Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Month: September 2008

Thank You Bono…

Posted on September 25, 2008July 10, 2025

… for not being afraid to speak truth to power.

From Reuters –

As Congress debates a White House-proposed $700 billion bailout for the worst financial crisis since the Depression of the 1930s, Bono questioned why wealthy countries had not been able to come up with enough aid for the world’s problems.

“It is extraordinary to me that you can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G8 can’t find $25 billion to save 25,000 children who die every day of preventable treatable disease and hunger,” the U2 lead singer told Clinton’s fourth annual philanthropic summit in New York. “That’s mad, that is mad.” … “Bankruptcy is a serious business and we all know people who have lost their jobs,” Bono said, referring to the bankruptcy declared by Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. “But this is moral bankruptcy.”

Read more

Breastfeeding – Sexual or Natural?

Posted on September 24, 2008July 10, 2025

To be perfectly honest, a majority of my time these days is spent nursing Aidan. He’s three months and huge (and I think just beginning to crawl) – basically because he does nothing but eat and then eat some more. So breastfeeding is by default on my mind these days, but it has also recently caught the attention of the media yet once again.

A few years ago breastfeeding made major headlines when Mothering Magazine was pulled from various store shelves for featuring a breastfeeding baby on the cover. As I recall the general response I heard (mostly from Christians online) was that the cover was inappropriate – potentially causing men to stumble. The response revealed the assumption that breasts are solely sexual (as opposed to maternal and nurturing) – an assumption deeply ingrained in our culture. Well in the recent Sept/Oct issue of Mothering Magazine Professor Sarah Rubenstein-Gillis’ article “Reel Milk” explored the depiction of breastfeeding in popular films and what that has to say about our culture. And the article has once again caused quite a stir as the media is forced to examine its assumptions and objectifications of women.

Despite being recommended by the WHO, CCD, and AAP and the way God created women to feed their children, breastfeeding is still difficult for women in America. From hospital nurses insisting on feeding newborns formula, to lack of pumping time at work it is an uphill battle that many American women abandon after just a few weeks. So as the article explored, cultural conceptions and presentations of breastfeeding can affect maternal habits. As the author writes –

while it seems unlikely that the way infant feeding is depicted in any given film would, by itself, make or break a viewer’s resolve to breastfeed her child, each portrayal becomes part of a cumulative set of images and perspectives gathered over a lifetime that, consciously or not, can influence the way a person thinks and feels about the subject. If specific messages are repeated often and strongly enough, they can begin to seem like “the norm” – and norms, as most sociologists would argue, often dictate behavior.

So how does Hollywood depict breastfeeding? Generally as either a joke or as sexual imagery. Men are shown fantasizing as women nurse, or prostitutes encouraged to breastfeed for the novelty factor for their clients, or the act of breastfeeding is the opening to an affair. And then there are the jokes (such as the “Mannary Gland” in Meet the Fockers)- apt to our culture’s tendency to make light of whatever we are uncomfortable with or would rather not have to think about. And children’s movies seem to send the message that nursing is for animal babies and bottles are for humans – shaping perception of what is normal for years to come. There are of course a few films that contain positive and natural examples of breastfeeding, but they are (of course) mostly independent and foreign films. The typical American blockbuster sends the message loud and clear that breasts are sexual objects only – to be ogled, objectified, and joked about.

Unfortunately even women play along in this objectification and discomfort. I found it amusing recently that at the MOPS group I attend the women (in a room full of other women) either leave the room or cover up to breastfeed. Feeding our children must be hidden. And I am part of that. I use a nursing shawl in public because I really don’t want to deal with the crap (strange looks, requests to leave/cover-up) I get from complete strangers. But of course my cowardice to confront those who objectify me when I breastfeed only allows them to continue in that pattern.

So what do you think it will take for breastfeeding to be portrayed (and practiced) as “the norm” in America? Can breastfeeding be seen as natural and maternal, or is it impossible for our culture to see breasts as anything but sex objects?

Read more

Faith, Truth, and Sola Scriptura

Posted on September 23, 2008July 10, 2025

So yesterday I was able to get out and go hear Phyllis Tickle speak at St. David’s church here in Austin. It was nice to get out of the house and pretend for a few hours that I am still a thinking adult and not just a spit-up depository. Phyllis discussed the ideas in her new book The Great Emergence (which I blogged on recently here). She of course is brilliant in her understanding of religious trends and the transformative impact of historical events. I am really looking forward to reading the book, and wish I could attend The Great Emergence conference in December to explore these ideas further.

One thing she brought up yesterday that really stood out to me was the idea that the major controversial issues the church deals with (slavery, women’s rights, homosexuality…) are significant mainly because they challenge the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. For most people it doesn’t matter if their reading of the Bible on those issues is perhaps wrong or biased – they interpret the Bible a certain way and anything that challenges that interpretation is a direct challenge to scripture. One could argue until one is blue in the face that the Bible really doesn’t condone slavery or support the subjugation of women, but any challenge to their preconceived notions is a death blow to Sola Scriptura. There are of course all sorts of discussions regarding foundationalism and theories of truth that relate to this idea, but her discussion connected to me on a more visceral level in relation to basic underpinnings of faith.

Recently Mike and I have had numerous conversations on how one approaches the Bible. In seminary he is mildly irritated at the either/or approach one is offered when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Either one is a literalist or one is a historic liberal. It’s one or the other. Which is of course annoying to those of us who take a slightly more middle ground. But in discussing the good parts of historical source criticism, I’ve seen that often my gut response is not to explore the truth behind such claims, but to react to how they change my faith. The good moral lessons or words of encouragement that I was taught were the core meaning behind certain bible stories no longer exist when those stories are approached from a different perspective. I find myself uncomfortable not because such things challenge truth, but because they challenge the cultural trappings of my religious tradition. I have to ask if my faith is truly in God or if it is in the presentation of the christian faith as it has been given to me.

I have no problem exploring that question and rethinking what I believe. But others see such questioning of biblical interpretation as questioning the Bible itself. It is all about our faith in Sola Scriptura as Phyllis mentioned. It is about an idea – a constructed way of being – more than it is truly about the Bible or truth. Questions and doubts challenge the superiority of our intellect and undermine our egotistical perceptions of self. We spin it other ways, but it comes down to basic posturing and the inability to admit we are wrong.

So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?

Read more

Myopic History

Posted on September 21, 2008July 10, 2025

So one of my favorite TV shows of the moment is Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations. It’s a snarky, highly self-aware food/travel show that eschews touristy conceits in favor of telling local stories. Good stuff.

Well the other day I happened to catch an episode on Laos. Now I doubt the typical American traveler is planning a vacation to Laos anytime soon. Most of us know nothing about Laos (as the episode bluntly pointed out). But the purpose of this particular episode was not to sell US viewers on exotic destinations, but to instead say “see how stupid and uninformed we Americans are of the ways we have screwed up the world.”

I know about as much as the average American about Laos – that is next to nothing. I even majored in history and took an Asian history class (for which the prof decided to skip all of South East Asian history because it was just too complicated … but perhaps because it was just too controversial for a school like Wheaton). So like any “good” American I knew little about our illegal acts of war in Laos during the Vietnam war. Or how the country still is plagued by millions of unexploded bombs scattering the countryside – waiting to be uncovered by farmers, builders, or children.

In the episode Anthony Bourdain follows a team that is uncovering these death traps lurking in the fields of Laos. And he sits down to a simple meal with a family where the young father had his arm and leg blown off when he accidentally uncovered a bomb. Families paying high prices for their country being a pawn in the game of nations before they were born.

What struck me as I watched the episode was the unapologetic attempt to show Americans our dirty laundry that doesn’t make it into textbooks or AP exams. It’s hard to ignore current conflicts, although the media does a great job of hiding the brutal reality of Iraq. And it is easy to justify violent engagement in WW2 (as Godwin’s Law repeatedly demonstrates…). This is even a country where some people still think it’s wrong (even sinful) to question US involvement in Vietnam (”but of course colonialism is a good thing…”). But the less than pretty and often completely illegal military missions our country has engaged in are generally unknown to the average American.

I was well into college before I even learned about US military manipulations of dictatorships and coups in Central America. But I didn’t learn such things in my classes. A very social justice oriented friend who also happened to be  Hispanic did her best to educate people on how the US has controlled and harmed other countries. Of course the response from other students generally was to deny her stories and to call her biased and unreliable. Few ever took the time to ferret out the truth – choosing to place blind faith in the absolute goodness of the USA instead.

War is often seen as only a glorious endeavor and these covert operations to protect our own interests are swept aside and hidden away. Maybe it’s too hard to chant “USA! USA! We’re #1″ when the battle isn’t spun as “protecting our freedom” but is in reality the rape and slaughter of peasants because they occupied land full of mahogany forests we coveted (Haiti 1915). So we just stay confused and accuse the rest of the world of being jealous of our freedom when they speak words against us. Maybe if we would just get over ourselves we would realize that the Lao man whose limbs were blown off just wants to provide for his family again. They aren’t jealous of us, perhaps they just want to reclaim all that we have stolen from them.

Read more

Motivation and the Kingdom

Posted on September 16, 2008July 10, 2025

So for the past month or so I’ve been thinking about the motivation behind one’s pursuit of a cause. Do we do things because they are the right thing to do or because we desire to succeed at reaching a goal? Must a goal be obtainable if we decide to pursue it?

Let me explain the context of my thoughts. Before we moved, I went to go see The Dark Knight with a group of friends. On the way home we were discussing the movie and I brought up Peter Rollin’s blog post on Batman as the ultimate capitalist superhero. In this post Rollins writes –

Batman is unable to see that the subjective crime he fights on a nightly basis is the direct manifestation of the objective crime he perpetrates on a daily basis. The street crime is the explosion of violence that results from greedy, large industries obsessed with the increase of abstract capital at the expense of all else.

As part of the discussion a friend suggested that if someone like Bruce Wayne (with infinite resources and a desire for justice) couldn’t manage to succeed at living justly within the economic system, who could? For her this discouraged her pursuit of such a lifestyle. If one could not obtain the goal of living completely justly within an economic system then why bother at all.  She needed a goal to strive towards that could ultimately be obtained.

I countered that while I believe that it is impossible to live completely justly within our current economic system, I know that I can work to help create a system that is just little by little. Instead of being an individual pursuing a certain goal, I see myself as just part of a larger movement. I have been called to live a certain way – to seek first the Kingdom of God in all things – and I will follow that command. I merely fulfill my duty to the best of my ability.

This distinction is one I hear repeated often. I’ve heard over and over again the accusation that small lifestyle changes (like using cfl light-bulbs or buying fair trade) really have very little effect in the grand scheme of things. Those actions won’t solve all the problems, so why bother? Or if I show support for a religious gathering or political movement I am accused of placing my hope and salvation in their hands. Apparently if I support anything it is because I think they have the power to change everything with the wave of a magic wand. It’s all or nothing in this view. Either the goal is out there, obtainable to all, or it’s not worth getting involved at all.

Maybe I’m just too postmodern, but I prefer to just be part of the process. I know that revolutions take time. I can’t name a date in the future and say that by that date all economic systems will be just. I can’t even say that someday such a goal will be reached. Certain things like justice aren’t goals to be checked off a to do list and forgotten as we move on to the next item. They are constant pursuits – elusive and everchanging. Seekers and followers must adapt and change as circumstances change. To engage at all we must be willing to merely be part of a process – players in a larger game motivated not by the idea of winning the game but by enjoyment of (or commitment to) the game itself.

But the question remains – is the average modern person capable of eschewing goals? Or are we too entrenched in skinneristic systems and outcome oriented structures to abandon goals and live in the ambiguity of process? Is seeking the Kingdom enough or do we insist on grasping hold of it?

Read more

Who’s this “God” you speak of…

Posted on September 12, 2008July 10, 2025

So since I have had zero time this week to blog (wishing I could just upload straight from my brain without all this stupid having to sit at a computer and type business…) I thought I’d just post a few amusing pictures.

Wendy sent me this one from The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks. I’d really love to know what that sermon series was about. I’m picturing an anti-emergent tirade about all of us Kingdom theology people…

and then Karen sent this. Who doesn’t want the Sarah Palin action figure?

Read more

Claiming Emergent

Posted on September 8, 2008July 10, 2025

So apparently the trend this past week has been to publicly declare if one is in or out with the whole emerging/emergent thing. I have a mixed reaction to the discussion. On one hand I want to admit that yes, I am Emergent and have no problem supporting that group. But on the other hand, I find the whole process of drawing lines and declaring teams to be a bit silly. So in my near incoherent ramblings that seem to be my modus operandi these days (getting computer time in 5 minute snatches is starting to get annoying…) I’ll try to explain what I mean.

I’m Done With Pretending
I’ve spent far too much time in recent years playing a role that was not who I am. I existed in church circles where I let others assume I was just like them. I knew who I was (my politics, my theology, my cultural habits) did not fit into their box of what a good little suburban evangelical woman should be. So I let them assume lies about me instead of rocking the boat. I’m done with that (okay, I’m attempting to be done with that). I am part of this emerging/emergent conversation and I am not going to hide from that. Sure I could use whatever euphemisms I desire, but in all truth the emerging/Emergent label fits who I am. Sure there are numerous people out there that don’t understand what those things mean. They hear the term “emerging church” and assume we burn our bibles, worship Satan, and eat or children (or something similar). Do I choose to lie to make up for their stupidity, ignorance, and closed-mindedness? I will try to be upfront and transparent with what I believe, if others would rather believe hearsay about me, then that is their problem. All too often we emergents are accused of not caring about truth – at this point I’d rather be truthful about who I am than let the misunderstanding and judgements of others force me to hide.

This is My Tribe
I am at home with the emergent crowd. For the most part I agree with the books written by Emergent leaders. I’m not following them with mindless devotion or joining a personality cult as some have accused (in order to dismiss the whole idea and avoid real discussion). But I like the ideas that they are discussing and have resonated with their faith journeys. I’ve appreciated the resources provided by Emergent and have benefited from the networks it created. I have my criticisms of Emergent and have even expressed them here. But I like to think that I do so as part of the group not as an outside critic. I have found a community with Emergent and want to help shape it into the best it can be.

I am not afraid or organization but neither do I see Emergent as my church or denomination. The fears that others have expressed on that issue are lost on me. I am very low church and have never been too fond of denominations (possibly the result of my non-denom Bible church upbringing). By affiliating with Emergent I am not joining a new denomination, but neither am I abandoning any other (since I have none to abandon). There has been much talk recently about the need to just bring the emerging conversation into existing congregations and denominations. Phyllis Tickle recently wrote about –

…churches and congregations that are moving to embrace emergent Christian thought while melding it with extant and/or historic expressions of the faith. They are known as the hyphenateds. They are the presbymergents and methomergents, the luthermergents, and the baptimergents, the submergents and the anglimergents, etc. They fascinate me more even than do completely emergent congregations, because they seem to me to be engaged in the more difficult task of bringing to the party the best of two worlds, the ancient and the future. They are hyphenated, in other words, because they seek to meld the DNA and passion and post-modern theology of a new form of Christianity with the extant body and operative history of an established tradition.

As much as I love Phyllis Tickle, I do not see myself in her description of churches. I don’t have a tradition to meld and am really not interested in joining one for the mere sake of claiming a tradition. So while others can have a great time being hyphenateds, I am a low-church mutt who has no problem calling gathering with other like minded believers “church.” I’ve found where I belong and I am going to claim it. I don’t fear too much or too little organization nor am I wary of labels. I just want to be part of the community.

I Like Diversity
Missional, Emergent, emerging, ancient/future… Do we really have to each be separate and distinct groups that have nothing to do with each other? Sure there are widely different expression of faith among each of them, but do we have to build walls and delineate boundaries so intricately? I know that this might just be me, but I’m okay with ambiguity. I like agreeing to disagree. A huge value in our old church was that it was okay to disagree with each other as a worshiping community. I didn’t have to have my identity spelled out for me by someone else nor was I afraid to associate with people who weren’t exactly like me. I like being part of the emerging conversation where some people are experimenting radically with worship, others exploring what it means to live missionally, and still others digging deep into theology. Some of us are doing all of those things (and more), others simply desire to engage in one or two aspects of the conversation. But we are all part of the discussion, repeated for every generation and era, of what it means to be a follower of Christ in our world. I’d rather us coexist than have certain streams take their ball and go play somewhere else. In the past I’ve heard people reject the emerging church for theological reasons, recently I’ve begun to hear people reject us because of our infighting. They see a splintered group with various factions seeking dominion over each other. So instead of unraveling into such rigid and modern subsets, I’d prefer us to accept postmodern ambiguity and coalesce as a diverse and inclusive (albeit hard to define) community. Would loving and accepting and supporting each other really be that difficult?

So I claim the term Emergent, but find this whole labeling war a bit silly. Does it really matter who’s in or out? Have we abandoned humility and love of neighbor so that we can each get our way? Of course all of this is messy and awkward. Of course we will disagree from time to time. Of course we will have to be generous and understanding with each other. But isn’t all that just a normal part of being a Christ follower trying to live faithfully each and every day?

(and yes, I see how these thoughts could be called merely naive. I’d prefer to call them simply frustrated but hopeful…)

Read more

Coming Home Environmentally

Posted on September 7, 2008July 10, 2025

Having recently moved back to the town I grew up in (Austin, TX), I’ve had ample opportunity in the past few weeks to reminisce.  Austin is a very environmentally friendly town and I am enjoying exploring the eco-options for shopping and doing life around town.  Yet as I reflect on my experience as a youth here, I recall that my introduction to environmentalism was a rather conflicted experience.

 

I attended the local science academy for Jr. High where I took classes like Environmental Science and joined the science club.  Our activities included beach and river clean-ups and advocacy programs to get recycling bins in the local schools.  We went river rafting, camping, and bird watching.  One of my classes even created a garden on the school grounds amidst the broken glass, discarded syringes, and used condoms littering the neighborhood.  Appreciating nature and learning to care for it was a vital part of my education.  And we didn’t just talk about it – we lived it out.

 

At the time, I of course dove into environmental causes with the sort of obsessive passion only a Jr. High girl can display.  In that age of big hair and towering bangs I encouraged my friends to stop their bottle a week aerosol hairspray habits.  I wore a pendant that said “Save the Dolphins” and wrote (horrid) poetry for the student section of the Austin paper about keeping our oceans clean.  I did my best to take 5 minute showers (I had a timer) and read everything I could about the watershed issues involving the local aquifer.  My gestures didn’t amount to much, but they were the manifestation of the little I knew and of what I believed.

 

But those beliefs about caring for the earth that I learned at school were rarely echoed at home or in church.  In fact they were often directly discouraged and ridiculed.  Environmentalism was referred to as an anti-Christian value with environmentalists serving as the butt of many jokes.  My parents constantly warned me against loving the creation more than the creator.  In their eyes loving God and loving creation were either/or options – one couldn’t faithfully do both.  I was the rebel treading dangerously close to sin by getting involved with environmental causes.

 

At the time I fought that message knowing that it just didn’t make sense.  But as I left the science academy and the support and encouragement to care about the earth, the message of my church slowly won me over to apathy.  For a long time I just stopped caring about creation – I didn’t recycle; I didn’t think about my lifestyle choices, I just didn’t care.  I didn’t actively hate environmental ideas or endeavors; I just didn’t care enough to be proactive – which in all practical reality amounts to the same thing.  It took years of distancing myself from such anti-environmental beliefs before I was able to truly care for creation again.  It was an emotional journey to finally accept that loving creation is part of what it means to love God.

 

Now, nearly two decades after my Jr. High introduction to environmentalism, I have returned to Austin with new eyes.  Recycling advocacy seems almost quaint these days as many local schools have student gardens and environmental clubs.  I have access to eco lawn care and dry cleaning.  I painted my house with eco-friendly paint and discovered a place to recycle all of my moving boxes.  Once again, all small everyday gestures, but part of what it takes to commit to a lifestyle that loves God by loving creation.  I am enjoying the opportunities offered by a supportive community.  And twenty years have even changed the attitudes of my family and the church.  Creation care is no longer a rebellious sin, but a spiritual discipline to be explored.

 

So my reminiscing on the past has helped me to re-establish myself here with environmental commitments already in place.  I look forward to the journey ahead and am pleased to discover that, environmentally speaking, it’s good to be home.

Read more

Convention Thoughts

Posted on September 4, 2008July 10, 2025

I’ve been avoiding watching the political conventions. Granted I am way too busy attempting to unpack, but the rhetoric at those things is generally pretty nauseating. But I happened to catch a bit of the GOP one last night while we were out to dinner (still haven’t uncovered cooking supplies…). I think Mike got annoyed as I kept reading with incredulity the lines presented in closed captioning on the TV. Some things go beyond nauseating to seriously depressing. I’m sure there were some stupid things said at the Democratic convention also, but the half hour I caught of the GOP last night was disturbing.

First I caught Romney’s speech. The one where he said that for America (which he later called the hope of the earth) to be the head of the world family we need to stop failing the family at home. And how are we failing the family? According to him by allowing the poison of government assistance to flourish. If only welfare and Medicaid were abolished the family would improve. Besides trying to provoke class warfare, I just have to wonder what he was smoking. Does he not realize that things like Medicaid are what help families to survive? Case in point – if not for government assistance to help me pay for the six digit medical bills I accrued in the past year our family would be struggling to survive. The salary of a pastor and personal insurance, although more than a lot of people have, barely covered anything. What would Romney have had me do? Abort Aidan to avoid such expenses? If he wants to help build strong families, he needs to support things that allow families to be families.

Then there were the even more disturbing signs being waved all over the place. They read “Country First” and “Prosperity.” Are those really the two most important values of the GOP? Nationalism and Wealth? For the party that claims to cater to religious crowds how can they promote values that outright contradict the message of Jesus? Or how could any committed follower of Christ choose to support such values? I’m not saying that the Democrats are any better here, just that our country is insanely far off track and we have blindly followed along.

And of course to top it off there were the men and women wearing buttons with Palin’s picture that said “Hottest VP.” Honestly, at what point in this country do we get past seeing women as just pieces of meat?

So Romney, contrary to your assumption last night, there are many days when I am not proud of my country. And last night was one of them.

Read more

Selling Corn Syrup

Posted on September 4, 2008July 10, 2025

It’s all about the spin. I remember back in the early 90’s when medical reports encouraged people to eat less red meat for their health we started seeing the “Beef. It’s What for Dinner” ads. PR to convince us to buy more stuff that isn’t good for us. Well as more people are realizing the dangers and ubiquitous nature of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the Corn Refiners Association has jumped into full PR spin mode. They recently launched a $30 million advertising campaign to convince consumers that HFCS is a natural compound like honey. (It’s made from corn so therefore it’s natural right?) Forget that it can only be made in industrial laboratories using numerous chemicals (including stuff like sulfuric acid), the FDA ruled earlier this summer that it can be labeled as “natural.” Hence the advertising campaign. Take a look at this recent commercial.

 

—

 

Playing on people’s fears and lack of information, the Corn Refiners have hit the sweet spot in labeling lingo. If it is “natural” then it must be good. But honestly even if we buy that “natural” claim, there are still numerous issues with this commercial. First substitute in another natural sweetener like sugar or honey into the dialogue and yes, as a mom I would be worried about feeding that to my child. Added sweeteners are unnecessary and unhealthy. They are a special treat, not just everyday afternoon snack fare. Who cares if HFCS is from corn and is just like sugar and honey – it is just like sugar and honey – full of empty calories and dangerous in large amounts.

The PR spin is necessary because we are consuming HFCS in crazy large amounts. It is in everything, its health issues hidden because it isn’t labeled as sugar. Corn is a veggie and most people might not know that HFCS is a sugar. If they bother to read the ingredients at all the impact of HFCS at the top of the list doesn’t hit them. And so obesity issues and diabetes continue to rise as the food that is easy to find and consume is stock full of high empty calories. And that doesn’t even account for the number of other health issues and allergies that are linked to HFCS.

Because HFCS is so popular (its in everything), most of the corn that is grown is very similar. We have lost the historic varieties of corn and the array of nutrients they provide. We now eat a very nutrient poor form of corn that not only sweetens most of our food but is the feed for the cows and chickens we consume. Our diet in essence is based strictly on corn. This is a health risk as we need a greater variety of nutrients to stay healthy. But it is also a societal risk to rely on one substance as our main food supply. If corn somehow faced a blight like potatoes did in Ireland, we would be facing a serious food crisis.

But even beyond the health risks, by supporting the use of HFCS one is supporting a seriously broken economic system. Our market is flooded with corn. It is a highly subsidized commodity. Farmers must grow ever increasing amounts of corn that are sold at low prices. Without the government subsidies most farmers would make no profit on their corn at all. But the more corn one grows the more subsidies one receives. So farmers must turn to genetically modified corn that is copyrighted (meaning they must buy new seed each year). They must use vast amounts of fertilizers and pesticides (some which are built into the genetic structure of the corn itself). These chemicals not only destroy the ecosystem and poison water supplies, but they are oil based. To grow this corn we are expending large amounts of oil, an ever dwindling resource in our world.

In addition the US reliance on corn to insert into all of our food has encouraged more farmers to grow the corn. Since the government subsidizes it (and not other varieties of veggies), it is a way for farmers to actually make a living as a farmer. But only US farmers. There is a huge surplus of US grown subsidized corn that continues to flood the world market. Other countries cannot compete. World organizations have declared the subsiding of food on the trade market illegal, but the US continues to subsidize. Good for our multimillion dollar agribusinesses, bad for family farmers around the world. Counties like Brazil are seeking to sue the US for illegal trade practices, but one doubts the affect such suits will have.

So as one soccer mom embarrasses another mom for her lack of knowledge and encourages her to feed HFCS to her kids, there is a lot more at stake than just a pseudo-natural product. The Garden of Eden parallels in the commercial are frightening. But I guess that’s just good marketing – getting us to not just desire, but eat the forbidden fruit. And we just play along…

Read more
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2026 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes