This week’s links – on love, homeschooling, the benefits of being a giver, and another reason to say yes to butter.
:: A Special Vocation: To Show People How to Love (CatholicMoralTheology.com)
But how can a disabled person show us how to love in a way that only a disabled person can? Because the Cross of Christ is sweet and is of a higher order. Christ’s resurrection from the Cross proclaims that the love he offers us, the love that we, in our turn, are to show others, is the REAL reason he endured the Cross in the first place. Our stony hearts are transformed into this Christ-like love, and thereby empowered to change hatred into love, only through the Cross. And no one shares in the Cross more intimately than the disabled. And so the disabled become our models and our inspiration. Yes, I give much to my son, Dominic. But he gives me more, WAY more. I help him stand and walk, but he shows me how to love. I feed him, but he shows me how to love. I bring him to physical therapy, but he shows me how to love. I stretch his muscles and joke around with him, but he shows me how to love. I lift him in and out of his chair, I wheel him all over the place, but he shows me how to love. I give up my time, so much time, for him, but he shows me how to love.
:: 18 Reasons Why Doctors and Lawyers Homeschool Their Children (ChildrensMD)
I’m going public today with a secret I’ve kept for a year—my husband and I are homeschooling our children. I never dreamed we would become homeschoolers. I wanted my kids integrated and socialized. I wanted their eyes opened to the realities of the world. I wanted the values we taught at home put to the test in the real world. But necessity drove me to consider homeschooling for my 2nd and 4th graders, and so I timidly attended a home school parent meeting last spring. Surprisingly it was full of doctors, lawyers, former public school teachers, and other professionals. These were not the stay-at-home-moms in long skirts that I expected. The face of homeschooling is changing.
:: Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead? (New York Times Magazine)
Grant’s book, incorporating several decades of social-science research on reciprocity, divides the world into three categories: givers, matchers and takers. Givers give without expectation of immediate gain; they never seem too busy to help, share credit actively and mentor generously. Matchers go through life with a master chit list in mind, giving when they can see how they will get something of equal value back and to people who they think can help them. And takers seek to come out ahead in every exchange; they manage up and are defensive about their turf. Most people surveyed fall into the matcher category — but givers, Grant says, are overrepresented at both ends of the spectrum of success: they are the doormats who go nowhere or burn out, and they are the stars whose giving motivates them or distinguishes them as leaders. Much of Grant’s book sets out to establish the difference between the givers who are exploited and those who end up as models of achievement. The most successful givers, Grant explains, are those who rate high in concern for others but also in self-interest. And they are strategic in their giving — they give to other givers and matchers, so that their work has the maximum desired effect; they are cautious about giving to takers; they give in ways that reinforce their social ties; and they consolidate their giving into chunks, so that the impact is intense enough to be gratifying.
Paradoxically, the most conclusive argument for eating sumptuously delicious fatty foods can be found in Michael Moss’s well-intentioned but scarifying new book, Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, where he uses the telling phrase “sensory-specific satiety point.” As Mr. Moss defines it, this is “the tendency for big, distinct flavors to overwhelm the brain, which responds by depressing your desire to have more.”
Whoa! This is big. The author, however, misses the far-reaching implications. He focuses on bashing the use of the “sensory-specific satiety” concept by the evil processed-food industry, which goes to great lengths to get you to overeat fatty fried junk by purposely avoiding the “sensory-specific satiety” point that stops the craving.
In other words, sensory satiety is our friend. Voilà! The foods that best hit that sweet spot and “overwhelm the brain” with pleasure are high-quality fatty foods. They discourage us from overeating. A modest serving of short ribs or Peking duck will be both deeply pleasurable and self-limiting. As the brain swoons into insensate delight, you won’t have to gorge a still-craving cortex with mediocre sensations.
:: We Are Never Eating Bad Together – Abigail Stauffer
The song, “We are Never Ever Eating Bad Together” is a take-off on Taylor Swift’s breakup song “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” and features lyrics like “we could eat all kinds of ancient grains instead of wheat.”