Hypothetical Encounter With John Robbins

I sit patiently, waiting for him to arrive. The sun is bright; I shield my eyes as I look at the blue sky, then down again at the worn, outdoor table. I nervously shift in my chair, trying to remember the questions I had in mind to ask when I see him striding toward the table. His thinning hair is tousled by the breeze, but his gait is steady; although he is sixty years old, he displays a youthful energy as he reaches our meeting place, and his face creases with a smile as we make introductions.

I jump to my feet, eager to shake his hand. I notice his grip is strong, and his hands are both soft and healthy, as well as slightly calloused and weathered with age. Our order is taken, and I request only water, as I am uncomfortable making any of my usual food choices in the presence of one so diet and health oriented. The cold water is dull and fluorinated, obviously from a city tap, and we begin to discuss his views on health, diet, and the environment.

The conversation eases and I become less nervous as we become just two people discussing ideas, when we both notice a father with his young daughter at the ice cream shop across the street. We both notice the girl’s visible excitement as she receives her ice cream cone, no doubt a special treat for her. As she happily sits and enjoys her diary reward, I notice the discomfort on Robbins’ face.

I can see his pain, watching a father give his child something that represents, in Robbins’ opinion, a great danger to both her health and the environment. I see his desire to intervene, and try to inform the two of the dangers of such a habit. I watch him repress the desire, no doubt knowing from experience he would be entering into a rude and fruitless attempt at kindness that would be interpreted as a personal attack.

As we continue our conversation, I can hear the unease in his voice, noting the short, furtive glances across the street he attempts out of subtlety. I hear in his voice disappointment, a reluctant discipline to focus his mind on our conversation and not be distracted by such a potent example of what he is rallying against. As we make our goodbyes, I am struck by the compassion he still exhibits for the nameless little girl; his passion for spreading his message is curtailed by his common sense, and although he appears pleased with our interview, the scene we witnessed still seems to dwell on his mind as he makes his way quickly back through the crowd.

John Robbins, My Public Intellectual Resources

John Robbins

• Diet for a New America: ©1987
• The Food Revolution: ©2001
• Forward: Dean Ornish
• "John Robbins has dedicated his life to the journey of trying to make the world a better place for the next generation. Sometimes, he is intentionally provocative in order to get out attention and to make a point. Whether or not we agree with everything in this book […] is less important than drawing our own conclusions based on the data and evidence that he and others provide."
• "John Robbins has scored again. His writing style is engaging and sufficiently personal to make it MUST reading. And most importantly, he connects the dots that need connecting--environment personal health, societal economics, and personal meaning. Scientific researchers also would do well to read what Robbins says." Colin Campbell

• Healthy at 100: ©2006
• "John Robbins, once again, as in his brilliantly written earlier books, makes a strong connection between personal health and social consequences. Written by an author already famed for his courageous and well-researched writing, this book is a must-read for anyone concerned about health, be it planetary or personal." -T. Colin Campbell

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins
• http://activistcash.com/biography.cfm/b/1313-john-robbins
• http://www.thekathleenshow.com/2010/06/04/john-robbins/
• http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/foodrev.htm
• http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/11.22.01/robbins-0147.html
• http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-down-reviews/healthy-at-100
• http://andersonhealthwatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/healthy-at-100-by-john-robbins-book.html

Supplemental Materials:

• Michael Pollan
• The Omnivore's Dilemma ©2006
• In Defense of Food ©2008
• Food Rules ©2009

• T. Colin Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell ©2004
• Foreword: John Robbins
• "TCS is extraordinarily helpful, superbly written and profoundly important. Dr. Campbell's work is revolutionary in its implications and spectacular in its clarity. I learned an immense amount from this brave and wise book. If you want to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast and then take cholesterol-lowering medication, that's your right. But if you want to truly take charge of your health, read TCS and do it soon! If you heed the counsel of this outstanding guide, your body will thank you every day for the rest of your life." - John Robbins.
• "Everyone in the field of nutrition science stands on the shoulders of T. Colin Campbell, who is one of the giants in the field. This is one of the most important books about nutrition ever written--reading it may save your life." -Dr. Dean Ornish

• Dean Ornish
• The Spectrum ©2007

Sacredness

I'd like to share a speech by Tim Minchin in his latest comedy special, Live at the O2

Warning: There is some vulgar language in this recording, which I am incapable of editing out.

If you are uncomfortable with obscenities please save everyone trouble by ignoring this post.

What strikes me most about this speech is that there is no punchline. There is no ending joke, no attempt to make this part funny (other than the humorous personality of the speaker). This is a man who stops in the middle of his largest comedy venue ever: a performance with an entire symphony orchestra in Royal Albert Hall, in London. That arena can hold 8,000 people.

So in front of 8,000 people who paid money to have a night of laughter, Tim just starts talking to them. He takes a sincere break from comedy, makes a point, and then returns to singing and making jokes.

Food for thought.

Considering Public Intellectuals

In considering public intellectuals for our upcoming midterm project, I can't help but wonder how to evaluate individuals who have a public voice; how do you draw the line between a popular blog, and a bohemian public intellectual?

While the reading we had assigned to us discusses the potential new "sub-categories" of public intellectuals, and perhaps their evolution from how they were previously defined, it is not very clear on how to make a decision whether or not a specific individual is a public intellectual or not. It concerned itself mostly with talking about the group as a whole, or rather as an abstract idea.

For example Steve Pavlina runs a blog which is followed by many people, citing over 2 million visits per month. He certainly has (in at least some form) the attentive public. That being said, his articles do not address the issues most people would consider public policy. His focus on personal development lends itself to many narratives, and although he references technical subjects such as psychology, quantum physics, and more with common vernacular, he does so in order to make points about the human condition, or abstract ideas of growth. Does this choice of topic mean he does not shape the public opinion and therefore is not a public intellectual? Also, by the definition on page one, a public intellectual is one who is "listened to be important sectors of the public". How to determine which sectors of the public a blogger is listened to is rather difficult, let alone deciding their importance.

This being said, he is certainly "broadly educated" and also "can speak on a myriad of topics". In addition, he is not affiliated with any academic organization, and has made it clear he is unafraid to publish opinions which are likely to (or even are designed to) offend some of the public: such as his post on 10 Reasons Not to Get a Job, or on Polyarmory. So he has certainly not succumb to pressures of any one institution.

So the real question boils down to: Does the topics on which an individual writes affect their status as a Public Intellectual? PI's are defined by writing on a wide range of topics, how that is not a specific measure of a person's writing. How can one decide what is a wide enough range? How can one decide what topics are considered to be in the public interest?

For now I leave these questions unanswered, however my decision on this topic will certainly be forthcoming.