larissa many times before on this blog and I hope I will continue to have that privilege in the future. Ian is a "standing stone"--a living reminder that we finite creatures are limited in our knowledge of how the world works and what God is doing in and through His creatures. While science is just catching up with what Larissa and the Murphy family have already experienced, our hope is still not in medical progress. We have a Savior who offers us complete healing in every sense of the word. It's on Him that we hang our every future hope.

(P.S. Some have inquired about how to help Ian and Larissa. If you would like to send a material or financial gift, send it to Ian Murphy, c/o Sovereign Grace Church, 1220 Wayne Avenue, Indiana, Pa. 15701. If it is a monetary gift, please write Murphy Wedding in the memo.)

Photos: Lydia Jane Photography.

Snowpocalypse or Snowmaggedon?

2010-02-05T14:31:21-05:00

If there's one thing we do well in the D.C. area, it's get all worked up about snow. I read that Chicago-based President Obama was incredulous when he encountered the first snowfall here and the schools closed right away. I'm sure many of my northern readers will laugh, too, but I haven't been able to do much of anything else except prepare for ... SNOWPOCALYPSE! Run for the hills! It's SNOWMAGGEDON!

The first flakes are hitting the ground now, but if the weather forecasters are right, we're in for an historic storm. Somewhere between 20-28 inches is what they are calling for now. But it's not the snowfall itself that has me preparing. It's the blizzard winds we're expecting tonight. In my neighborhood, we lose the power if someone sneezes. So I'm fully expecting that though the snow itself may not be dramatic, the power loss will be rather inconvenient. I'm charging everything I have and am trying to crank out as much work as possible ahead of time.

I have bought the usual supplies: ice melt, candles, batteries, toilet-paper (why? I don't know, it's a reflex), snack foods, etc. I am well stocked with DVDs. I even dug out the solar-powered emergency radio my folks gave me a few years ago, just so I can be amused by the snow hype when we lose power.

And all this for a 24-hour snowstorm. Which will melt in God's gracious design. So while we have a good laugh at ourselves around here, I am going to give the rest of you another reason to laugh: Check out last week's Friday Funnies from the Girl Talk blog. It's amusing what children "learn" from us--especially on how their baby siblings arrive!

But if you have any survivalist tips, make sure to pass them along! ;)

Why the Tim Tebow Ad Is Already a Success

2010-02-03T14:49:40-05:00

Often when there is a great deal of media coverage on a specific topic, I don't add my two cents on this blog. Especially in cases like the Haiti earthquake where I have no personal connections and my words are best spent in prayer.

But I'm going to jump in on the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad controversy. I'm calling this ad campaign a success before it airs--or before most anyone has seen it. The reason is that the hysterical reaction from pro-abortion groups to a purportedly non-provocative ad has revealed the degree to which there is no "choice" in "pro-choice." (To whit: the jaw-dropping "logic" of Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women's new vice president, calling the Tebow spot "hate masquerading as love." What part of a mother's sacrifice and risk exactly is hate?!) That has led people who would normally support abortion rights to express dismay at the reaction to this pro-family ad, as it has been described. CBS may well have changed their position on what they consider an advocacy ad, but they have the right to do so. It's their policy. They can change it. In fact, I believe that due to this public discussion, the ad would be a success if even CBS bowed to the pro-abortion groups' pressure and pulled it before anyone could see it.

Why do I believe this? Because the stridency of the pro-abortion groups is backfiring on the general public. Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins really nailed what's wrong with the critical reaction to this ad in a piece titled, "Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are." While saying she is a pro-choice feminist, Jenkins acknowledges that "Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time." Here are some of her common-sense observations:

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't. . . .

Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.

Finally, after acknowledging that abortion affects the potential lives of future artists, doctors, scientists, inventors and even Heisman Trophy winners, Jenkins concludes with this sane observation:

Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

Big ups to CBS for their commitment to this ad. They are smart enough to figure out how to capitalize from all of this media firestorm, of course. But I applaud their stance to support free speech, especially in matters of life and death.

(Photo: Dave Martin/Associated Press)

'My Dear Mr. Knightley . . . '

2010-02-01T20:11:14-05:00

My fellow Janeites, please accept my most profuse apologies for neglecting to comment on the latest PBS celebration of all things Jane Austen: Emma. I will be honest that I was on the fence for the first installment. But yesterday's edition began to win me over. In this version, Mr. Knightley's growing interest in Emma is far more evident than in some of the previous editions I've watched. He also comes across less of a father figure. I also think Frank Churchill is more nuanced, as is Jane Fairfax. As for Emma herself, I am not yet completely won over but Romola Garai is making a good show of it.

UPDATE: After the final installment, I have just three words: Best. Knightley. Ever.

If you haven't been able to see any of these new films, you can watch them for a limited time online at PBS. Pour yourself a cup of tea, enjoy the show, and then leave your comment!

Now in Russian

2010-01-28T00:50:00-05:00

I just received four copies of my first book in Russian. I don't know if they kept the title of Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye? or not. If you can read Russian, you'll have to let me know.

Here's the cover.

That's me.

Okay, not really. I'm dreaming.

This edition was published by Hope of Salvation Mission. It's great timing that I just received these books, because I am flying to Vancouver, B.C., today to speak at the Willingdon Church's women's retreat. Later in the weekend, I will also be visiting with some of my friends from Crossway Church there. Crossway has a growing outreach to Russian-speaking residents. I trust I can wedge these books into my carry-on luggage, because I'd really like to give them to Crossway. (Shhh...it's a surprise. Don't tell anybody, okay?)

What's really fun is that last year I met two of the young women who worked on the translation. They were at the True Woman '08 conference in Chicago. I've been waiting since last fall to see the fruit of their labors--and here it is.

Beauty's Link to Terrorism

2010-01-26T13:20:45-05:00

One of my favorite Bible passages is from Psalm 34. Verses 4 and 5 read: "I sought the LORD, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears. Those who look to him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed."

I have seen that kind of radiant beauty on those whose hearts are contented in God, who are eager to proclaim all of His blessings and mercies upon their lives. I firmly believe that is the most attractive beauty there is, because it edifies and builds up others. Yet, I also know the strong pull of the cosmetic and cosmeceutical industries and the promises they make to stall or turn back the ravages of time. So I write this post with a bit of ambivalence, because I know the money I spend at various salons.

That said, I have never been Botoxed. My dermatologist did inform me a few years ago that it was time to start, because it would keep my fine lines from becoming deep wrinkles. I frowned (deepening those lines) and shook my head. There was no way I was going to stick a neurotoxin in my face, I announced. I was sure that in 20 years, we'd discover why that was a bad idea. She looked at me placidly and said, "I hope not because I have a face full of it." Maybe she was looking at me in wide-eyed horror, but I couldn't tell.

Likely it won't take 20 years. We're now discovering a new problem associated with the Botox craze: an increased risk of terrorism. Yesterday the Washington Post ran an article about how officials fear that the toxic ingredient in Botox could become terrorist tool:

In early 2006, a mysterious cosmetics trader named Rakhman began showing up at salons in St. Petersburg, Russia, hawking a popular anti-aging drug at suspiciously low prices. He flashed a briefcase filled with vials and promised he could deliver more -- "as many as you want," he told buyers -- from a supplier somewhere in Chechnya.

Rakhman's "Botox" was found to be a potent clone of the real thing, but investigators soon turned to a far bigger worry: the prospect of an illegal factory in Chechnya churning out raw botulinum toxin, the key ingredient in the beauty drug and one of world's deadliest poisons. A speck of toxin smaller than a grain of sand can kill a 150-pound adult.

No Chechen factory has been found, but a search for the maker of the highly lethal toxin in Rakhman's vials continues across a widening swath of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. U.S. officials and security experts say they know the lab exists, and probably dozens of other such labs, judging from the surging black market for the drug.

Al-Qaeda is known to have sought botulinum toxin. The Lebanese Hezbollah movement, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization, and other groups have bought and sold counterfeit drugs to raise cash. Now, with the emergence of a global black market for fake Botox, terrorism experts see an opportunity for a deadly convergence.

"It is the only profit-making venture for terrorists that can also potentially yield a weapon of mass destruction," said Kenneth Coleman, a physician and biodefense expert.

That last quote is important. I recognize that criminal elements can run scams on most anything to finances their ventures. In some ways, we can't take responsibility for what they choose to contort. But in an age of responsible consumerism, we also can't ignore what kind of markets our consumption creates. This article contains sobering news. I don't offer it to shame women who have had Botox treatments, nor to add one more temptation to those who are prone to fear. I am posting it because I had never heard about this potential link to terrorism. And I believe that having this kind of information helps us to consider our actions and motives from a broader perspective. It challenges us to rethink what is packaged as normal and acceptable.

We live in an age that sells us a lie: that somehow or another we can get around the aging process. But we can't. Not in our own strength. Sickness, aging, and death are a consequence of our own sinfulness. They are inevitable consequences, but they are not irrevocable. Because there is One who paid the penalty for our sin and gave us His righteousness in exchange, this is not the end of the story. Jesus triumphed over death! His sinless life and substitutionary death on the cross for our sins has averted the Father's righteous wrath for all of our wrongs. Through this divine rescue, we can repent and receive Jesus' gracious gift of forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and life everlasting. And added to those amazing gifts is a new, glorified and ageless body.

Young Activists Adding Fuel to Antiabortion Side

2010-01-24T22:52:18-05:00

An astonishing report from today's Washington Post about Friday's March for Life, written by columnist Robert McCartney ...

I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn't it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What's more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it's not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.

As always, we in Washington enjoy an up-close view of the health of various causes because of the city's role as the nation's most important setting for political demonstrations. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.

"We are the pro-life generation," said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30. There were numerous large groups of teenagers, many bused in by Roman Catholic schools and youth groups. They and their adult leaders said the youths were taught from an early age to oppose abortion.

Read the rest from the Washington Post online.

New Foods

2010-01-21T13:24:27-05:00

A new year introduces all kinds of possibilities. I did not make any resolutions this year, but over the last few months I have been trying to eat different kinds of vegetables. A few days ago, I tried Swiss chard. I've probably eaten it in many dishes and didn't know what it was. But this time, I bought it for myself and sauteed it with some olive oil, garlic, onion, and red chili pepper. It was delicious! And I understand it's incredibly good for you.

As we continue our series on food, I'd like to know what new food item or recipe you've tried. Post your new recipes for the rest of us to consider, and tell us why you are recommending it!

Our Daily Bread

2010-01-19T14:52:32-05:00

Have you ever noticed how often the Bible refers to food? From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, food is present throughout Scripture. The Bible opens with God giving every seed-bearing plant and tree to us as food (Genesis 1:29). It closes with the promise of the wedding supper of the Lamb and the picture of the fruit-bearing trees next to the River of Life in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:1-2).

But in between, our desire for things beyond the nourishment of food corrupts our association with food. In fact, the first challenge to God's sovereignty was presented in a discourse about food.

He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:1-6).

God had created a lavish bounty of food for Adam and Eve, but with that question to Eve, the serpent challenged His provision, laws, and character.

As we continue our series on food, I wanted to turn now from an educational perspective about modern food issues to a view on how our relationship with food reflects our relationship with God. Jesus told us to pray for our daily bread (Matt. 6:11), knowing that this reminder each day of our creaturely limitations and our dependence on our Father's provision glorifies God. Yet often we approach that provision with the faithless question the Israelites asked in the wilderness, a charge they made while eating manna each day:

They tested God in their heart by demanding the food they craved. They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the wilderness? He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed. Can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?" (Psalm 78:18-20)

Demanding what they craved, they voiced their unbelief in God's character and His abilities. Food is a universal desire and therefore a universal illustration of how our appetites test God. Knowing this backdrop in Scripture, the statement Jesus made about His food is in stark contrast to the collective whine of humanity: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34). In other words, what nourishes, sustains, and satisfies Jesus is to do God's will.

This perspective on our daily bread has shaken up and broadened my prayers. I do need daily bread, but what I need more is to cultivate Jesus' perspective on His food.