How "Thinness" Leads to Obesity

Trey Smith

It has been noted by many that the US has a weight problem. Simply put, a significant number of Americans are fat! This unhealthy situation knows no bounds. It affects rich and poor, male and female, young and old. While obesity crosses many categorical demarcations, it remains true that it touches the poor more than any other group.

On the surface, it sounds like a contradiction in terms. Obesity -- which often erroneously is equated with little more than overeating -- would seem to be the kind of issue at the opposite end of the spectrum for those who struggle to find enough to eat. When we think of the malnourished in the developing world, the pictures we see are of individuals who look like matchsticks! In the US, however, the malnourished often are grossly overweight.

How can this be?

It ends up working out this way in America because of the simple fact that good food is far more expensive than worthless crap. If you are financially poor -- I write from experience -- purchasing organic produce on a regular basis is out of the question. In fact, buying fresh produce of any kind -- including the majority which has been bombarded with all sorts of noxious pesticides -- is vastly more expensive than buying starchy and salt- and/or sugar-laden processed food devoid of much nutritional value.

To make matters worse, while a record number of Americans have signed up for Food Stamps, the program itself has been cut significantly -- you might say said program has been thinned. And so, with less food assistance, even conscientious consumers like Della and I (as of Jan. 1, our monthly Food Stamp allotment will drop to $158/month -- less than $40 per week for 2 adults) are being forced to purchase less nutritious foodstuffs than we would like.

It really comes down to pushing back against hunger. If we were to continue to purchase as much produce as before, we would end up missing a lot of meals each month. The rate things are going, I may turn into the vegetarian who eats few fresh vegetables!

BP - Killing the Poor...Part 2

BP - Killing the Poor...

Taken From the Mouths of Babes

Trey Smith

Food assistance benefits for over 45 million Americans will be slashed starting this Friday, in the first-ever nationwide reduction in benefits under the US government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps.

The cuts total $11 billion over the next three years and amount on average to a month’s worth of food assistance. They will mean yet more privation for millions of working people, including the poorest and most vulnerable members of society — children, elderly people, the unemployed, the disabled and new mothers.

That this brutal cut takes place under conditions of continuing mass unemployment and economic slump, with record numbers of people living in poverty and homelessness and hunger on the rise, testifies to the ruthlessness of the American ruling class. The callous indifference of the media and the entire political establishment, beginning with the Obama White House, to the suffering of broad layers of the population is reflected in their virtual silence on the imminent cutback in benefits.

As far as the corporate-controlled media is concerned, snatching food from the mouths of hungry children is not even worth reporting. As for the politicians, Democrats as well as Republicans are saying virtually nothing because there is a bipartisan agreement to impose the cuts.

Meanwhile, the government bailout of Wall Street and corporate America continues unabated. The Federal Reserve is expected this Wednesday to announce the extension of its $85 billion-a-month subsidy to the stock market and the banks in the form of its “quantitative easing” money-printing operation. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into the financial markets and interest rates have been kept at near-zero to drive up share values to record highs in the midst of the deepest crisis in the real economy since the Great Depression.

This channeling of social wealth into the coffers of the super-rich has produced the highest levels of social inequality in nearly a century. The American financial aristocracy is choking on its own wealth.
~ from Cutting Food Stamps: The Ruthlessness of the American Ruling Class by Andre Damon and Barry Grey ~

This is yet another example of a snippet in which I don't have anything to add. The authors have expressed the indignation over this issue about as well as one might expect.

The Silent Enemy

Trey Smith

We have previously discussed how Congress and the White House continues to spend hundreds of billions on foreign wars without pause but have failed to address an emerging global threat to humanity: antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. It is part of the lunacy that governs this nation. We spend wildly on wars while largely ignoring a threat that could endanger the entire population. Recently, Thomas Frieden, director of the Center of Disease Control and Prevention, put it in the starkest terms to try to get someone to pay attention. Indeed, Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization, has warned that we are moving into a “post-antibiotic era.” That means “an end to modern medicine as we know it. Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”

The CDC has been presenting data on the rise of bacteria resistance to carbapenems, the most powerful antibiotics that represent our final line of defense. CDC is reporting the appearance of the bacteria now in every state and what it describes as the realization of the “nightmare” scenario for the medical field. Frieden puts the estimate now at over 2 million Americans with infections each year that are resistant to antibiotics. Of those, at least 23,000 people die as a result. To get perspective, we have been waging wars for over ten years at a cost of over a trillion dollars after 3000 were killed by Islamic fanatics. Almost ten times that number are dying each year from this crisis and we are looking at an exponential increase. Yet, few members of Congress have even mentioned this threat or the need for a “war on resistant bacteria.” It just doesn’t get you the same popularity and votes as demanding more defense appropriations. While money has been gradually increased in recent years, it is still a fraction of our appropriations given to pork projects and war efforts.
~ from The End Of Modern Medicine: CDC Reports Millions Faced With Drug-Resistant Bacteria And Rising Death Toll As Washington Ignores The Emerging Crisis by Jonathan Turley ~

You want to know one of the primary reasons WHY there are antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria? It is because we overuse antibiotics! Instead of only using them when needed, the marketplace is flooded with them.

The meat industry is largely to blame. Cows, chickens and pigs that are destined to be served on American dinner tables are force-fed antibiotics. That keeps them healthy enough -- often in unsanitary conditions -- to pass inspection and to become the meat that you meat-eaters eat! Meat producers follow this strategy because (surprise, surprise) it cuts costs and increases profits.

Health advocates have been warning for years that this doomed strategy would lead us to where we find ourselves today, but the powers that be didn't care. As long as those short-term profits kept rolling in, our political leaders and the corporate meat industry was more than willing to turn a blind eye. And now, it doesn't matter if you are a meat-eater or not; this vexing problem can strike A-N-Y-O-N-E at any time. Even worse, there's not a whole helluva lot you can do about it!

Fido Getting Jerked Around

Trey Smith

There is a recent report that 580 pet dogs and cats in the US have died after eating jerky-type treats. The FDA suspects that these treats have been imported from China, but they can't be sure. Why can't they be sure?

Manufacturers of pet foods are not required to state the country of origin for each ingredient in their products.

We see the big food conglomerates fighting labeling of GMOs for human consumption. We've seen them also fight having to list the country of origin for products used by humans. And why do they fight such initiatives tooth-and-nail? Because they don't want us to know the crap they put in the products we buy!!

Wholesome, healthy and safe ingredients can cut into a corporation's profit margin. Since profits are god, we certainly can't have that! So, in order to keep prices within reach of middle America, companies search for and utilize a variety of questionable ingredients and this "stuff" helps to maintain a company's market share and profits.

Now we know that it is not only we humans who ingest substandard food; our pets also are made sick or less healthy by the commercial crud we feed them.

Someone Else Needs To Go On a Diet

Trey Smith

There is a very interesting article over at ProPublica, "Do These Chemicals Make Me Look Fat?", that you should take a look at. The main thesis is that the obesity epidemic seen in the world today may have a very important variable that is not being considered: chemicals in our environment.

You see, it's not just people who are growing fatter.  Both domesticated animals and those who live in close proximity to humans are growing heftier too.  So, it would seem that the two main causes typically identified -- junk food and lack of exercise -- don't necessarily apply to many of these critters. 

What is it then that humans and these animals share in common?  We each live in a world contaminated and polluted by an almost ubiquitous array of chemicals.  We find this stuff in the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the gadgets we play with and in the air, water and soil.  In our modern world, it is next too impossible to escape the reach of chemicals.

More than a decade ago, Paula Baille-Hamilton, a visiting fellow at Stirling University in Scotland who studies toxicology and human metabolism, started perusing scientific literature for chemicals that might promote obesity. She turned up so many papers containing evidence of chemical-induced obesity in animals (often, she says, passed off by study authors as a fluke in their work) that it took her three years to organize evidence for the aptly titled 2002 review paper: “Chemical Toxins: A Hypothesis to Explain the Global Obesity Epidemic.” “I found evidence of chemicals that affect every aspect of our metabolism,” Baille-Hamilton said. Carbamates, which are used in insecticides and fungicides, can suppress the level of physical activity in mice. Phthalates are used to give flexibility to plastics and are found in a wide array of scented products, from perfume to shampoo. In people, they alter metabolism and have been found in higher concentrations in heavier men and women.

No one is suggesting that chemicals are the sole villains here. I think there is no question that poor eating habits and a lack of physical activity play a role. But these make for easy targets because they focus on personal responsibility, while taking corporate responsibility out of the mix. They focus on individual shortcomings, while leaving the captains of industry free to pursue almighty profit at all costs.

Why are we so willing to focus on two vices -- sloth and gluttony -- while giving another vice -- greed -- a free pass?

A Dud of a Blow Job

Trey Smith

After listening to a week's worth of nasty predictions about the weather, we really dodged a bullet. While South Bend was hammered by the storm -- strong winds and nearly 5 inches of rain in 24 hours -- it fortunately didn't make it as far north as Ocean Shores. While our crew of 4 had to deal with rain and wind on Moving Day, it was nothing out of the ordinary for autumn on the Washington Coast.

Though the weather wasn't half the impediment that we anticipated, it still was a long and back-breaking day. My old body is so worn out that I'm taking today off.

~

After we finished moving our furniture and belongings into our new apartment, we treated our two helpers to a big lunch at a local pizzeria. When Della and I lived in Aberdeen about 6 years ago, this restaurant was our favorite place to eat in Ocean Shores. On the drive up, we raved about the quality of the food and both of us were REALLY looking forward to eating there.

Well, we did eat there...but the great pizza we remember wasn't so great! In fact, on a scale 1 - 10, I'd rate the pizza we had at about a 5. It just goes to show that you can't always judge the present by the past. Things change and not all those changes are for the better.

TYT - House Votes To Cut Food Stamps By $40 Billion

Hypocrisy Should Have an "F" In It Somewhere

Trey Smith

One of the questions the curious voter from time to time wonders, is how a person can distinguish good government handouts from bad government handouts. The answer to that question is not as obvious as it would seem to be to the uninitiated. The question was most recently posed (and answered) by U.S. Representative, Stephen Fincher, a member of the House of Representatives from the 8th Congressional District in Tennessee.

Mr. Fincher has distinguished himself by standing up for the right of the poor to prove their self-sufficiency by not partaking of the food stamp program. Because the poor are not always as motivated as they should be and in the case of parents with children but without funds to care for them, unable to keep their lives together, Mr. Fincher believes they should work harder to earn what they require to live as he, and others like him, do. The problem he is helping them address is their dependence on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as the food stamp program.
~ from Subsidies for Me, But Not For You by Christopher Brauchli ~

Stephen Fincher is one of those fiscally conservative Republicans who support a Farm Bill that would cut $20 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP (Food Stamps) AND increase subsidies for crop insurance. Because he serves in the US House of Representatives and receives a salary of $174,000, he is not eligible for SNAP. Interestingly enough, he IS a farmer and as a farmer he routinely accepts farm subsidies.

As Brauchli notes,

Between 1995 and 2012 Fincher Farms in Tennessee received payments totaling $4,180,287, almost all of that from commodity subsidies. In collecting those subsidies his farm was one of the ten percent in Tennessee that collected 87 percent of all subsidies paid in that state. Seventy eight percent of Tennessee farms received no subsidies.

During that 16 year period, Fincher received, on average, $261,000 per year. Compare this to the monthly average household amount of SNAP -- $275.42 (FY 2013) -- received by people not named Rep. Stephen Fincher. If we take that average monthly amount and multiply it by 12 months, the total outlay is $3,305.04.

So, Mr. Fincher contends that those who receive around $3300 per year should "prove their self-sufficiency by not partaking of the food stamp program." But he has no qualms about people like himself accepting a handout from taxpayers to the tune of more than one-quarter million dollars per year. Not only that, but he wants even more taxpayer dollars set aside for farm subsidies for farmers like himself who, somehow, don't need to show that they are self-sufficient at all.

I think we need a new word for this type of loathsome attitude. How about hyfocrisy?

Let Them Eat...Dust!

Trey Smith

The fiscal conservatives are at it again! As they seem to do several times per year, they are making another push to cut the budget for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (what is commonly called Food Stamps). Yes, despite the fact that income inequality is at historic levels and far too many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, fiscal conservatives want to take food out of their mouths.

Andy Fitzgerald, a recently hired intern at the Guardian, wrote a nice piece on how he found himself on Food Stamps, even though he is a recent graduate of "a top liberal arts college." Despite his clean, new diploma, Andy had troubled finding a good paying job -- imagine that! -- and Food Stamps kept him from starving.

The point is that any individual who qualifies for SNAP should use it regardless of race, background, education, gender identity, or misplaced sense of pride. The more this view is socially accepted, the more we can have an honest conversation about the safety net without prejudice and stereotypes.

Were I given the opportunity to speak to Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, or other critics perpetuating myths about SNAP, I would share my personal story. Food stamps kept me from going hungry, and gave me the support necessary to eventually secure an internship at the Guardian.

People on food stamps are people; with friends and family, difficulties and aspirations. People also have pride. When we perpetuate myths about social assistance, we discourage those who are eligible from enrolling. America shouldn't let people go hungry. Assistance programs should be about giving people a hand up, not about putting them down.

Della and I currently are on the Food Stamps program. When we first went on the program back when I was in grad school, I was embarrassed. I grew up in a middle class family and I understood the stigma that went along with it. I would do our weekly shopping late in the evening, just a few minutes before the store closed. I chose this time in the hopes that none of my classmates would see me. What would they think if they knew that I was so financially poor that I needed government assistance?

Once I finished grad school, we didn't need that kind of assistance for nearly 15 years. We were never rich during that time, but we earned just enough to keep our heads above water (plus I had available money from a small trust fund set up upon my mother's death). However, in the early part of this century, the symptoms of my mental health issues began to get worse and, in time, I ceased to work and went on disability. Della kept working, but since she rarely made slightly above the minimum wage, we soon found ourselves back on the Food Stamps program.

Now that Della is disabled too (chronic respiratory failure), our financial future is bleak. With the exception of Congress-approved [possible] cost of living raises, our monthly income is capped at less than $1100. If not for the Food Stamp program, we would be faced with impossible choices like food versus rent or food versus utilities.

Hey Eric Cantor, what do you have against people like us?

BP - Meat...Do You Want Feces Chunks With That?

Beef Producers Aren't Mooved

Trey Smith

After surviving years of drought and watching the size of the U.S. cattle herd fall to its lowest level in more than 60 years, Texas cattleman Bob McCan would just as soon steer clear of the U.S. government’s latest meat-labeling rules.

For many U.S. consumers, it’s a popular idea: Label packages to let them know what country the meat comes from.

But with his herd of roughly 4,000 including cattle from Mexico, McCan said there’s no good reason to segregate the animals when he sells them. All it would do, he said, is create hundreds of millions of dollars of extra handling costs that would get passed on, driving up the price at grocery stores.

“We don’t want beef to become a luxury item,” said McCan, a fifth-generation rancher from Victoria, Texas.

McCan, now the president-elect of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, is among a group of cattle producers and meat companies that has sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture for moving ahead in late May with new country-of-origin labeling rules.

In a lawsuit filed July 8 in U.S. District Court in Washington, the groups claim the labels will hurt beef exports and are unconstitutional as “compelled speech” that doesn’t advance a government interest.

Backers of the new rules, who say labeling can be done at a minimal cost, are braced for another battle with cattle producers.

“They’re totally wrong – consumers have the right to know where products are from,” said Joel Joseph, chairman of the Los Angeles-based Made in the USA Foundation, a group that promotes labeling and products manufactured in the United States. “It’s not forced speech. It’s just consumer information, the same kind of information that’s on a label of a new car that says where an engine’s from.”
~ from Cattle Producers Want To Get Rid of New Meat Labels by Rob Hotakainen ~

This idea that changed labeling -- of all things -- is too costly is absolutely ridiculous. Food companies do it all the time. There are numerous reasons for this: a new logo, redesigned packaging or to promote -- often untrue -- health claims.

Almost every time a box or package shrinks in size, we are treated to words like "new and improved". The company hopes that we will be dazzled by the increased point size of the words or the snazzy colors employed, so we don't notice we are paying the same price or higher for less of the product!

What food producers don't like is being forced to provide valuable consumer information on their products. When it comes to important information of THAT nature, they trot out all sorts of excuses for why it is not needed or too costly. Hmm. Sure makes a person wonder what they are trying to hide!

TYT - More Teen Boys Suffering From Eating Disorders Too

Watch Out, Monsanto!

Trey Smith

When it comes to citizen activism, I live in a very pedestrian area. People around here don't tend to get collectively up in arms about anything. Use of drones? Yawn. Bailouts to Wall Street? Blink. Even hot-button social issues like abortion or same sex marriage don't cause the local minions to awaken from their lethargy.

So, it was rather shocking last weekend when a march (and informational booths) was held to protest the agri-giant, Monsanto. It wasn't heavily attended, but Della and I happened by near the end and the adjacent parking lot was crammed full of vehicles. This was at the point when things were winding down.

As reported by Democracy Now!, "actions were held in 52 countries and 436 cities around the world, including New York City and Mexico City." One of those cities happened to be Raymond, Washington!

You may not have realized that hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets last Saturday because, by and large, the mainstream media decided not to cover these events. No matter. The lack of coverage didn't dissuade people from joining in.

If I was Monsanto, I would be more than a bit alarmed. While I'm sure the corporate big wigs aren't shaking in their boots due to a small protest along the southwestern Washington Coast, they should be. If even people here are fed up with Monsanto and their GMOs, that would seem to indicate that a groundswell is growing against this corporate bully. Maybe, just maybe, the unwashed masses are starting to wake up.

TYT - The Truth About 'Healthy' Fast Food

Oh Shaddup Already

Trey Smith

Rep. Steve King is a Republican Congressman from Iowa. On his website, under the issues tab, there is a statement called "Upholding the Constitution." As part of this statement, he writes,

I believe that our great Founding Fathers implicitly understood the threat posed to individual liberties by a large and intrusive federal government. One of the ways the Founding Fathers sought to limit the power of the federal government was by reserving powers to the individual states, and to the people themselves. I am a firm believer in states' rights, which is why I am a proud member of the Tenth Amendment Caucus, which focuses on restoring the critical balance between the powers of the states and those of the federal government. (emphasis mine)

After reading his declaration, you might be a wee bit surprised by the following news item.

On Wednesday, May 15, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill, inserted under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. If the King Amendment makes it into the final Farm Bill, it would take away states’ rights to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and animals raised for food, that is involved in interstate commerce. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California. But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law. (again, emphasis mine)

You see, conservatives care immensely about states' rights...except when they don't! For example, they don't want the federal government to legalize same-sex marriage. THAT should be left to individual states to decide. But when it comes to doing the bidding of Corporate America, that's completely different. All of a sudden, they have no qualms about "a large and intrusive federal government."

This isn't some anomaly either. The states' rights argument almost always is red herring. They want America to be shaped to their ideology. When the federal government makes decisions they don't favor, then they become "champions" of states' rights. When states make decisions they don't favor, then they become "champions" of federal decision-making.

Where Have We Heard This Story Before?

Trey Smith

Each time there is a mass shooting in the US, we seem to follow the same scenario. Citizens and lawmakers vow that this tragedy will be the one that ushers in a serious discussion about this nation's insane guns laws. While the wounds are fresh, it is said that a whole host of curbs and protections will be enacted. Sadly, once the nation's attention moves on to focus on the next sensational issue, the rhetoric dies out and the few, if any, measures discussed and subsequently passed are about as weak and watered down as they can get.

Guess what. There is another potentially dangerous issue that tends to follow this same path.

Nothing changes — whatever familiar measures are announced after every food scandal, once the politicians, manufacturers and retailers have made their claims and counterclaims, and after we’ve gone through the ritual demands for transparency, traceability and labeling. What we really need to do is widen our focus from the contents of “beef” lasagne to the intersecting routes of the current global agricultural system.

It seems that no matter how many consumers are killed or sickened, food policy in the US -- like gun policy -- doesn't change substantially. In fact, in many ways, our laws and regulations aimed at protecting the public food supply are moving in the opposite direction!

Even before the federal budget sequester period began, funds have been cut to those agencies charged with inspecting our food. There are fewer food inspectors today than there were 5 or 10 years ago and there weren't enough of them back then. Our main food suppliers are allowed to write the laws and regulations that ostensibly oversee them and even these minimal standards routinely are undercut and abused.

It amazes me that so many of my fellow US citizens can get so up in arms over supposed attacks on their 2nd Amendment rights and yet they seem wholly unconcerned with the basic human right to safe and quality food. A gun won't do you much good if the food you eat is so tainted that you can't muster the strength to pick up the gun in the first place!!

Bhutan Leads the Way

Trey Smith

I write a lot about American Exceptionalism -- it's an exceptionalism that predominantly is negative. In this instance, however, I'm going to share with you a news story that speaks to positive exceptionalism. It would be nice if the snippet below was about America, but that isn't the case at all.

Bhutan plans to become the first country in the world to turn its agriculture completely organic, banning the sales of pesticides and herbicides and relying on its own animals and farm waste for fertilisers.

But rather than accept that this will mean farmers of the small Himalayan kingdom of 1.2 million people will be able to grow less food, the government expects them to be able to grow more – and to export increasing amounts of high quality niche foods to neighbouring India, China and other countries.

The decision to go organic was both practical and philosophical, said Pema Gyamtsho, Bhutan's minister of agriculture and forests, in Delhi for the annual sustainable development conference last week.

"Ours is a mountainous terrain. When we use chemicals they don't stay where we use them, they impact the water and plants. We say that we need to consider all the environment. Most of our farm practices are traditional farming, so we are largely organic anyway.

"But we are Buddhists, too, and we believe in living in harmony with nature. Animals have the right to live, we like to to see plants happy and insects happy," he said.

Gee, it makes me wonder, if more Americans embraced Buddhism or Taoism, that maybe, just maybe, we would lead the world by example and truly be a beacon on the hill...like Bhutan!

Real Life Tao - The Water Line

Trey Smith

One of the key principles in philosophical Taoism is wu wei -- loosely translated as "go with the flow." Both Laozi and Zhuangzi urge us toward genuine spontaneity and learning to live in the moment. In some ways, this general idea has sort of a hippie-like ring to it: Peace, Love and Rock 'n Roll.

But there is another aspect to it as well. To be truly spontaneous, we must concurrently be disciplined and focused. If we don't pay attention to what we are doing, scads of opportunities will pass us by and we will be none the wiser.

As so often happens in our lives, the lesson of mindfulness is best learned from situations in which we allow our attention to become divided. I relearned this lesson earlier today.

I spent the later morning cutting up a variety of vegetables for a soup I planned to eat at supper. I included ample amounts of carrots, parsnips, celery root, mushrooms, red pepper, leek and a large red potato. I placed these items in my soup pot with an adequate amount of water, a vegetarian vegetable bouillon cube and a complement of spices and seasonings. I set the temperature of my electric stove on medium high.

Remembering that my brother told me yesterday that my favorite uncle had been in the hospital with a severe bout of pneumonia, I decided to call Uncle Gene in Arkansas. He reported that, in the beginning of his illness, it was touch-and-go, but he is doing much better now. Since we hadn't talked for several months, we had a lot of catching up to do.

We talked and talked and talked. At about the 45 minute mark, I realized I had completely forgotten that I had a soup pot on the stove. I grabbed my cordless phone, while still talking with my uncle, and raced downstairs. To my horror, all the water had been boiled out of the soup pot and the vegetables were burnt. I had to throw the whole mess out and I will need to scrub the burned vegetables off of the bottom of the pan.

While I had a great conversation with Uncle Gene, this distraction diverted my attention from making good soup. If I had been more mindful of what I was trying to accomplish, I could have waited to call Uncle Gene once the soup had gotten to the point I could set the burner on simmer OR I simply could have turned down the burner while making the call and turned it back up once the call was finished. I didn't do either, so I now must come up with something different for supper.

I am in no way suggesting that a person can't accomplish two or more tasks simultaneously. But to be successful, a person must be mindful of the task[s] at hand. In this case, I wasn't.

This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.