Unfortunately at every step we are faced with the quandary of choosing one—the experience that so alarms and persuades us to chose that one path. There always is an element of the probability of failure, of whether the path being taken would click or not.

In the olden days, it was very easy and simply put. The more difficult the path, the chances of its being the righteous were more. And then there were years of tradition and discipline. But now, when there is no such thing as black or white and the evil of Mammon is the Guru (also an acceptable fact), the range of agreeable choices is all the more inexplicable.

Times sure have changed; acceptable priorities redefined. Earlier it was all about being moral, even if the course meant less accumulation of wealth because that was the righteous thing to do. But, now such an idea is guffawed upon. Try even mentioning such a thing in any gathering and you would be branded the geek. Boring.

Yes, being righteous or moral is no more trendy or “in-vogue”. To fit-in and be considered powerful, you’ve got to have it all, no matter how you achieve it.

Just one question. Would you compromise such a path for the assumingly boring one? Don’t ask me the cost.

Boringly yours,
Manjit

⁽¹⁾

⁽⁰⁾

Ms. Ambrose has been taking serious heat for her government's flouting of the Kyoto Protocol and international law. While most industrialized countries are not only sticking with the accord, 30 out of 34 of them are well on their way to meeting their commitments.

Meanwhile, back in the great white north, Ms. Ambrose and Prime Minister Harper have shut down every climate change plan and insisted that the federal government will follow a "made-in-Canada" approach - as though the previous plans were made somewhere else.

Ms. Ambrose says she scrapped existing programs to fight global warming because they weren't working. She may be partially right about some of them. Some programs only appealed to people who were already doing their part to reduce climate change. These folks are sometimes called "free riders" because they got a financial incentive or rebate to do something they were going to do anyway. As a result, these programs were really more like tax cuts than effective greenhouse gas reduction policies.

Yet, in spite of Ms. Ambrose's complaints, the only thing in the recent federal budget that her government touted as a climate change initiative was a tax incentive for transit riders. However, the tax deduction was not nearly enough to encourage new riders, which means it simply becomes a tax cut - with zero reduction in global warming emissions.

So when Quebec unveiled its climate change plan last week, it was a refreshing change. The plan actually has a target to reduce emissions - 1.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The province still wants to meet Kyoto, but it expects the federal government to help them get there. And rather than use tax cuts that only benefit free riders, it has a series of initiatives and regulations designed to get the province to its goal.

For example, a new mandatory building code to be introduced in 2008 that will update virtually all aspects of design, including building envelope, heating and air conditioning, lighting and ventilation. The new code is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new buildings by 25 per cent. It's an initiative that other provinces have been slow to adopt and the federal government has largely ignored.

Another step: mandating gas mileage standards to be equal to those introduced in California. Canada's fuel efficiency standards are currently voluntary and weak. By insisting that auto makers sell their cleanest, most modern models in Quebec - the very models that are also destined for California - Quebecers get cleaner air and end up with lower fuel bills. Don't all Canadians deserve to have this advantage too?

The plan also includes serious investment in wind energy and public transit, and a carbon tax on the bulk sale of oil - a progressive "polluter pay" initiative that helps the market reflect the true cost of fossil fuels on society. Right now, polluters are able to pass the cost of their pollution onto taxpayers through increased health care costs and environmental damage. A carbon tax is a more fair and equitable way of dealing with the costs of pollution.

Quebec's plan isn't perfect. It includes highway expansion projects and large hydroelectric dams that will cause more problems than they will fix. But it's a big step in the right direction. If Ms. Ambrose wants to keep her job, and ultimately Mr. Harper his, they would do well to pay attention.

Originally published on June 30, 2006.

Dr. David Takayoshi Suzuki is distinguished Canadian geneticist who has attained prominence as a science broadcaster and an environmental activist. He is also a co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

⁽⁰⁾

⁽⁰⁾

People think that a Sheikh should show miracles and manifest illumination.
The requirement in a teacher, however, is only that he should possess all that the disciple needs.
- Ibn El-Arabi (Shah 87).

The Enlightened becomes perfect only when all else is removed from in-between him and the Friend. Either he remains or the Friend.
- Khwaja Mu'inuddin Chishti

Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life.
-Bertolt Brecht, The Mother

A man's accusations of himself are always believed; his praises of self never.
-Montaigne

⁽⁰⁾

The researchers asked the question: was the use of antidepressants associated with a change in suicide rates in the general population of the United States between 1988 and 2002? There were two underlying hypotheses: (1) antidepressants can trigger suicide and subsequently increase suicide rates, and (2) through the treatment of depression with antidepressants, suicide rates decline over time.

Methodology
To address these hypotheses, the researchers conducted an ecological study drawing on aggregated data on suicide in the US general population between 1960 and 2002. These data were collected from the annual statistical files of the National Vital Statistics System compiled by the US Centers for Disease Control. Data on fluoxetine prescription were obtained from IMS Health, a company that provides data on drug use to the pharmaceutical and health-care industries.

The authors estimated a potential effect of fluoxetine on suicide rates by the use of a time-series regression model. They assumed a predicted suicide mortality in 1988–2002 based on maintained pre-1988 suicide trends, and considering fluoxetine as a covariate for a potential effect on change of suicide rates between 1988 and 2002.

Key Findings
The authors reported that suicide rates were most prominent in the following two age groups: 15–24 and 25–44 years of age (the upper age limit of the study population was 65 years of age). The authors found that suicide rates fluctuated between 12.2 and 13.7 per 100,000 people for the entire population from the early 1960s until 1988, but then the rates gradually declined (in men and women), with the lowest value of 10.4 per 100,000 people in the year 2000. They also found that the prescription of fluoxetine inversely increased in relation to the trend in suicide rates from 1988 to 2002. This inverse relationship was highly correlated (rs = –0.92, p < 0.001).

There was an inverse correlation between suicide rates and fluoxetine prescriptions.

Milane and colleagues then modeled suicide rates in 1988–2002 based on pre-1988 suicide trends, and their modeling suggested that fluoxetine prescription decreases suicides, both in women and in men. Further modeling analysis showed that if pre-1988 trends (i.e., trends in the pre-SSRI era) were extrapolated through 2002, suicide numbers would have been higher by about 33,600 cases. The authors summarized their findings with the hypothesis that SSRIs may have saved 33,600 lives since their introduction.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The main strength of this study is the authors' effort to address the crucial question of whether antidepressants do harm or good at a population level. Unfortunately, a research question such as this is not easy to answer.

As the authors acknowledge, suggestions that there may be a causal relationship between fluoxetine prescription and suicide rates would represent an overinterpretation of the results. In a study like this, it is also important to consider other potential explanations for the fall in suicide rates, such as improvements in the economy or improved management of depression by primary-care providers. Moreover, as the study did not include people above 65 years of age, who are known to have an increased risk of suicide (especially in men) compared with younger people, the findings are limited to adults up to 65 years of age.

Another limitation of this study was the use of fluoxetine as a model of SSRI use. Several effective SSRIs have been introduced since the arrival of fluoxetine, and these newer SSRIs may have had an additional potential impact on suicide rates. Finally, although the authors used the best available data on the number of prescriptions of fluoxetine, these estimations are not very accurate in terms of actual intake of antidepressants. As there are no reliable figures available on adherence to drug prescriptions at the population level, the real effect of antidepressants on suicide rates is difficult to estimate.
Implications for Clinicians and Policymakers

Clinicians may be tempted to conclude from the study that the use of SSRIs leads to a decrease in depression and, subsequently, to a decrease of suicide attempts in their patients. Policymakers might prioritize the use of antidepressants at both primary and secondary health-care levels, assuming from the study that these drugs improve the lives of people with depression.

But an alternate view of the results is that they do not contribute substantial new knowledge and have no major clinical implications, since the effectiveness of antidepressants at improving depression is well established [2] (and there is some evidence of their potential to decrease suicide rates [3,4]). Moreover, it is questionable if a cross-sectional ecological study has the potential to adequately address the authors' central research question of whether antidepressants do harm or good at a population level. In general, ecological and cross-sectional studies are suitable for generating new hypotheses and study questions, but not to answer analytic research questions as such.
Conclusion

In our view, the single conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that there was an inverse correlation between suicide rates and fluoxetine prescriptions. Thus, the study does not support an association between increased suicide and increased fluoxetine prescription rates. This finding is of public health importance and should stimulate further scientific endeavors, in particular ecological research with a longitudinal design that considers additional factors such as economic data and a wider range of antidepressants with a potential impact on depression and suicide.

References
1. Milane MS, Suchard MA, Wong ML, Licinio J (2006) Modeling of the temporal patterns of fluoxetine prescriptions and suicide rates in the United States. PLoS Med 3: e190 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030190. Find this article online
2. Butler R, Carney S, Cipriani A, Geddes J, Hatcher S, et al. (2005) Depressive disorders. Clin Evid 14: 1–7. Find this article online
3. Rutz W, von Knorring L, Walinder J (1992) Long-term effects of an educational program for general practitioners given by the Swedish Committee for the Prevention and Treatment of Depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand 85: 83–88. Find this article online
4. Rutz W, von Knorring L, Walinder J (1989) Frequency of suicide on Gotland after systematic postgraduate education of general practitioners. Acta Psychiatr Scand 80: 151–154.

Bernhard Baune and Phillipa Hay are in the Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

Originally published in http://medicine.plosjournals.org/

⁽⁰⁾

Frankfurt, an American moral philosopher, attempts to provide a theoretical basis for the study of bullshit, which, in his words, is produced “whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 63, italics added). Similar in many ways to Max Black’s concept of humbug (quackery, nonsense or pretentious and deceptive misrepresentations that fall short of a lie), Frankfurt clearly takes a negative and pejorative view of what he calls bullshit. Unlike the liar who knows the truth yet chooses to deceive, the bullshitter ignores the truth and is, therefore, “a greater enemy of the truth than the liar” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 61).

Frankfurt’s book has struck a chord in our culture and with many people currently because there is, without doubt, a lot of Frankfurtian bullshit wherever one cares to look, read or listen. And we all do need to be far more reflective, cautious and circumspect when we express ourselves and our views in our fast-paced and fast-changing society, as well as professionally and in high stake situations, because of a pervasive “talking heads” environment and climate created by our own recent inventions. This aspect and dimension of the phenomenon, however, is not where we disagree with Frankfurt’s views or analysis. No, our disagreement is far deeper, and more fundamental and important in the long as opposed to the short run in our current instantaneous culture.

Although Frankfurt’s attempt to shed some light on this ubiquitous phenomenon is laudable, and his definition of bullshit reasonable and philosophically sound, his developing theoretical and conceptual view of bullshit has oppressive undertones and consequences, and is severely limited and outdated from a linguistic, cognitive science, and learning theory perspective—fields that have grown tremendously in the twenty years since Frankfurt’s article was first published. These fields have addressed many of the key features associated with what Frankfurt is calling bullshit. Because Frankfurt’s book has received positive attention and praise by some scholars and science educators (e.g., Good, 2005), many of whom are likely to embrace and operationalize these concepts, the gross limitations of this book (and the BS construct specifically) need to be identified and critically examined from a more contemporary perspective.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is to briefly address some of these shortcomings and to present a more informed and balanced treatment of Frankfurt’s interpretation of Bullshit (hereafter referred to as FIBS). Our aim here is to call attention to the severe limitations and implications of this popular academic book and to encourage all educational professionals to consider their own views of what Frankfurt defines as BS in relation to their own views of pedagogy, educational theory, and learning research. It is our opinion that many of the problems in education and educational research today are the result of weak and theoretically groundless attempts to address fundamental questions through outdated views and models of cognition versus more contemporary and main stream cognitive views (see Author, 2005). Frankfurt’s BS construct is a recent example of this “cognitive crisis” and problem in a philosophical guise.

Simply put, our discontent with Frankfurt’s BS construct is that it is too naïve and simplistic to account for the complexities of human thought, language, memory structures, learning, and representational systems that have been empirically documented by the cognitive sciences over the past few decades (see Ashcraft, 2002). We certainly recognize that some, and in certain instances many, people appear to flatly ignore the truth and are often compelled to discuss issues they are not knowledgeable about (including ourselves), and that these are key diagnostic features of BS according to Frankfurt. However, to just superficially and pejoratively dismiss (as Frankfurt does) all of these behaviors and instances as BS, without addressing the enormous weight of evidence in the cognitive sciences and related fields (including philosophy itself) that has led to a deeper understanding of human behavior, decision-making, thinking and learning, is, in our opinion, somewhat irresponsible intellectually. There are certainly different degrees and types of bullshit that are context mediated, but this finer grained analysis (or perhaps taxonomy) of BS is not suggested or developed in Frankfurt’s book, but it suggested in this article.
The primary objections raised here relative to FIBS are not trivial, but are actually “theory-cracking” if not “theory-busting,” as they require a diametrically opposite interpretation of bullshit as defined by Frankfurt, and one that demonstrates far more parsimony relative to important experimental and theory-based findings in the cognitive sciences and related fields. Our revised (cognitive) interpretation of BS can be succinctly expressed in the following terms:

Bullshit is not always bad or subversive to the truth; rather it is often a highly dynamic and necessary matrix for the development of expressive, creative, critical and higher order thinking and representation that gives birth to the truth or/and new truths.

This revised interpretation of bullshit (referred to here as RIBS, a more creative and discovery oriented acronym) provides a contrasting view from which to critically compare, contrast, and analyze FIBS (a more context of justification and policing oriented acronym).

In the RIBS, emphasis is placed on the highly dynamic nature of bullshit, whereas FIBS suggests that bullshit is a fixed, static and inert linguistic and conceptual entity (similar to the early behaviorist and positivists views of knowledge and experience). Surely, someone can go from “talking bullshit” and from “bullshitting” to talking authoritatively and knowledgeably in a particular subject or domain. This transition, moreover, is often referred to and taken as demonstrative of learning, which is a concept and simple observational fact completely ignored if not completely missing from Frankfurt’s views. However, this type of change, transition (and transformation) is not addressed in FIBS, which runs counter to decades of empirical research in the “novice to expert” continuum and developmental transformation, and basic research in the cognitive sciences (Ashcraft, 2002). Similarly, FIBS fails to address Chomsky’s (see Ashcraft, 2002) competence/performance distinction and Vygotsky’s (1976) zone of proximal development, both of which require transitions and qualitative transformations in an individual’s ability to knowledgeably express her or himself through language, social interaction and enculturation. Furthermore, basic research in language acquisition and development has shown (and continues to show) convincingly that the use of words, concepts and conceptual relations is a highly emotive process that is extremely difficult to develop, and that imitation, modeling and “talking above oneself” or “beyond one’s comfort zone” or experiences is necessary to develop increasing knowledge and skill in a particular area (see Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning 2001, and Schunk, 2004). This later point is especially true for highly complex instructional areas such as mathematics, science, philosophy, and other highly abstract and technical fields of study.

In expressing the inert, useless and meaningless nature of bullshit, Frankfurt draws an analogy between excrement and bullshit, and in doing so he provides an excellent example of bullshit by his own definition. Frankfurt (2005) states:
Excrement may be regarded as the corpse of nourishment, what remains when the vital elements in food have been exhausted. In this respect, excrement is a representation of death that we ourselves and that, indeed, we cannot help producing in the very process of maintaining our lives. Perhaps it is for making death so intimate that we find excrement so repulsive. In any event, it cannot serve the purposes of sustenance, any more than hot air can serve those of communication (pp. 43-44).

The problem with this statement is that it is a shallow, uninformed and simply incorrect biological (i.e., scientific) view of excrement. Excrement is vital for life and contains material that will decompose and unlock the chemical prerequisites for life. In this passage, Frankfurt is taking the opportunity, or feels the compulsion, to speak about some topic (biology) that exceeds his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. In other words, Frankfurt is, by his own definition, talking bullshit. Further, he is not only talking bullshit, but he is missing the key and critical point about this phenomenon because of his (outdated and inaccurate) schemas about the phenomenon as well as the hidden flaws in the similes and metaphors he uses to explore and investigate it.
More than simply pointing out an instance of Frankfurtian bullshit and why it has occurred, the above point demonstrates Frankfurt’s fixed and rigid view of BS that is untenable from a contemporary cognitive science and learning theory perspective. Just as excrement provides the raw materials for sustaining life, conceptual and linguistical bullshit (which Frankfurt associates with “hot air”) provides the opportunity to exercise one’s developing rhetorical style, imagination, storytelling ability, humor and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Perhaps more importantly, bullshit provides a vehicle for cognitive and social engagement and the opportunity to develop more “accurate,” cogent and informed ideas and views via discussions with more knowledge people (Schunk, 2004), however “more knowledgeable” people are defined. This last point is where Frankfurt’s interpretation of bullshit has both oppressive and intimidating undertones and consequences.

Perhaps without even realizing it, FIBS sends a message that suggests that one should avoid talking bullshit (almost all of the time and because of the “risks and potential consequences”), or of expressing a developing and “non-expert” view, concern or opinion. In other words, leave the thinking, discourse and decision-making to people who don’t “talk bullshit” (with no definitive or even rough-gauge Turing test of this “non-bullshit talk” provided by Frankfurt), which is a view that seems to be particularly attractive to many educators and politicians of all persuasions today. The difficulties with any view that even suggests this type of restriction of intellectual and social engagement are manifest, and should be easily identified by most people (and especially by a moral philosopher!). In a world where knowledge (particularly scientific and technical knowledge) is growing exponentially, and, at the same time becoming so specialized, it’s reasonable to wonder how many people actually exist who don’t talk bullshit (or at least a good deal of the time), as well as who is the final arbiter of such decisions.

Frankfurt is correct, however, in assuming bullshit is ubiquitous, pervasive, and growing at an accelerating rate. But one must stop and ask why, and ask why in a fairly sophisticated and differentiated way. Not all BS may be bad and something to be radically reduced if not eliminated in all contexts and situations, which is one of our central points here. Yes, a lot of BS should be scrutinized, and, as we have said, we all need to be far more reflective and circumspect when we express ourselves and our views professionally or in high stake situations without doubt. But something as ubiquitous as BS may exist for a reason and perhaps an important and “good” reason. In the RIBS view, it was stated that bullshit is a matrix for the development of higher-order thinking. The assumption here is that one can go from this (bullshit) matrix that is highly generative (and allows for the thinking and expression of ideas in a less inhibited manner that may not consider the truth or falsity of the expression) to more precise ideas and conceptions that may (or may not be) weeded out by some form of reason, experience, formal testing procedure or logic. Without the development component of bullshit, it would be difficult to understand how scientific ideas, facts, theories and concepts developed from their metaphysical origins to “authoritatively accepted and blessed realities,” which is an idea (and process) that has been the basis of the work and contributions of some of the most important “post-positivist” philosophers of science such as Bachelard (1938), Koyre (1957), Fleck (1935/1976) and Kuhn (1962).

What FIBS fails to recognize is the dynamic nature of the bullshit construct and that bullshit is very often (if not always) an important developmental phenomenon that can be refined over time in a way that leads to more complex (valid) knowledge structures and greater (valid) knowledge capacities. What is missing in FIBS—and also in many psychological, philosophical and epistemological models and theories of knowing—is a balanced treatment of the irrational, silly, fanciful, deceptive and emotive nature of thought and behavior, as well as the more logical, formal and scientific ways of thinking and behaving.
What is more disconcerting than the limitations and shortcomings of FIBS is that so many educated people and teachers view this book as some sort of moral victory to be immediately implemented in the classroom. They fail to identify the problems of FIBS and to recognize its outdated, naïve, simplistic, oppressive, and non-developmental thesis, relative to a concept that is so pervasive and actually very developmentally important in the classroom; namely BS, and BS that reflects a striving to think and speak beyond one’s immediate grasp in order to learn, develop, and qualitatively change and improve one’s views. Attempting to reduce the occurrence of BS to zero in our daily lives and discourse only to the obedient parroting of the views of authorities and catechisms currently in fashion, particularly in classrooms, will prevent the events that will lead to the birth (slowly and over time) of the next Tessler, Edison, Kekule, Semmelweis, Darwin, Pauling, or Gell-Mann from occurring, never mind the even more important events of the daily intellectual growth and development of self-regulating and higher-order learners and students. One must really ask why people seek to speak beyond their grasp and ask if the reasons are always the same and the same in all contexts. And one must ask what is the price and the consequences of just simplistically and unilaterally severely reducing and choking off bullshit in daily discourse, particularly educationally. Maybe a completely bullshit free society (if at all possible) would not be such a complete moral or desirable victory after all. And maybe “deception” is a far more interesting and important phenomenon than most of us think or realize.

References
Ashcraft, M.H. (2002). Cognition (3rd edition). Prentice Hall.
Carifio, J. (2005, July). Toward a standard integrated information processing/cognitive model of learning. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group, Leeds, England.
Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.
Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby, M., & Ronning, R., (2001). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper-Collins.
Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. (F. Bradley & T. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Good, R. (2005, October). Science, pseudo-science, and just plain bullshit. Paper presented at the Science Education at the Crossroads Conference, University of Connecticut.
Koyre, A. (1968). From the closed world to the infinite universe. The John Hopkins University Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (4th Edition). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, (Eds.), Harvard University Press.

About the Reviewers
Rocco J. Perla recently completed an Ed.D. in Mathematics and Science Education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Dr. Perla’s interests include nature of science studies and instruction, philosophy of science and cognition. His current research projects focus on developing inter-disciplinary models of nature of science instruction for undergraduate students.

James Carifio is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. His interests include measurement, cognition, mathematics and science education and complex problem solving. Dr. Carifio teaches courses in research design and data analysis, cognitive psychology and learning theories. His current research projects focus on developing and validating an integrated standard information processing model (and theory) of learning.

Originally published in the Education Review. Reproduced here with permission.

⁽⁰⁾

In college at Harvard I was on the Harvard Crimson and Harvard Lampoon and covered cultural issues and also wrote freelance stories for the Chicago Tribune and the Boston Globe, reviewing music and talking to musical artists. So it was a natural progression to go from all of that to reviewing music.

After I graduated from Harvard, I went on to USA TODAY, then a very new newspaper that was struggling to sort of find its place, make its mark, get some respect. And it was a good place for a young journalist because it was a meritocracy.... [At USA TODAY] if you had the talent, if you're doing the job, if you're getting the interviews, if you're writing the stories well, they wanted to push you because they needed talent to sort of light the fires over there. It was a good place for me to do interesting interviews and to talk with people like Denzel Washington, Spike Lee, and Halle Berry, before she become a star.

JournalismJobs.com: Are you ever in awe when you interview big name artists?

Farley: I've talked with a lot of top artists -- everyone from Bruce Springsteen to Bob Dylan to Lauren Hill to Aretha Franklin to Joni Mitchell and Prince -- some of these people who are sort of the most reclusive stars of the world and some people who have had the biggest influence in pop music. I'm actually more in awe of the smaller artists like [Canadian folk rocker] Sara Harmer, or people like Alana Davis, who I think is a terrific pop rocker. She's not rich, she's not super well-known by any means. I'm just constantly in awe of people who are willing to sort of put themselves out there and do it for a love of the art and not to become famous. And that's what impresses me the most, not hanging out with Dylan backstage, which I've done.

JournalismJobs.com: Who are some of the more interesting artists you've interviewed?

Farley: Now and again you meet people who aren't as interesting or as nice as you might have thought. For example, Whitney Houston. When I interviewed her some years ago down in Miami, every other word out of her mouth was an "F" word. She cursed more than Snoop Doggy Dog... And then later, as your more untrustworthy stars are apt to do, she denied what she said to me in Entertainment Weekly. Luckily as a journalist -- if you're a good journalist -- you tend to tape your interviews, your big ones. So I had the whole interview on tape, and I played it for anyone who wanted to hear it. And that was put to bed. Now and again you'll run into artists like that who really aren't like the public image.... That was not as pleasant an experience as one might have thought going in to interview Whitney Houston. Some of the coolest artists I've interviewed are "The Roots," a terrific hip-hop band, and "Rage Against the Machine."

JournalismJobs.com: Do you look for undiscovered artists who you feel are doing quality work but are not getting the recognition?

Farley: I'm just looking for music that sounds good, not necessarily someone I want to be pals with. You're never pals with these stars. The movie "Almost Famous" kind of depicts that in a smart way. There are a lot of journalists who become sort of friends with rock stars who sort of get swallowed up by the world. As a journalist you've got to remember that all you are is a journalist. You're just a little weasel walking around in their world. You're there to sort of report facts and make the story sing, and not to become pals with people or hang out at their summer homes. I really don't have much personal contact with them other than the stuff that will help make the story more interesting and better for readers.

JournalismJobs.com: What type of music do you prefer to write about?

Farley: I really don't have any particular preference with music. I was born in Kingston, Jamaica, raised in upstate New York, and now I live in New York City. Given all those kinds of disparate influences, there's not a single kind of music I like the most. I like all kinds of stuff.... I tend to be all over the map. If it's good, that's the kind of music I like listening to and I like writing about.

JournalismJobs.com: Who was your journalistic idol growing up? Who did you model yourself after?

Farley: Unfortunately, I had no mentors, and there weren't any particular journalists who I really looked to say, 'oh, that's the way you do it.' Because I think most journalism writing is incredibly bad. I think the young journalists out there shouldn't read the newspapers and magazines to get an idea about how to write. I think they should read them to keep up on what's going on, but it's a better idea to read novelists. People like Ishmael Reed, Thomas Pynchon, Toni Morrison, or Ralph Ellison, or George Orwell, Tolkien -- those were all the writers when I was growing up who I really admired and drew inspiration from. Those are the writers who younger writers should read if they want to become great writers. And they should also read poetry. Poetry is helpful in making your writing sing. Pablo Neruda and Derek Walcott are great poets to read. Young journalists should also make sure they don't become too pegged or too linked to one particular subject. You certainly want to be a specialist and an expert in a field you really love, but it's also good to keep your hand in other issues so you can do them.

JournalismJobs.com: Why are we seeing more reunion tours -- more groups making a comeback?

Farley: There are a couple of reasons for that. One is, VH1's "Behind the Music" series is very instrumental in getting a lot of bands that people have forgotten about back in the public eye. If you watch that series, you watch bands that you don't care about. And 'Styx' comes on, maybe you've never listened to a Styx album, maybe you haven't thought about them since the 80s, and suddenly you're drawn into the drama of their lives. Then you go out and buy a Styx album. If they're in town you'll check out their tour. That show alone has helped rejuvenate a lot of interest in some of these long-forgotten bands. Two, bands tend to have secondary lives as a touring presence, long after their lives in stores have waned. A group like the Rolling Stones is still one of the biggest touring acts in the world. They sell more tickets per year than groups like Matchbox Twenty. People's tastes tend to stop changing after age 30 or 40. They settle on the music they like. They really don't want to buy any new music, but they do want to hear the old hits they knew growing up. Over and over again they'll still go out and see Bruce Springsteen. They'll still go out and see the Rolling Stones. Groups realize that they're really not going to sell any more records, their older albums are not going to keep on selling. They want to generate some income, so it's time to hit the road.

JournalismJobs.com: How are music industry publications doing? Are there too many?

Farley: It's hard for me to comment because I haven't had a financial look at the books of these music magazines. There might be some shakeout coming soon. But right now because the music industry is doing pretty well, because there are a number of labels that have generated new stars, from Christina Aguilera to Britney Spears to the Backstreet Boys. As long as that lasts, people are going to want to read publications that talk about these groups.

JournalismJobs.com: What is the most interesting story you've worked on?

Farley: The most interesting piece I've done for Time magazine was a piece I worked on with [my colleague] James Willwerth. It was about this kid named Shareef Cousin. He was a 16-year-old on death row in New Orleans. The story I came up with is the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that puts juvenile offenders on death row. The story we wrote was that he was probably not guilty of the crime that he had been charged with. So along with exposing this larger issue of juveniles on death row, and the problems associated with that, and that they cannot really defend themselves, and that they may be too young to be held responsible for their crime, we may have also done some good in an individual case. In part because of that story, he got a new trial and he escaped those charges. He was still in prison for another charge, but he was not on death row.

Christopher John Farley is a senior writer and the pop music critic for Time Magazine. He appears frequently on MTV, VH1, MSNBC, Fox and CNN to talk about music and pop culture. He is the author of "My Favorite War," and is working on his second novel set in the 19th century in Jamaica.

Originally published in www. JournalismJobs.com

⁽⁰⁾

Basil grows anywhere.
Take advantage of this herb that grows prolifically, just about anywhere. If you don’t have a garden, it will grow in a pot on your balcony. The great thing about basil is that it adds sweetness to your meal and has none of the downside effects of sugar e.g. mood swings, weight gain, addiction, and (yes) acne. In fact, Basil can be used to treat acne; just add boiling water to a bunch of leaves and flowers. Allow to cool, strain and apply directly to the skin.

Try and eat basil as raw as possible: basil grown in strong sun will have the best and most intense flavour and perfume. Basil must be handled carefully: it is preferable to tear the leaves as cutting can produce a strong aniseed flavour. Purple basil (if you can find it…) with its intense flavour and beautiful colour is wonderful in salads as well as mixed with grilled vegetables.

Medicinal qualities include helping with nausea and stomach disorders. Basil juice can be used to treat insect stings and cuts. Basil is particularly good in treating symptoms relating to nervous disorders.

Fenugreek: The Wonder Plant
Fenugreek is a plant that is native to southeast Europe and west Asia. Its seeds are often used in Middle Eastern or North African dishes. The slight bitter taste of this spice enhances the many flavours that are used in Eastern cooking.

Fenugreek is famous for its medicinal qualities. For centuries, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans have used fenugreek to treat various disorders. It can improve cholesterol levels and help stabilise blood sugar in diabetics.
Fenugreek can also aid digestion. Occasionally it can cause diarrhoea, depending on the constitution of the patient, so doses need to be monitored. Decreasing your dose should alleviate this side effect. In addition to seeds and capsules, fenugreek also comes in powder and gum forms.

Ginger is a Powerful Healer
Ginger is thought to have originated in South-East Asia. Its hot, spicy and clean flavours have become popular in many cultures over the centuries. In ancient times it was a highly prized Eastern import to the Roman Empire, where it was used mostly for medicinal purposes. In medieval England, ginger was used as a condiment and was as common as pepper. It was also eaten as a ‘sweet’ in a preserved or glace form. Ginger has been used predominantly in the Middle East, Africa and South America but where it has really flourished has been in Asian cuisine. Eaten sliced, juiced, grated, ground, minced or mashed, or preserved in vinegar or sugar, ginger has become the quintessential spice.

Ginger has been used in Chinese herbal medicine for centuries to purge the body of colds and viruses and as a stimulating tonic for digestive disorders and the female reproductive system. Allowed to steep in tea, it induces sweating, which helps fevers run their course. It also tones and helps boost the immune system.

Ginger is also helpful in the treatment of period pains, digestive disorders, nausea and colds. It has been known to successfully treat travel sickness and nausea in pregnancy; used instead of traditional medication. Its revitalising qualities lift the spirits and ease depression.

A House of Garlic
It is one of the most pungent of vegetables and also the most popular. The powerful bite and odour of garlic are caused by a reaction between sulphur compounds and enzymes which are activated by the air when the bulbs are crushed or cut. Garlic is integral to nearly all stocks, soups and stews. It is credited with medicinal qualities as well as its versatility in cooking, for which it is well known. Used whole, chopped or crushed, raw, sautéed or roasted, garlic has a distinctive flavour (not for the fainthearted…) that can vary from pungent to sweet. Garlic grows underground as a bulb consisting of many cloves, each of which is encased in a papery skin. The smell of garlic only emerges once the cloves are cut, causing damage to the cell walls. The more you cut the cloves, the stronger the smell. Cooking the garlic, however, destroys the compound, rendering it milder and sweeter. When choosing a head of garlic, make sure it is firm and dry, with no discolouration.

Most of the modern research on garlic has concentrated on its ability to lower cholesterol and blood pressure as well as offering protection against strokes and heart disease. While garlic is gathering a reputation for helping to maintain a healthy heart, regular amounts of garlic seem to also help the body fight off infections.

About the author:
You Are What You Eat promotes healthy eating: high quality food is one of the easiest and most effective ways to promote and improve physical well-being. By thinking more carefully about what you eat and making healthier food choices, you can get the very best out of your life. Whatever your size, what you eat is crucial to the way you live, look and feel.

Originally published in http://www.Free-Articles-Zone.com

⁽⁰⁾