Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, June 5. 2024Wednesday morning linksHow to Die in Good Health - The average American celebrates just one healthy birthday after the age of sixty-five. Peter Attia argues that it doesn’t have to be this way. When the Mind’s Eye Is Blind - The idea that a mind could form pictures is, to me, science fiction. Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies – Shock Revelation From NASA Documents from the University of Oregon reveal the school’s troubling hiring policies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We Have Been Subverted Stuart's Wednesday Potpourri JOURNALISM DIES IN WOKENESS: Washington Post Executive Editor Stepping Down – CEO Tells Staff ‘People Are Not Reading Your Stuff’ Ukraine missile strike on Russian soil 'likely' used U.S. weapon system Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"How to Die in Good Health"
He's wrong. Just another cult. Imagine that you are 51, Peter Attai's age, and haven't had any health problems yet, like most people who are 51 and you think you have discovered the solution of good health because... you haven't had any health problems yet. Duh! It must be because he is so much smarter than everyone else and the yogi, weight lifting, veganism/special diet/low sugar/yada-yada is responsible for it. Isn't he wonderful to share this with us and tell us all how stupid we are. Yeah right! Get back to me when you are 75. You do not know what you do not know. I too at 51 thought I would never be like my parents and grandparents and all the old people I knew. I just didn't know better and didn't know that I didn't know better. Now after years of fighting cancers, enlarged prostate, peripheral neuropathy, arthritis, Glaucoma, fighting my weight... I get it. I live in an over 55 community that is really an over 65 community and just last week we had 4 heart attacks and one stroke one just one street in the park alone. We get a fire truck and ambulance in here half a dozen times a week and someone is always in the hospital. Our post mistress felt a little tired went into the doctor, immediately put into the hospital and was dead in three days. I could go on and on. We take care of/help a 92 YO couple who I don't think will make it through the year. It is sad. I'll give you the benefit of my 81 years of studying this health and longevity problem and like everyone else who talks about it I think I'm right. The secret to long and healthy life is... carefully select healthy parents who live a long and healthy life. That's it. All the rest is BS. Yeah don't smoke, do drugs, jump out of planes, etc. But in the end in comes down to genes and not doing anything stupid. We have a friend here who 3 months ago was fairly normal. Nice older lady, 78 I think, funny, loved to cook, enjoyed life. Today she doesn't remember what day it is, how to drive her golf cart to the potluck, has a constant blank stare. Sad! But that is exactly what old age is. You or more or less OK or have health problems but they are under control and the next day you have a stroke. heart attack, stage 4 cancer, god knows what and you are gone... And nothing that Peter Attai says changes anything. re How to Die in Good Health
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see "health" defined in the article. If you have high blood pressure but are otherwise fine, are you healthy? What about a bum knee? Is being moderately overweight unhealthy? How about a partial loss of hearing or sight? Does that qualify as not healthy? How about chronic acid reflux? Does that condition make you "unhealthy". The point is that "healthy" can be a subjective term depending on who is defining it, so I would question the "one healthy birthday after 65" claim. Hey! Y'all been talking about me? I DO NOT have acid reflux. And I've had a decade of pretty healthy birthdays since I began my Geezerhood.
ROFL Mike.
However . . .. If the shoe fits . . . ;-) YMMV. I was fortunate enough to catch the fitness bug when I was in the military, and my wife and I continued with it into retirement. The parts do wear out--hernia, bad knees, skin cancer, hearing loss, but regular exercise and avoiding stupid stuff like binge drinking and the ubiquitous onslaught of over-sugared crap food goes a long way to sound sleep and healthy birthdays (my annual Brazilian steak house binge!). Oh, and get those regular check-ups; I've nipped a couple of scary problems in the bud already, and I'm fixin' to see my new cardiologist soon about another.
Oh, and get those regular check-ups; I've nipped a couple of scary problems in the bud already, and I'm fixin' to see my new cardiologist soon about another.
I hadn't been to the doctor in decades and out of the blue decided since I was getting older (I was 65 at the time), it might be a good idea to go in for a checkup. I was in reasonably good shape for my age and had no symptoms that might indicate a problem. The doctor heard something, sent me for an echocardiogram and a month later, I was having open heart surgery to repair a birth defect. I was told that without the surgery, I would have died within five years. Do yourself a favor- get your checkups. My dear grandmother used to tell me to not put sugar on my cereal because it will give me "sugar diabetes". As a small child in the 40's and 50's I believed her. But diabetes is a genetic disease you don't "catch" it from eating sugar or carbs, etc. But ironically some 70 plus years after my dear "nana" telling me that sugar caused diabetes I still find people who believe that to this day. And for inexplicable reasons doctors have even bought into this with their warnings of "pre-diabetes" whenever your blood sugar count exceeds some arbitrarily chosen level. But if you just cut back on your sugar/carbs you will magically avoid the dreaded diabetes.
Then there are the native Americans and South Americans with exceptionally high diabetes rates. And the quacks who blame this on eating a modern "American diet". And yet cannot explain the exceptionally low diabetes rates of people from Norhtern Europe who also are eating an "American diet". The truth behind this is simple, some thousands of years ago Northern Europeans converted from hunter gathers to farmers and began eating high carb diets. High carb diets cause someone with genetic diabetes to experience life threatening symptoms and they are over time eliminated from the gene pool. The result is most of those who survive are not genetically diabetic. Whereas indigenous populations eating meat or bugs are inadvertently eating the perfect diabetic diet to minimize diabetes symptoms and live long enough to stay in the gene pool passing on this deadly genetic disease. Almost all of the Australian Aboriginals have diabetes as do a huge percent of American Indians and South American native populations. And sense we can treat diabetes those who are genetically diabetic live long enough to reproduce and thus guarantee that their children and grandchildren are diabetic as well. Obesity leads to insulin resistance... which is basically a form of diabetes.
Before the synthesis of insulin, diabetes was managed by restricting carbohydrate consumption. Read "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes (or just Google him) Then apologize to granny Interestingly I have read a lot of Gary Taubes and he is just another quack. If you have genetic diabetes you are likely to be fat. Not everyone, but most diabetics are fat. The cause and effect here is often misunderstood and many, like you, think being fat puts you at risk of diabetes when it is actually a case of having the undiagnosed diabetes being fat and at some point being diagnosed with the diabetes. Diabetes II is different in different people. Some people don't realize they have it until their 20's because their adolescent lifestyle can disguise or minimize the symptoms. Others develop life threatening symptoms in childhood. And some don't develop the symptoms until quite old, 50's, 60's, 70's, especially men.
Diabetes is genetic, you don't "catch" it from eating sugar/carbs or from being fat. You "catch" it from your mom or dad. If you are past adolescence when your symptoms finally prompt you to get it diagnosed you (and sometimes even your doctor) might imagine that something you ate or did "suddenly" gave it to you. You (and your doctor) would be wrong, you always had it but were relatively symptom free. Nothing I say will likely change your mind. Doesn't matter at all. If you have diabetes you will have to follow your doctors advice even if they thought you "caught" it from sugar or processed food or whatever the latest fad villain is. If you don't have diabetes and choose to eat/live like you can catch it from sugar/rice/potatoes/whatever it won't matter because you still won't catch it and that you think you outsmarted it matters not. So carry on... re Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies
What a hoot! This has to be the link of the day. It's definitely a pass the popcorn moment. Meanwhile, the climate will be fine, regardless of NASA's findings. QUOTE: Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies That's just silly nonsense. It's been known for decades that particulate pollution (primarily sulfates) cools the planet's surface, while greenhouse gases warm the planet's surface. As long as particulate pollution *increases*, it will slow the rate of surface warming. If particulate pollution stabilizes, then the surface warming will return to trend. Reducing particulate pollution will increase the rate of warming, but only until you stop reducing the particulate pollution, at which point the warming will return to trend. Regardless, the trend is warming. You could just read the study: "The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols." However, this does show that humans can directly affect the climate, contrary to one of the many debunked claims made by skeptics. Chicken Little, don't worry. The climate is always changing, and usually over periods of tens of thousands of years. If the earth is getting warmer then it's a good thing for most of us. And if there's an ice age we'll just have to figure out what to do. The world's not going to end anytime soon, Chicken Little.
jack walter: The climate is always changing, and usually over periods of tens of thousands of years.
What will those crazy scientists come up with next?! Current anthropogenic warming is anomalous. jack walter: If the earth is getting warmer then it's a good thing for most of us. The vast infrastructure of modern civilization has developed in a period of relative climate stability, including agricultural practices and coastal cities. Rapid warming will disrupt this infrastructure. In addition, warming is happening much faster than most ecosystems can evolve. jack walter: The world's not going to end anytime soon Why would it? However, the cost from global warming will be significant. It will cost less to mitigate than to adapt later. In addition, unrestrained global warming will cause the permanent loss of much of humanity's shared natural inheritance. "It will cost less to mitigate than to adapt later." According to all of the models you're so eager to champion, any mitigation efforts that do not result in a dramatic decline in the human population (50% to 90%), no matter how impoverishing, will result in trivial improvements. IOW, you're completely wrong.
When you fashion your lies to be whatever you find convenient at that moment, you're bound to say self-contradicting and stupid stuff. As you regularly demonstrate. "The vast infrastructure of modern civilization has developed in a period of relative climate stability." You can't prove that the current or likely near future rate of climate change will be unprecedented in the history of the last 5000 years. You're talking out of your rear again.
"In addition, warming is happening much faster than most ecosystems can evolve." Plants and animals evolve. Ecosystems do not, they change. Human prospering is not dependent on humans evolving as they are capable of adapting the environment to themselves rather than adapting to their environment. Stop bsing us. "That's just silly nonsense." Hum.
I feel pretty confident that you have at some point referred to alleged recent temperature increases as evidence of your pet notion of climate change. So you're now acknowledging that that your use of that alleged evidence was just silly. Still attached at the hip to the grifting cult. Sad but not surprising in the age of marxist theology. CO2 does not drive temperature. Charts are available if you would like to observe them. You may keep your electric car if you wish but do keep hands off my gas and diesel vehicles. AND we can easily adapt to any climate change... we have been for several thousand years.
James4HJ: According to all of the models you're so eager to champion, any mitigation efforts that do not result in a dramatic decline in the human population (50% to 90%), no matter how impoverishing, will result in trivial improvements.
Quite the contrary. We have repeatedly stated that any mitigation must allow for continued economic growth to provide the economic vitality and technological innovation required, as well as to provide the benefits of industrialization to the burgeoning population of the developing world. James4HJ: You can't prove that the current or likely near future rate of climate change will be unprecedented in the history of the last 5000 years. The current rate and magnitude of global warming is already anomalous. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021: “When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.” James4HJ: Plants and animals evolve. Ecosystems do not, they change. While the mechanisms are distinct, ecosystems do evolve (process of change in a certain direction) in response to environmental change. You will find the term is often used in the science of ecosystems. James4HJ: Human prospering is not dependent on humans evolving as they are capable of adapting the environment to themselves rather than adapting to their environment. As was clear from context, we were referring to the natural environment, upon which humans do largely depend. Rapid climate change disrupts ecosystems and drives species extinction. James4HJ: I feel pretty confident that you have at some point referred to alleged recent temperature increases as evidence of your pet notion of climate change. Indeed. Even with the injection of large amounts of particulates into the atmosphere, the surface still warmed. You could just read the study. We're still coming out of an ice age. It better be warming and we also need more CO2 to feed the plants. Warming is good, CO2 is great.
re JOURNALISM DIES IN WOKENESS
This is a quick read and I would encourage everyone to look at it. The foot soldiers at the WaPo are totally disconnected from reality. It's a microcosm of the fundamental problem of the Left. Aphantasia must be a truly horrible disorder to have. I presume since Mr. Katz can't form mental images, he doesn't dream either.
Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths
QUOTE: They warned that side effects linked to the Covid vaccine have included ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome and brain haemorrhage, cardiovascular diseases, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal events and blood clotting. https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-vaccines-may-helped-fuel-051100916.html |