Where’s the beef?
One by one they’re trying to take away our gustatory pleasures.
Salt. Sugar. Fat. Red meat—not just a lot of red meat, but any amount of red meat. According to this Harvard study, any red meat at all increases the chances of dying somewhat.
Of course, we’re all gonna go some time, so in fact our “chances” of dying are 100%. The question is when and how. Most of us who are not profoundly depressed would prefer it be later rather than sooner, and quicker rather than slower. We’d also like to remain in really good health, vigorous and pain-free, until that time comes.
My quarrels with the study are numerous, which is not to say it doesn’t have some validity. The pluses are that the number of subjects is vast and the time-frame long. The negatives are that it relies on self-reports about diet: people were asked to estimate how many times a week they usually ate meat within the past year. That seems pretty shaky to me, although I suppose it’s a very rough guide.
Another problem is that all unprocessed red meat was lumped in together: beef, pork, and lamb. I’ve read that lamb has a different kind of fat than the other meats, and is better for you as a result:
Lamb is not marbled (fat in the meat) as is beef. Over half of the fat in lamb is unsaturated. Only 36% of the fat in lamb is saturated. Most of the unsaturated fat is monounsaturated, commonly found in a healthy Mediterranean-type diet.
Lamb contains the fat that is good for you, consumed directly as part of the essential omega-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid (AA), a liquid unsaturated acid. Lamb is one of the richest sources of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), part of the omega-6, possessing unique and potent antioxidant activity . CLA cannot be manufactured in the human body. Most of the lamb’s fat is on the outside edges and is easily trimmed.
I don’t eat red meat all that often; I’m probably in the “once or twice a week” group, and it’s a small portion at that. But when I do, it’s often lamb. In that respect I’m probably atypical of American meat-eaters, and I would have liked the researchers to have separated out the different types of meat from each other.
Naturally, meat-eaters are not a random bunch of people. It stands to reason they have other health habits that might make them more prone to earlier death. And in fact, that’s true, according to the study, which tried to separate out these factors through multivariate analysis and found meat to be a separate risk factor.
So, what do you think? Do these results make it harder to settle down with a big juicy steak and down it with gusto? Or does it bring out the rebel in you?
I was planning to end this post with an image of King Henry XIII eating a hunk of meat. Instead, I found a lot of pictures depicting him as gnawing on a leg of poultry, found in this study to be unrelated to an increase in death rates. Hmmm. Then I got distracted by this video of Henry’s kitchens and the food they used to make there:
[NOTE: Here’s the full text of the research.]
Taking into account other habits is not enough to make so sweeping a conclusion. Other factors, more important factors I think, are such as stress and the ability to enjoy life in all its aspects rather than live it as an obstacle course, overly scrupulous and suspicious of every possibility. By all means, have some red meat in moderation but by all means enjoy it. Consternation has probably shortened more lives than anything else, other than other humans.
I pay little attention to ‘studies’ as it seems there is usually an agenda lurking somewhere behind the grant money. Eat, drink, and be merry in moderation is my motto. However, we eat meat no more than once a week and (ta-dah!) its usually lamb we buy from a friend who raises the tasty critters or once in a while buffalo or chicken from my cousin’s farm.
“Consternation has probably shortened more lives than anything else, other than other humans.”
I like that phrase.
I don’t doubt that many of the things I enjoy are not the greatest for my long term health. There are many trade-offs, moderation seems to work the best for me.
The people who come up with these restrictive diets seem to be similar to the leftists who know how to live your life better than you do.
In my ordering of junk sciences dietology occupies the second place. Only sociology is worse. It is simply impossible to make reasonable control group for any hypothesis: to many parameters to control, all of them correlate or anti-correlate, so statistics can only create an illusion of accuracy. A totally inadequate tool for a meaningful comparison of so complex and diverse assemblage of systems.
Even astrology is better for prognostication: it at least has an elaborate typology to contemplate.
you should have used the clip of charlton heston stealing a spoon with strawberry jam on it for Saul, in soylent green…
but if you had read the stuff i pointed out, you would have known 20 years ago about the stopping of common people eating meat…
WHY?
Why do cults like jim jones, and others, stop their people from eating meat? (see what the vp had to eat yesterday!)
I would take a look at what professional hypnotists (not stage people, but doctors) have to say on a lot of such things…
the cults tend to jumble up your eating… it makes you not think clearly… they also tend to stress you, keep you from sleeping, and causing chaos in your life…
without all that stuff, you would not understand how they could get people to commit mass suicide, mass marriage while signing all worldly belongings to one man, etc..
what part of political cult, cult of personality, despotism, etc… dont people get?
step one, reduce alertness
step two, programmed confusion
step three, is thought stopping..
[we get a lot of that last one… where we are afraid to think. cant handle lots of information that is not approved, etc… its a form of thought stopping… ]
one major way to have thought stopping it so have ’causes’… you see, its easier to stop thinking and join the cause, than it is to think and do whats right…
but what we have here is a whole lot of admirers and haters of archetecting society, and yet, not interested enough in MECHANICS… [the socialist science behind it]
you can see thought stopping by listening to a OWS speech where everyone repeats what the speaker says. if your repeating, your not thinking.
Adolph Hitler used marching demonstrations and the excitement as a mass conversion technique for those attending his rallies, and in the decognition phase for his soldiers.
you will find that with all this, comes a packaged mish mosh religious pseudo practices…
the abandonment of meat
the thought stopping…
with meditiation being the most common form… learning to sit and not think at all for an hour a day has a way of getting the neural net that is your brain to learn to throttle to zero….ergo they tout it as great
in fact… IF you read their ideas, you would KNOW that each of these social missives have a purpose beyond the SPRAVKA…
the state of permanent non thinking is Nirvana… but that makes reality even more nihilist..
marching, meditating, and chanting are the most decognitive things. Adorno said that if you can primitivize the music, and so forth, he could make phds dance naked in a circle.
i wonder if Neo is familiar with the history of Jacques Lacan…. from wiki – His ideas have had a significant impact on critical theory, literary theory, 20th-century French philosophy, sociology, feminist theory, film theory and clinical psychoanalysis.
this was around the time he got into a lot of trouble as a subversive…
lukac’s – culture of barbarism
Adorno’s forced retardation….
They described how the “culture industry” defused critical consciousness, providing a key means of distraction and stupefaction, and they developed the first neo-Marxist theories of the media and consumer society (see Kellner 1989a).
Lukacs, Gramsci, Horkheimer,Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin, Normans, and a whole lot more who are celebrated (like Guy Debord, Henri Lefebvre, ).. despite some of their nazi leanings…
“When the real world changes into simple images, simple images become real beings and effective motivations of a hypnotic behavior. The spectacle as a tendency to make one see the world by means of various specialized mediations (it can no longer be grasped directly), naturally finds vision to be the privileged human sense which the sense of touch was for other epochs; the most abstract, the most mystifiable sense corresponds to the generalized abstraction of present day society,” Guy Debord
“…counterfeit life requires a pseudo-justification” – Debord
and so they seek to design the living of the common untermenschen…
Soylent Pink
Feds Buying 7 Million Pounds Of ‘Pink Slime’ For School Lunches
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pink-slime-for-school-lun_n_1322325.html
as you can see… real MEAT is too expensive to give farm animals like untermenschen…
but dont worry, without the history the lineage of thougth, and all that…
all your going to get is people commenting as to the local “spectacle”, not the larger picture which is being constructed for them, and of which they are too lazy to take time from the spectacle to read and find out…
i guess its time to snip this one too…
i know its done for space..
but regardless of what justification is held up, it hurts us, and helps those who want us to eat pink slime, and live like cattle/chattel
hopefully this wont get cut down (if i knew, i would split up the posts)…
i suggest a book by Eric Hoffer
“The True Believer” (Harper & Row, 1951)
[besides being surprised that 60 years ago, the people were discussing the same things as now and here… (which can only happen if they keep starting at page one ,and are ignorant of the prior discussions. hitchens did this when he didnt include the great minds in his debate with himself on religion)]
quotes:
“True believers are not intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but are those craving to be rid of an unwanted self. They are followers, not because of a desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy their passion for self-renunciation!” – Eric Hoffer
They are joiners and followers … people who want to give away their power. They look for answers, meaning and enlightenment outside themselves.
and so, when you offer them something that makes them MORE a follower, more a joiner, and makes everyone like that… then they appear normal… they wont seem to be lazy… they have excuses… and so on and so on..
you know.. like the woman that took feminist studies and focused on oppression in the 6th century wondering why she cant find a job…
Hoffer says true believers “are eternally incomplete and eternally insecure.”
even if the true believer is someone like obama and the elites… they have to get you to join, or else they are abnormal… this is unacceptable, and so the whole of the ideology game to play games…
and anything is ok…
God is dead, they are the new gods, and we are the clay…
they will change society, and so change us…
which is why they are given new fads and such… like pilates, or the jewish forbidden cabala, or buddism, or some other things…
because they are given false structure and dogma and they go off happy with that. but after a while, they find it dont work… so rather than look inside, they look outside, and the new fad is here…
and it usually has a familiar component to those who know the history of the Flagellants…
Flagellantism was a 13th and 14th centuries movement, consisting of radicals in the Catholic Church. It began as a militant pilgrimage and was later condemned by the Catholic Church as heretical. The followers were noted for including public flagellation in their rituals.
you can see this in their AA kind of confessions in public…
but alas… read quick, as this is always too long, as reality is too rich, and complicated to sum up…
“All cults are composed of true believers. You’ll find them in politics, churches, businesses and social-cause groups. They are the fanatics in these organizations.” Dick Sutphen
they all require a common hatred and a scape goat… lenin had kulaks, stalin enemies of the people, hitler jews… all of them capitalists…
the point is how do you manufacture such? easy.. you tell people waht to do.. the true beleivers fall into line and try to live the life of koresh, jim jones, castro, etc… or some fantasy of it..
then when they do, and it fails…
or they get sick, their families fall apart, the girls of STDs, the groups are dysfunctional and so on..
they will blame the people who didn’t join them as preventing them!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the script…
ask the people what normal people wont do, but true believers will do… then tell the fanatacle nut jobs that thier utopia will not happen as they didnt have the “collective salvation” as obama says.
all this could have been known as far back as the 80s…and so on IF you read the papers that they were writing when obama was in college reading.
ok..
too long
go cut it.
No meat, no hunters…
no hunters, no guns
no guns, no freedom
see Warsaw Getto Uprising Germany…
the Warsaw Ghetto, concentrated approximately 300,000—400,000 people into a densely packed central area of Warsaw
They used a law that took advantage of Weimars registration of firearms to collect them before moving them into the gettos..
a politician at Nuremberg had the library of congress translate those laws and then they were used by politicians to craft our gun laws with much opposition by those who knew this history (who are now marginalized as crazy for knowing what the true believers don’t!)
Care to read about the middle ages where the same political system they are creating was in full bloom?
eating meats of certain types was reserved for the elite… the poor could have coney (rabbit), but anyone remember what Robin Hoods job was? he was there to make sure the forest was kept up so that the royals could have meat.
our national parks are the modern equivalent, and actually reserve most of America for the elites… who are the ones who can negotiate access
under the saxons, the idea was the land was everyones, and so anyone could hunt..
but “Under the Norman kings, by royal prerogative forest law was widely applied”
it was this kind of thing, as we are finding out ourselves, that created the “Norman Yoke”…
It was a shorthand phrase, useful for attributing the oppressive aspects of feudalism in England to the impositions of William I of England, his retainers and their descendants.
too bad we dont know this (commonly)…
then we would know way ahead of time what they would WANT, and so would then say… no no, that argument is false… we lose our meat, our easy health and high calories… and they get aristocracy back…
the point is you cant oppose what you dont know is happening or has happened.
boxing as a art exists because the boxers know the prior history and moves… which is why a person who has never boxed, may have a bit of trouble boxing on demand when needed.
same with martial arts…
right now we have lots of people who dont know, cant respond rightly, are ignorant of the moves and whys in history… yet they think that they will beat the kung fu master when the moment arrives..
our movies project that on us.
they focus on the saving grace, the last phone call of reprieve.
i learned as a EMT that that doesn’t exist…
the dichotomy between that belief and reality when something happens is enough to put people into shock and kill them… (if the injury doesn’t do it)
(much as loud bangs will kill turkeys on a farm)
heck… you guys didnt notice the pre propaganda in the movies and on the documentary channels for years?
like recent claims that the fighters in circus maximus were vegetarians/vegans…
Just remember…
the meat eaters are predators
the plant eaters are their food
wheres the beef?
between wendys buns!!! of course
anyway
last post..
that same technique i was taught and used it to earn a living selling discount tickets to broadway shows. it consisted of getting strangers you walked up to on crowded ny streets to give you their credit card, personal information and so on..
until you learn it and try it you might not think that a person could get 20 to 50 credit card numbers and details in a day from strangers they had never seen but just walked up to randomly…
experience ALWAYS counts more…
which is why its not allowed under equality
every newly hatched egg is equal
The wish Neo avers most of us hold for a quick rather than slow death, preceded by vigor and good health, is simply irrational. A) that don’t hardly ever happen, so is utterly unrealistic, and B) a sudden quick death means not saying things long left unsaid and thus long overdue, and no saying goodbye to anyone. There is also C) a sudden quick death might have been preventable, e.g. by coronary stenting. One of my regularly exercising friends recently fell off the treadmill at age 59, dead, despite immediate CPR by a doc and an EMT; autopsy showed Left Main Coronary occlusion.
Anyone with the experience of sudden death in a loved one knows how terrible it is, a raw festering wound extremely slow to heal, worse than the wound left by the departure of a slowly dying loved one. Since death is universal, a major part of dying is what we leave behind.
Most of my friends in medicine want to die like Nelson Rockefeller. Not me.
I also believe most of the these-food-will-kill-you people are little Pol Pots: let ’em eat grass.
There is currently a TV ad for some breakfast cereal that states “people who eat whole grains tend to weigh less than people who don’t”. They imply that by eating their whole grain cereal you will lose weight. This really annoys me. People who eat whole grains probably do weigh less but more because whole grain eaters tend to eat healthier overall and therefore the presence of whole grains in their diet is a coincident factor.
I was at “Mother’s” the other day. I love their pizza. (Have you wondered why the patrons of such places look scraggly and unhealthy?) So, I ask for a couple pieces of their terrific cheese/garlic pizza and am asked if I’m vegetarian. Now I surmised that I was asked this because I really don’t look like a vegetarian. I look military, rumpled and dappled, but still, the cause remains, and the nice man behind the counter was opening a door. Let’s be friends.
Well, I happened to remember the Jim Gaffigan answer to that question and produced it: Yes, except for beef and chicken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaK9bjLy3v4
In celebration of the early spring that seems to be happening here in New England I’m firing up the grill tonight and throwing some burgers on. Haven’t done that since last October.
Thank goodness for those ancestors who dined on mastodon, bison, deer elk, etc. I appreciate them passing along their taste in food to me.
These studies always seem to forget about our hunter-gatherer ancestors. They ate as much meat as they could get. The most successful were the best hunters and fishermen.
I’m 79. Thus far, a diet that consists of 40 % protein, 30% fat, and 30% low gylcemic index carbs works quite well for me. I get my proteins and fats from meat/dairy of all kinds. (Beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey, fish of all kinds, whey powder shakes with added macadamia nut oil, cheeses and so on.) Add some nuts (Macadamia, walnuts, almonds, etc.) and that provides some protein and good fat. I don’t worry about fat of any kind except for hydrogenated. As long as one exercises, fats up to 30% of caloric intake should not be a problem. The carbs are the tricky part. Sugar, refined flour, and processed grains are to be avoided. Eat all vegetables that have lots of fiber (Broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, celery, etc.) and limited amounts of low glycemic fruits (Berries of all kinds, apples, kiwis, etc.) and avoid all fruit juices. (Too much sugar.) Complex carbs are good for you, but do not build muscle and nerve tissue as efficiently as protein and fats.
It is high glycemic index foods that are causing the so-called epidemic of diabetes and there is some reason to believe such foods, in conjunction with fats (cakes, pastries, pizza, etc.) are contributing to cardiovascular problems in those so genetically inclined.
Final note: I agree that not all people are genetically suited to my type of diet. There are some people who can seemingly eat anything with no bad effects and there are those who should eat less protein (meats and dairy) and more complex carbs.
They can have my red meat when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Just sayin’.
Don Carlos: I disagree. I was positing long life, good health, and a quick death. By “quick,” by the way, I don’t necessarily mean “in a single instant.”
However, I also disagree about the people left behind, as well, under the circumstances of old age and very quick death. My grandmother died very suddenly at what was an old age for the time (she was 83, and had been born in the 1880s). She had not been ill at all. Her death was a shock to us, but she had lived a good long life and did not suffer unduly, so it was also considered a blessing that her death did not involve lingering suffering. Yes, I would very much have liked to have said goodbye, but I was philosophical about that because of the perception of a lack of suffering on her part.
I have a Pilsener lagering . . .
Isn’t that there then just about which a why we’re all here!
What J.J. formerly Jimmy J. said.
I’ve been seeing more and more articles lately about the “paleo diet” or “caveman diet”, and also how arterial disease may be caused by inflammation rather than high cholesterol.
Eh. I’ve learned to tune out most nutritional claims and warnings. For every “study” that says a particular food is bad for you, another one says it’s actually good. I think most of us are better off trying to eat a variety of foods in moderation. Constant worry is also bad for you…I think.
Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings linked this article today. Granted, it’s four years old, but it’s relevant to the present discussion:
Does banning hotdogs and bacon make sense?
Excerpt:
I also agree with Artfldgr. We’re seeing an emerging 21st century version of feudalism, with a ruling class (which is increasingly hereditary) and peasantry, with different laws and rules for each.
We, the masses, are told that we must make do with energy conservation, vegetarianism, and public transportation; while our “betters” have no intention of living that way. The Al Gores of the world do not use windmills to power their 28-room mansions, and the Obamas do not dine on leaves and twigs. Neither has a problem with traveling in private or taxpayer-funded limousines or jets.
Vegetarians don’t live longer than meat eaters. It just feels that way.
If beef cuts were kings, would prime rib be Henry VIII? I’m just going on my own authority here.
http://www.carrows.com/promo/2010Q4/PrimeFare.html
Typically these so-called studies aren’t “studies” at all but simply data dredges where existing data collected for a purpose not related to this “study” is looked at statistically to see what “pops” out. The people who do this already have an agenda and are looking for something that supports their baises. The data and the statistical techniques they use to evaluate it are very flexible and I could probably prove the excat opposite (i.e. that eating red meat reduces your risk of heart attacks) with a little effort. It is worth noting that although the phraseology “”raises the odds… “by 20 per cent” sounds dramatic it is actually statistically irrelevent. That is the measured increase is less then the statistical error and therefore is meaningless.
On the other hand there is a factor present in almost every medical issue that muddies the water and needs to be understood. That is there is a percentage of people who because of genetic predisposition are prone to certain illnesses such as heart disease and for these people there are environmental factors that will exacerbate their risk. For example someone who is allergic to peanuts may die if they ingest peanuts. If you do a study to determine if peanuts contribute to an early death then everyone in the study with a peanut allergy would die (if untreated) and would sway the results. Therefore you could indeed claim that eating peanuts contributes to early death. But in fact eating peanuts when you do not have the pre-existing genetic condition would not cause early death. Knowing this, the author of such a study would be knowingly misrepresenting the facts simply to support their bias. I can assure you that this happens all the time. These “scientists” study things they already have made up their mind on and lo and behold they find proof!! Who would have seen that coming?
I’m with Sergey on this, and GWTW’s description of the data dredges is great. Maybe someone should analyze the data on the amount of time a person wastes counting carbs, calories, etc. I bet for a subset of nutrition freaks, they would find they shortened their real life considerably. And that doesn’t even consider how the food nannies affect the blood pressure of people who would rather have a steak and potatoes with sour cream.
Heck, Neo, if ‘quick’ is good, ‘quicker’ ought to be better, no? That ‘quick’ occurred with your grandma does not counter my observation (A) that ‘quick’ after ‘good and long’ happens too rarely to be more than a wish rooted in delusion, aka the triumph of hope over reality.
You responded to my (B), but left (A) and (C) essentially alone….
Dr. Rich’s advice on salt would appear to be applicable to other food commodities as well.
Also pertinent would be his currently being serialized-on-his-blog book Open Wide And Say Moo! — The Good Citizen’s Guide To Right Thoughts and Right Actions Under Obamacare. Link is to the introduction.
this just in:
life has been found to lead to death – the horror
“life has been found to lead to death — the horror”
Its birth that is the culprit, if we could just have the senate & the house & the emperor with no clothes agree to abolish birth there would be no death.
Don Carlos: show me the stats for how rare sudden death is in the very elderly who are basically healthy. It’s my understanding that, once a person reaches a very old age and has generally remained fairly healthy, it’s not so unusual for death to be quite quick (as in “he died in his sleep”) or to follow a rather short period of failing health. How often does this happen? As I said, I don’t have the stats, but even if it’s less than 50% of the time (just a guess), that certainly doesn’t make it so very rare, or so unusual that it’s completely unrealistic to hope for such an outcome if one is already elderly and healthy.
How common is it to be in bad health vs. relatively good health and independent as a person grows very old? Here are somewhat relevant stats from a couple of years ago:
So even among the “oldest old” (however that is defined; perhaps 90+?) only 1/4 live in nursing homes, and among 95-year olds, only half live in nursing homes. That of course doesn’t say how many are in assisted living, or are taken care of by relatives. But it still means there are probably a substantial number of people at those ages who are doing pretty well. What’s more, nursing home stays tend to be fairly brief at the end, with an “average life-expectancy of approximately six months upon entrance into the nursing home.”
Old Time is still a-flying: And this same flower that smiles to-day To-morrow will be dying. So gather ye donuts while you may.
Curtis: preferably these doughnuts, or perhaps these.
(Sigh)
Neo, why don’t you just take my word for it as an MD who has seen hundreds of deaths in my career, knows lots of colleagues who have seen the same?
The ‘data’ you quote, of institutional care as a function of age, are obvious and also irrelevant. Infer from them as you wish.
Let’s agree you stick to your therapy/lawyer expertise, and I will stick to mine.
Our betters, like Steven Chu (a doctah, who doesn’t own a car), thinks we should live on lettuce and broccoli and ride to work on the hi-speed bus. We should also live in the dim light of energy-efficient bulbs while giving free stuff to poor people.
The Chicago Tribune today has a glowing article on how poor families get to live in foreclosed houses. A wonderful concept–like perpetual motion or something.
Yes, that’s the life our betters envision for us. Lettuce, darkness, and free housing.
I have to tell a true story…
Our dear, long time friend Anna’s grandmother lived to be 108 and died the next day (in her sleep) after her 108th birthday party. A few months before her birthday Anna visited her at her home where she (grandma) was born. Anna entered the house and found her grandmother asleep in a chair. Anna set down and patiently waited for her to wake up. After a while her grandmother woke up, looked around and said, “Oh my, I’m still alive.”
Of course, if the athiests are correct, we never die since God, as first cause, cannot exist, then time is an infinite loop and we part of it. But I digress around the lovely path, the sensuous, even suggestive, curve of the never ending donut.
Can I have bacon with that?
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/13/mooch-lets-move-sebelius-no-lets-not/#comments
I hope all of you reading this are familiar with Weasel Zippers, one of the best little blogs on the net. Since this is a food thread, you might enjoy the irony of the federal government ruling our petty little lives.
Just so you know….when I was a child, the snows were over my head and I had to walk uphill both ways to and from school.
How far this nation has fallen. 🙁
I think we eat fairly healthy. Lots of salads, Indian dahls and curries, chicken stir fries, lamb kebabs, occasional filet mignon (tiny), Thai curries, meatballs (homemade, 3 per serving, in homemade marinara sauce), cajun chicken over salad, pork spare ribs over basmati rice, roast chicken (fabulous recipe using baguettes), and so on.
But my favorite dish is my wife’s beef and spinach curry. It is to die for. Apparently, that is too true.
Don Carlos: I’ll tell you exactly why I don’t take your word for it—as a doctor, the ones you would tend to see most and to remember best are the “bad” ones, and although they are most likely the majority of the very elderly, the number of “good” ones is probably not insignificant either. Your experience as a doctor is still merely anecdotal unless you can offer some statistics about it. I’m interested in the figures, and especially in the non-memorable ones, in the medical sense, the ones where a basically healthy elderly person finally wears out and drops dead, or has a short illness and dies.
I’ve known a lot of very elderly people who are basically healthy, and a great many of them have died that way. In fact, most of the people I’ve known who have lived to a very old age have died that way. I’m asking for you to offer some data, and you have not.
If I can’t eat red meat, why would I want to live longer?
I’m waiting for the study that shows paying attention to studies that inevitably contradict themselves in 5 year cycles is detrimental to human health and well being.
Where does this obsession with quanity of life come from? I could understand it if we lost years on the average lifespan over the past 100 years. But we’ve gained tremendously.
Surely this must be some sort of artifact of a people with a declining faith in what will happen to them when they die.
Some thoughts:
1. I wanna go eat at Pat’s house.
2. I’m glad lamb is supposed to be good for you. One of my favorite meals is broiled lamb chops and jalapeno jello (much better than mint jelly…that’s for sissies).
3. Way off topic but I thought this group might go along with this. It’s something I received in my email. I’m not a big fan of Warren Buffet but a lot of this makes sense. If you agree with it, pass it along to 20 people.
“Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC. “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 – before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land – all because of public pressure.
Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2012
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don’t you think it’s time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
If you agree, pass it on. If not, delete.
You are one of my 20+ – Please keep it going, and thanks.”
Grrrrr…jalapeno jelly NOT jello. Did you edit my comment, Neo?
Awesome video! If I had to do it over again, I’d be a food historian. So cool.
As to the studies, if you ignore it long enough they’ll be another one along soon to contradict it. Do what you like, enjoy your life and be happy at the end of it. That’s my motto.
How often does this happen?
actually more often than we think and even more often than 30 years ago.
the key element is level of exercise and daily participation with a lot of activity…
that is, the exercise does extend your life in terms of an average between jack la lane and a couch potato
by definition though, you cant extend past your potential.
so whats the point?
the point is the kind of end that people are talking about vs others kinds in the same or similar time period.
if your like most of my contemporaries i saw at my 20 year class reunion, education, growth, exercise, and such participation in life had ended with school, and they were already slowly declining, but since they all were, it appears normal.
in those who exercise, like walking a lot, and doing and having a decent social life, they tend to live at a higher capacity and die fast in one or two years. while those that don’t, start dying at 40, and slowly decline for the next 40 years…
to this the terms are proper used:
Get it while you can
Use it or lose it
our neo modern lifestyles at the behest of the elite who want to maximize money they can have (ergo feminism. its not for you, its for THEM), by moving everyone into industry, and moving productive barriers like child rearing.
(and the genius women have been facilitating the change to a work camp which benefits the elite they worship as true believers, which it is why the image is of the politician following their ideas. which would be the tail wagging the dog. no, they are doing what the politicians and despotic want, who pretend its what they want, while stroking them and calling them genius and pretty much doing what a cad does to get laid)
This is why all the language changed. like putting corn out and building a fence around wild hogs, the GENIUS hogs and their dysfunctional children, didn’t notice while they were writing novels declaring themselves the future (in which having no babies somehow leads to a future).
“Personel Departments” became “Human Resources”. We went from people to material, like a machine, a typewriter, etc… all equal and all disposable, and like tissue paper, not to be something to be concerned about.
History became “Social Studies”
“Party Mind” became the more palatable “Political Correctness”
if you want to know what they are making just look at what they are claiming to be against.
by claiming to be against a condition that actually doesnt exist, you create the mental state where the idiot class that wont learn or read thinks that they are unmaking. but rather they are creating what they are being told they are dismantling…
when done, they will think that the other side they were preventing beat them… NOT that they, by their own actions, created exactly what they were told they were dismantling.
So rather than get healthier, and living longer, they plan to shorten our lives.. and when they start receding from their high levels in the past, they will claim that without their fixes it woudl be worse, and you should give up more and more freedom for better.
but the point is that all thye want is cattle to work to earn so they can have.
this is to the EXTREME…
ie.. if your allowed to ahve what they have, then they are no longer special and above you. so they MUST somehow make you an interchangeable faceless disposable nothing, while they are the faces, inventors, the designers and creators of everyrhing, and so can sit and eat what you cant, hasve what you cant, do what you cant…
for only in this way, is it special and apart.
and beleive you me..
[edited for length by n-n]
texexec,
your quite foolish in wanting that moved around… because you dont understand what the game is, so you dont ‘get’ what has to happen.
let me clue you in…
Warren Buffet cant get a ball moving on his own. its way too big… however, the GAME is to get US to start moving the ball..
then all that needs be done is guide it..
the large number of people moving it into play, cant get together to guide it.
so what you need is BOTH sides to be in line. however the politico on top, if he is lying and we are blinded to it by intents focusing rather than outcomes focusing (feeling vs merit as in the posts on mind games), then all that has happened is the facilitation of what HE and OBAMA and his COLLECTIVE wants.
if we don’t open the amendment door, they cant insert an amendment they want.
the amendment to allow 18 year olds was an amendment to allow more gullible people to vote. people, who thanks to other laws and programs, have their minds and world view sculpted by others and have not gone into the real world yet…
each and every point IF your not protecting the self ego, will show you what they want and lead to… if you are protecting your ego from accepting you can be had, then your going to be had… (this is one of several friends of the parasitical con artists)
EVERY point…
and that can only happen if its coordinated and moving in a direction mostly unopposed.
ie… the best a brake can do is stop something or slow it down
what you need is an engine that can be put in reverse, and Gleichshaltung prevents that.
so there is no way to change the outcome as a cohesive machine that goes the other direction is not possible at best you can stagnate it while the people die out and it starts moving again.
of course, why learn about Gliechshaltung and in so doing learn how to prevent it and see it.
well, same with the game of amendments…
if you don’t get what limits the powerful, your going to act in their behalf as you wont see the dirty part in the game.
IE, he is a judo master, and your being thrown, and you have not the tools to even know it.
like everyone, you will defend him, or the idea,and completely ignore whose camp he is well situated in.
this is like trying to deal with the devil and imagining your going to get the best of him by ignoring the devil part and only focusing on the compartmentalized idea.
would you like an amendment we have to vote for to see whats in it like the health care bill?
then dont get that ball moving..
if it dont move, they cant move it…
(not without destroying all the remaining power that they obviously dont have and need still… but will fall as its too confused to defend itself… and too much like a 6 year old child who wants to be what they aren’t yet (but used to be before they regressed))
There is a reason why military guards are not allowed to have conversations with prisoners.
its because your better off not listening to anything from some kinds of people.
as obama said
you will know me by the company i keep
well, you know buffet by the company he keeps, and what he wants.
and the more the balls get into play, the more the powerful will feel it necessary to bother with the game… when before the majority is content to just earn or live happy.
lets keep the amendment ball in the pocket and deny them what they need to win FASTER…
Artfldgr:
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you on this.
Passing one amendment doesn’t mean it’s any easier to pass another one. And the one suggested would be a good amendment, no matter who suggested it. Plus, if you read my posting carefully, you can easily interpret it in a way that indicates that Buffet suggested passing a law…not an amendment. The writer of the email I got is the one who suggested the amendment.
Many good amendments have been passed, including the first ten which are known as the Bill of Rights and passing them didn’t cause a flood of bad amendments.
I do agree with you about the amendment allowing 18 year olds to vote. If it were up to me, I’d require that a properly designed and administered test be given and passed before any person, no matter what their age, would be allowed to vote.
So yeah…I do get it. And I don’t feel a need to be clued in.
I just ignore all this diet stuff, myself. It seems like every month they come out with some new piece of diet advice that contradicts everything else, and a lot of these claims aren’t really that strongly supported. I *do* think that there is no “one true diet” that is right for everyone, and that the best dietary advice is “all things in moderation.”
that great…
don’t agree..
wont change the fact that they need you and many others to open the door, and you then don’t get to control it.
the history of such happening before has to be ignored for you to conclude that, so lets just erase the progressives prohibition.. the progressives change in tax law to tax the common man who worked (rather than the property owner) and other such amendments!
let me address your points one at a time, and show you they are ERRONEOUS in logic, and you inserted things to make them… points i never made..
1) Passing one amendment doesn’t mean it’s any easier to pass another one.
who made that claim? i said that getting the ball moving to add one is enough… who said anything about TWO? or that one makes another easier?
what if the amendment that gets past makes it easier to make amendments? ie. they claim that rather than make the amendment that started the ball rolling and then have to do that over, why not amend it to make amendments easy, like in socialist states? then they can easily fix that, and other things…
2) And the one suggested would be a good amendment, no matter who suggested it.
your ignoring my argument in total to make that point.
The latter point shows great ignorance in the idea of ulterior motives and boundless leftist stupidity ingrained…
you think it would be good… i think you would never get THAT… when obama got elected, did we get what he promised? when lenin did what he did, did the workers get their paradise?
ie. right now your discussing politicos who are cheating left and right… and your proposing enabling them to change the Constitution and pretending that they will do what YOU want, when that hasn’t happened in 40 years.. but by accident.
there is GREAT history of progressive and amendments as a means to power and control. your IGNORING IT..
for instance… right now, you would not worry about Obama raising taxes on you and others IF IT WERENT FOR A PRIOR PROGRESSIVE AMENDMENT…
its the same old same old over and over again and its frustrating to watch intelligent people like you (based on your comments) get sucked into a devils deal.
you dont think it matters who talks to you? ok.. i will deal with sister theresa, and you can go deal with bernie madoff, and we will see how good the outcome is… right?
hows this… if your religious… i will deal with god, you can deal with the devil, as it matters not who you talk to. right? only the surface image matters.
and THATS THE POINT . your thinking like a cargo cultist that the image in front is all there is.
learn about sociopaths and narcisists, they dont want ot be caught gaming you because they then lose their toy… you…
Plus, if you read my posting carefully, you can easily interpret it in a way that indicates that Buffet suggested passing a law…not an amendment.
i read VERY carefully, and a law would not work… ie. your going to ask the people who are about to become kings and aristocracy to give up on that, and do themselves in.
yes, the ides of march might have been easier if you could get caesar to fall on his own sword. but only an idiot or someone pretending to be my not thinking would consider such would do such and are not playing you.
a LAW would be even worse anyway, as you can insert and do a lot more with a good law as the front piece than you can with a bad ideas.
so i give you a penny, i take a dollar, and your happy with the penny as thats is all your focused on. then in round two, i keep the dollar, then take the penny while giving you another one.
ie… i keep taking dollars and trading the same penny to you.
Many good amendments have been passed, including the first ten which are known as the Bill of Rights and passing them didn’t cause a flood of bad amendments.
you dont find what you just said contradictory?
the first ten are the best, but the ones that came after are lacking. so logic would follow that one done today where we have little respect for the Constitution, rule of law, and so on… would be better or worse?
the first 10 as you say exist and were created by founders who wanted a better constitition.
the ones that came AFTER that were by those who hated the limits to THEIR power over people… so they are not as good.
those made today by commuinists, will be eeven WORSE.
but their description will be great! was the description of early feminists what we have now? or was it great sounding? was the description of what blacks would get under national socialism great? or will it just facilitate something worse? abortion? 50 million americans killed, and replaced by foreigners who hate and want to tear the place up… hows that working.
continued in next post to avoid auto censor\
Many good amendments have been passed, including the first ten which are known as the Bill of Rights and passing them didn’t cause a flood of bad amendments.
ok.. so we can agree the first 10 are great and good. but written by the founders who created the machine and wanted it better…
and we can argue the benefit of the next few…
but lets skip to the era of the progressives in power and THEIR fiddling with the constitution using amendments… because they come AFTER the time when you said it was good… AFTER what it was was changed…
So lets look beyond the 15th… rather than nit pic the others..
From the 15th on, the REST of the amendments are ways of making the unconstitutional constitutional, and were created by the progressives!!!!!!!!
16th amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax
If it was not for the lies of the progressives that such a tax would stay at 1%… we would not have the welfare state now… ie. The whole power base can be traced back to the moment that was passed. From that moment on, we got a PROGRESSIVE tax… a communist tax that was uneven and unfair … with such a tax, you got the tax code, the convolutions, and now have the argument that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share… because people don’t understand it, so they then pick by hearing what they want to hear…
If we took 20% from everyone… flat tax, then warren buffet would not have options of shelters, and all those PROGRESSIVE games which pretend to give with one hand and take with the others.
The 17th Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote
This is what took the power of the people away from them.. ie, if you control the press and such, you then controlled the vote. It led to murders in Landry parish as the blacks were slaughtered by the democrats who wanted to win the “popular vote”. It made riots and intimidation a good way to win…
The 18th Establishes Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment)
Created the Thug class.. which if you know history, was needed to have a dark area for politicians to do things with. It created the Kennedy DYNASTY no? It created the gangs that were tapped during WWII, and who would fund the contras, and so on and so on…
Establishes women’s suffrage
While that in and of itself was good, the fact that the women did the same thing as in other states voting away their freedom for the promise of goodies, one can argue whether it was good or not in the long run… do note, that it facilitated the manipulation of the masses and the movement of women into a tax base… ie. created income taxes, then moved women into industry and taxed them. Now they work hard, cant afford a home and such, but welfare people who are in huge numbers get to have a home, car, air conditioners, and more because of HER tax money which had to be used up once she flooded them with it!!! she cant afford to have a family, a husband, healthy children, etc… but then again, she voted and wanted that condition as better, in favor of welfare largesse and all that… now, with mancession and all that, the load has to be born by women… ie. Women will pay taxes of high rates not seen since the “progressive era” to support unemployed men, and welfare blocks, and so on…
So you can argue whether it was good or bad… I personally think now it was bad, as a huge amount of the unconstitutional ideas, like prohibition itself, and control of others lives, comes from their voting… (you want to be in politics, tell the women you will hurt men to force parity and see what they do… they don’t say doing that is amoral… that abusing the power of the state and unequal treatment before the law is bad… they just jump into it)
The 20th is the lame duck amendment
The 21st repeals that great 18th amendment — but the damage was done and it didn’t matter. Chigago politics that created Obama was born!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 22nd was good, or else Obama might be president for life, like Putin, but that amendment is another they would just like to negate. A new amendment might add that to it too.
The 23rd shouldn’t have happened… “Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College” ie, a non state has state representation… and so now lives in conflict of interest.
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes
Ah.. So now welfare people can vote to make everyone work for them that isn’t on welfare.
No?
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession
26th made it easier for communists to attain office since when COMBINED with control over the schools which is not supposed to be an ideological camp… makes for a voting block that is not voting freely… they vote what their teachers and others tell them to vote for mostly..
27th doesn’t do much
Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress
So after the first 15.. they REST allowed the progressives to change the veryh nature of the US fabric.
now a new amendment or law? How so?
We cant even accept that a communist is a communist and so on, your going to accept that a new law by such people will reflect what YOU want and not what THEY want under a false flag argument you will accept till its too late?
Neo-
You make a claim sans legitimate data, and when I quibble with my contrary, experience-based opinion, you demand data to support my refutation, which you will then dissect in an attempt to put me further on the defensive while your initiating claim remains unsupported. That is a classic Leftist tactic, IMHO, a game neither of us should play.
(BTW, I have not read the interposed debate ‘twixt Art and tex)
So this irritates me beyond belief. Not only are people too different, meat is too different. Due to a combination of factors, we’ve decided to go with pastured/grass-fed meat whenever possible.
The farmer who runs the CSA I belong to has an organic, but non-certified farm. However, I’d be ok with non-organic grass-fed and pastured.
There’s a huge difference in the meat in terms of fat, Omega 3s, taste, etc. This isn’t my usual spot for data, but was what I found doing a quick google:
http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-natural-beef.asp
The chickens we eat are pastured as well – WHAT A DIFFERENCE!!
Now, it’s not cheap, nor do I think it can ‘feed the world’, but it’s a fantastic option if such things are important to you.
What the left dislikes is the cruelty and unsustainability of our modern food practices. And they don’t like us feeding the world (the whole ‘eat local’ fad), or the big carbon foot prints this entails. I believe these ‘anti-food’ studies and articles are just part of the larger war. Yes, I’ve seen the phrase ‘Big Food’ used in a similar fashion as ‘Big Pharma, Big Tobacco’, and so forth.
These people are truly dangerous. Coupled with the environmental extremists in power that cripple the farmers while protecting snail darters, we’re facing an enemy just below the radar.
Of course, many of the people involved in Eat Local, Slow Food, Organic Food, etc are not nuts, but the nuts certainly exist.
Don Carlos: yes, indeed, I make a tentative claim based on anecdotal evidence plus the small amount of data I glean from nursing home stats, which may or not be especially relevant. I do not state my conclusions as truth, and I search for—and request of you—more data to either support or refute it.
And yet you ask me to trust your broader, but still possibly skewed and definitely still anecdotal data (unless, of course, you’ve done some sort of study on it)? You are the scientist in this, I am not. But therefore I expect some more scientific data from you before I would rely on what you say as anything other than a somewhat-expanded (and perhaps skewed) version of my own personal observations.
And you need to stop this name-calling “leftist game” crap. I mean it. You should know better; I’m not playing a game. It has merely been my experience that personal observation (even by doctors or other scientists) can be misleading. As a man of science you should know and respect that.
“our national parks are the modern equivalent, and actually reserve most of America for the elites… who are the ones who can negotiate access”
The national parks, open spaces, and “save the farms” BS by putting them into a tight conservation program are the same thing; they are also identical to the French feudal concept of “morte main” wherein land lies unused and unavailable to the common citizen; The latter land use denial was what Thomas Jefferson wrote against is his letters from France: accusing it of causing the poverty of those surrounding the estates; so where are all those “Jeffersonian” Democrats who were so eager to use his letters to build a “wall between church and state?”
Artfldgr:
You and I are more in agreement about fundamental issues than you might think. I agree that some of the amendments that have been passed are bad (for example, the one allowing federal income tax).
Our discussion seems to have evolved from one involved with the merits of the amendment which I received in my email and passed on here to whether or not ANY amendments should be passed. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying.
I think the ability to amend our Constitution is necessary as did its creators. I also agree with them that it should be hard to do so.
The intent of the amendment I passed on above is to reduce or eliminate the creation of career politicians and to make them responsible to the same laws as average citizens. I think that’s a good thing.
Best example I know anything about is the Texas legislature. It’s regular sessions are only 140 days every two years and the legislators are paid accordingly. It’s pretty hard for someone to make a career out of that. Texas’ government is far from perfect but IMO, it compares favorably with our states with large populations.
If you agree that elimination of career politicians is a good thing and know of a better way to accomplish that than with an amendment, then fine…you and I are in agreement.
What the left dislikes is the cruelty and unsustainability of our modern food practices.
completely untrue…
people willing to gas humans, and soffocate animals (peta) that theya re given to save, tend to be USING the emotional something of others to their personal gain.
this is akin to people telling you their snake loves them… and that they feel love from their iguana…
PURE projection
your ASSUMING the message is valid and they believe… when what they believe in is that bleeding hearts who care can be used through their caring… so they create a false front, an image, which if you scratch and dig, as per Shakespeare and gold glittering, you can EASILY figure out.
go to peta, and you will find horror videos..
and of course you say what you said.
but is it true? are there other things out there? did they LIE BY OMISSION?
you see… the ONLY way around this problem is to cure ignorance… but you can lead a horse to water but you cant make em drink..
here is a capitalist farm…
it embodies mutual beneficial exchange, even if cows are their employees… (and not eaten)
The cows milk themselves
Lely: Happy Cows, Good Milk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtSIU5BCOYw
it was autistics like temple grandin who designed such systems…
temple grandin thought like an animal, and made human things… but today they are working hard to murder temples, and have pretty much negated my life and my contributions in other areas (if you thikj i know alot about alot of junk, thats NOTHING compared to what i am expert in and very interested in)
on this horror farm of modern capitalism.
the cows live feminist lives of leisure (they dont raise their own kids but they are taken by experts)…
they eat all day… sit around chew their cud, when their breasts ache.. the walk to the barn, and self milk.. then wander back out and eat and cud chew some more.
oh the horrof of it. but it requires invention, freedom, cheap energy, and the negation of PETA… who wont let you know thats where farming is going among other things.
but like usnig the term liberal without distinction, helping them by parroting the line of how horrible our farms are… helps them..
you become their tool for as long as you do it.
but if you knew about this, and other automated human farms… (my friend owns a chicken farm like that… they wander around, are sections from having too many, and machines collect the eggs when they lay them and so on)
if peta was honest and other groups too, they would not be using the thing this way… and preserving the horror…
to them its a cash cow. they know your not going to give up eating, so they can for eternity keep plumbing the same thing.
but if they were honest, you would not have that line to parrot from osmosis of the main stream trash going by….
ie. they defined your world view, and i am showing you its not true the way they defined it in absence of everything else, and compartmentalized.
there are other answers than humans self immolating in flagilistic orgy of death and suicide…
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying.
probably
i am saying that with such people in office, you dont put the ball in play… period. they will take it and do what they want with it, so dont do it
now, if you happen to have a few madisons, jeffersons, franklins and i will even take the slow to learn but learned senator daniel boone…
but i will not accept that getting that ball moving while pelosi, holder, obama, and tons of other progressives who have removed the anticommunism laws in all books including california a year or so ago removing the last.
would you?
if you notice, my point has nothing to do with whether your amendment idea is good or bad in and of itself. in such a climate that is not only a different thing in a different context, but is also dangerous.
such a good idea is how they got the permission to make that tax law as the same kind of people were stacked in the government at that time…
in fact, the ones in state now claim to be the third phase in that progressive span… with obama being number three after wilson and fdr…
If you agree that elimination of career politicians is a good thing and know of a better way to accomplish that than with an amendment, then fine…you and I are in agreement.
i know better ways. but non of them would work in this climate or in this reality now….
which is my larger point..
which i will try not to hammer so hard thanks to neo and anothers feedback 🙂 (thanks)
you must look to the whole…
not the part you like…
the part you like or the clipped reality in the petri dish is ideal comparatively, and what your creating will not exist in such a rarefied place (as there is no such place that exists in a reality outside the non corporeal one of your mind)
in reality, you cant separate time and space, in your mind, you can (by not noticng one of them and keeping it fixed)
so in the real world you want something, like an amendment, i want to know when and where… we know where will be washington, when will be with this administration.
the idea does not stand alone, it stands in the context of its life and living once realized, and as such, when is important if the where is fixed… and when is not now when the people who would abuse it are in power.
60 years ago right after the war and our willingness to act against such, that was potentially when.
today? no way…
they would negate it, put something else in that most would not believe means what it means, and voila, done gone again
in a big way i am realizing that the way to play is, as in war games, not to play.
ie. this game should not be started with these players. the game is played by better players… and may be played to prevent bad players by better players… but its NOT a medicinal play that will fix anything, as you cant make it under these conditions (an ignorant public who thinks the rules are hindering the true believers utopia)
i knew we were on the same page as far as outcome… and i am not against such ideas or points… but for me, they have to be engineering not philosophy… (And if your a theoretical physicist like me and information theoretician, you would understand that such is not so far apart as one thinks as the latter philosophy precludes the former (engineering)!!!!!!!!!!!)
for years i have been trying to tell you the better way to accomplish what you want. no one wants that way, they want a quick fix so that they can go back to sleep and live their lives… they dont realize that the lives they had are gone and not coming back because they failed to protect them. now they are failing to protect what little is left.
i have been telling you exactly what would work, where to go and what to do…
but like a cancer patient told they only have 4 or 5 years to live, they go shopping for a doctor that says 7 as a way.
do me one favor today… look above your post at njartist49…
notice how different his post is compared to others that oppose me… not to say that me and njartist49 agree…we dont… we are not the same person… so we will never agree… but we do find more common ground since he knows history that i know.
AND he seems to understand equivalence…
ie. whether your hanged, get run over, or die of old age, the outcomes are equivalent.. they are distinctions without a difference.
and so, he and i understand that the same outcome under a different selling point is not different.
so killing people as they are born, or conceived, is just early intervention before ovens are needed… and a way to make life disposable and make us used to it.
the game is to get you, the material, to create the same conditions, but think they are different.
Aldous Huxley and others explained it to you… as did others i listed… i said, look to who Aldous family was… his brother was a key architect of the conditions your living in…
where hitler and stalin used force, huxely and such in the west used manipulation, mind games and so on.
i get that sitting around playing nintendo is functionally equivalent ot masturbation. and that the bibles dislike of masturbation is not the dislike of pleasure, but the dislike and problem that comes when one decides to hit the pleasure button over and over and over. REGARDLESS of what form that takes, whether stroking the skin flute, pressing lady buttons, playing Nintendo, going out every night partying, only doing what you enjoy, etc
open your mind to encompass more at once, and you no longer look at each point alone in a petri dish.
you can accept the argument of abortion IF you restrict that it exists in a society with other things, and when mixed is not what it is alone!!!!!!
abortion and social engineering make eugenics…
abortion alone paid for by the person needing it, fails that. social engineering makes it eugenics as it changes the landscape and funne4ls some into it, some out of it, and so on.
when you see the arguments of abortion, they are always alone or in terms of a woman having a right to use her body without repercussion. the freedom they are bribing them with is a freedom that is not real or possible except if your a lord with dominion, and all women will not get that job.
so the ONLY way to accomplish this now, is to get people to read and know that what they are going through is not new and unique and all that (which if you notice they promote)
but that it happened before.. in parts.
and now the parts that worked before, are happening at once, with the failed parts like ovens and such evolutionarily modified in the current version
the only way your going to get whats going on is to get what they think. and the only way your going to get what they think is to read what they have read and have been inspired by… and the only way your going to do that is to do research, or listen to someone like me pointing you to the stuff!!!!!!!
ergo, why there are people like me who are first in line to be hung when things change enough… once it happens, everyone remembers us, and they remove us as we have the knowledge that is no longer available. but to those who remember that, and need an out, we are the first ones they turn over to save their own skins.
you see… we are past the point of what you want to happen,… we waited reasonably too long…
now, the only thing left is to prevent the prevention of the counter revolution… that is, when they wake up and cant deny waht it is they made, they will have a fanatical redirecting of their own.
like a person who survives cigarette cancer, and quit, they become stronger than the true believers that came before.
this is why as times are changing, people are reading Hayek, reading Ayn rand… reading the old out of print texts which feature what happened before and so on.
in front of you is the process of standing on the shoulders of giants…
what undoes that? refusing to read and study and learn from those giants…
what cures the undoing? deciding to read and study and learn from that past.
if the people in the crowd knew, it would not matter what the wackos were saying.
this is why we didnt pay attention to them. we were sane, they were wacko, and it wont change. but for the scholl system, dewey, bella dodd, etc.. where the sane were made stupid a la adorno, and so what was wacko becomes acceptable…
and its taken in as the prior changes made them have nothing to fill the empty holes in their lives.
ie.. feminist promised an empty reward to trade meaning and substance for someone elses meaning and substance…
now that they have done the work, they have not the substance that was fake and can never be, nor do they have the substance of family…
so this is a game at many levels… at the lowest, it caused more and more misery which caused people to give more and more money to stop the misery, which they caused more, and so on… now they are billionaires and such… (on the misery of their readers, and students and viewers)
but at a higher level, its working across society to create an emptyness… religion being removed does that too.
but since this happened before, and you can read about it, the only thing is to do so.
this is why there are tons of cartoony movies about the monster called germany
but there is almost nothing about the history of the larger state, that killed more, that we were in a cold war with, that swore our destruction, and has over the years been caught screwing our society over and over and over again.
where is the movie about holodomor like the movies of the nazi camps? where is the movies about the gulags? the movies on the process of what people experienced?
without those movies the people have no idea.
look at the videos of a soviet citizen confronts OWS… they actually beleive he was exciled from russia for earning too much money..
think on that…
the knowledge base of the people you want to negate the current moves of, is so defunct that the millions starved and killed did not happen (like holocaust deniers), and that if you earned too much in the soviet union, you were exiled. you know, like a children fairy tale or napoleon.
the truth is that you were pointed at and given a label whether real or not, and they then acted on that label. (go ahead, read Lenin letters. he even says, find brutal people!)
as others have noted…
the population has to be educated..
no laws or amendments will work among the igonorant.
why?
because in this chess game, the ignorant have been allowing the opponents to make 3 innocuous moves that dont take pieces…
and completely have no concept of positioning and convergence… so the moves seem innocuous and nothing.
well, 50 years of such moves without oppositoni has us in a checkmate in 5 more years..
the first 4 years of hitler was the set up…
the hitler you know and others know is the man at the end, not the man at the beginning, of which we know almost nothing… the movies don’t show that part much.
even today, they are negating the connection to Bell… the man who “lived to harass whites”, and who thinks that racism in the US is structural and can never be removed. and so can be replaced… so black national socialism is the key… social justice, all that..
ever notice that the racist Nazis didn’t kill Arabs, didn’t kill blacks (you should read the books of the Africans celebrating being nazis too, and what hitler said about them)… but killed his own people… whites and religious believers…
the neo nazies created by the dems and socialists by games in the south and blaming others for what they did till they created it, is the more cartoon version… which actually fits the racist progressives more!
now i am not saying that Hitler was not nasty and targeted groups… but unless you think that Sammy Davis junior was white, then religion is not a race, tough a race can practice a religion..
this cartoon serves to marginalize the outsiders who would join the real deal among the wealthy sangers and soros…
and it serves to make such seem impossible here even if we do the same things…
there isnt much we can do now…
the chance to keep from being bitten by the rattlesnake was when we were deciding to keep it as a pet for four years… but also when we put in other snakes…
it cant happen here has been rewritten to it happened here and most of us missed it… and now are learning as its getting tighter.
ie. its already done…
all it took was waiting…
everyone expects the despot as in the cartoons to get one point and run with power. but what if the despot gets that point, then Doesnt act on it? can the point be challenged in our legal system? can a person not harmed by a law work against it and take it to court?
nope..
so, if they don’t act on laws they make, they can make endless ones that are enforceable until casted down..
so whats missing from this to make that all possible? the CHOICE of whether to act on a law, as in the immigration game..
by adding that extra part, they then can make up all the laws they need for judgement day and crisis changover. and nothig you can do about it until they act on them.
and by changing our system so that some laws are active and others are not bothered with, they create that battery of bad.
so understanding the rules, and how they can be applied outside of intent is what i am all about.
and so i have come full around to the amendment. i get the rules, and so i get plays that will be played… so i dont want the game with such rules to even be entered into. nothing good will come of it or the attempt.
i know the laws they have made that suddenly will be enforced… i know the game…
learn it, and you will know and see it.
not that you want to, or i want to.
in fact, quite the opposite…
Neo, I was NOT calling you a Leftist or any other bad name. I was trying to identify a technique I have seen the Left use, often with great success. Useful tactics do not make one either Left or Right; they are simply effective. That is one of the things Breitbart taught us.
Doctors are not scientists in the true sense of the word. They use scientific data.
I was going to post some relevant links with discussion, but there was a lot of medical jargon and statistical analysis that I would conscientiously have needed to clarify, and I simply got tired. Apologies.
The ‘bone-record’ from our ancient ancestors tells a tale: humanity ate a MASSIVELY red meat diet for tens of thousands of years.
( Meat intensive diets shift the nitrogen concentration of the bone. )
It’s CARBOHYDRATES that are new. Humanity figured out how to massively exploit them only in the last 10,000 years.
And it’s obvious from the sketchy record that the first order of business was the fermentation of alcohol!
Later, bread ( sopping wet — as baby food ) became a fall-back staple. ( Think hard tack. )
—-
All of which means that all talk about red meat being a health threat comes through their hat.
Pemican, anyone?
blert: what you say isn’t especially logical.
First of all, genetically and evolutionarily speaking, natural selection doesn’t especially care if we eat food that will allow us to live into our 80s and 90s, which is the concern of the anti-beef people. In prehistoric times and for many centuries after, the people who perpetuated their genes were the ones who had offspring and lived long enough to raise them to adulthood (which occurred at a very early age). Probably living into their 30s or at most early 40s was enough to accomplish that. So, even if meat-eating led to death at that point, it really didn’t matter in terms of evolution.
In addition, wild-caught meat from game is quite different than domestic meat, in fat content and other ways as well. So extrapolating from one to the other isn’t especially valid.
Plus, we’ve had many many centuries of evolution since the meat-intensive diet days, plenty of time for people to adapt physiologically to a cereal diet or whatever diet we happen to be eating in one part or another of the world. For example, I am 100% lactose- intolerant (they did a test; I’m not imagining it–I have no ability whatsoever to digest lactose). This trait only exists and is common in people from certain parts of the world where people don’t drink milk, etc., but in other parts of the world where they do, most of the people have a mutation that enables them to digest milk well into adulthood rather than just in infancy.
neo,
the missing factor your referring to is the value of knowledge and experience fed back… lots of those thinking in the evolution arena have a problem with why grandparents. the classical models say after the birth the rest doesnt matter.
but if that were true, praeder willi would not be supressed when the biological father was present… implying its an adaptation for when the provider is gone.. in girls another such adaptation is early onset of menses (which they are trying to pin on environmental factors to save the ideology from people knowing the result of kicking dad out is a less smart sexually precocious girl, and not because he oppresses her, but becuase she is a primate)
since we cant quantify the value of information in any consistent unit, there is no way to show the value of grandparents and so on… however, there is a kind of double thread running through humans in which the children are like the grandparents… which would imply that when both parents had the grandparents as guardian they did better than if they didn’t have those older folk.
and so, having older folk feeds back its information in that way, and so they DO have an effect post fertility… as we favor our closest genetic others as do most of nature.
if you add to the fact that the grandparents would teach and so on (as i learned growing up), you get even more powerful reason.
it follows family lines and so the genetic family who could live that way had greater advantage over other families on many levels.
dynasty was born…
Artfldgr: actually, I understand that–and it’s one of the arguments for why people actually do live to oldish ages. For the sake of brevity I didn’t go into that in my comment, but my point is that living to an old age (for example, past 70 or so, which is when most of the diseases supposedly caused by eating meat really would start kicking in) was exceedingly uncommon in predominantly meat-eating prehistoric times. The skeletons found from back then are almost never that old. So the supposition is that people did not live to those ages except under very extraordinary circumstances back then (sort of like a 110-year-old now). So the argument is that meat-eating-caused diseases (if such things even exist to begin with, and if the research is correct) would not have been much of a factor.
And of course, as I said in the rest of my comment, meat was very different then from now, and also we’ve had many thousands of years to adapt to a cereal/grain type diet as well.
No,no ,no, Neo. Studying at Harvard (Obama and his regime czars) and listening to Harvard results is what kills brain cells.
If people are worried about dying, they should stay far away from the poison of academia.
Americans are never going to become healthy until they determine their own diets and regimes. Listening to the “elite” aristocrats talking about health using other people’s money, isn’t the way to anywhere good.
Until you can research, develop, and do your own health care adjustments, you will always be the victim of some guy on a pedestal, with the light Shining Down Upon Him, telling you this is that, and that is this, and if he’s wrong, you get the shaft, not him.
I would counter-argue that death came by way of entering the food chain — some place in the middle.
And then there’s the possibility that ones genes simply make for a longer life span.
In my extended family we age slowly — from the very start. We reach adult size only in our late teens.
This carries on through to old age, with most of my ancestors living up to and beyond 100. My grand-aunt passed away five weeks ago at 104.
Low stress living, the right genes and such dominate the equation.
The big issue with meat today is the tendency to medicate livestock — massively — all the time.
I regard that as something of real concern.
Whether ones protein comes from fish, fowl or beast is well down the list.
Another worry is the closure of parasitic life-cycles by way of the feed-lot. We’re setting ourselves up for some terrible afflictions.
Viruses that target the brain ought to be front and center. They are an undiscovered country.
I’m with blert.
Read Gary Taube and you’ll think differently about everything you’ve ever been told about our diet.
* Taubes
ELC: I did. And I don’t.
First of all, as I’ve written before, the diets don’t work for me AT ALL. I’ve tried a number of times with a number of diets, and have read Taubes’ work. All those diets do is make me ill, and I also don’t lose weight either. There are plenty of people like me
And no one has refuted the points I made earlier on this thread, about the amount of time people’s bodies have had to adjust to a non-paleo diet.
Here’s an article about the rather poor methodology of the research. It appears that the goal was to prove a theory and then use rather sloppy data to prove it. A bit like the Warmists prove their theory of AGW. According to the author, Rob Lyons, the study seems to prove that being a man is much more dangerous than eating bacon,…………
Read it all here: http://tinyurl.com/6lq3gse
neo … long time reader but reticent commentator here.
Every time you’ve mentioned your history with the Atkins’ diet, I’ve wanted to chime in with this hunch. I think the reason you didn’t lose weight on the diet is that, paradoxically, you were not taking in enough calories for your activity level.
Paleo-style diets work so well in part because proteins and fats induce satiation much faster than carbs. There’s only so much protein and fat a person, even a meat lover, can eat without feeling sick. Over time, people on paleo diets start to eat less and less because they nearly always feel full. Since you don’t strike me as a big meat eater to begin with, this phenomenon might have been exacerbated in your case.
When coupled, however, with very strenuous activity (you indicated that you were doing hours of dance workouts), taking in so few calories can lead to prolonged stalls in weight loss as the starvation mode kicks in. Your body, alarmed by the extremes of far too few calories coming in and far too many calories going out, now clings to every pound by drastically slowing metabolism.
A book that’s been recommended to me about this famine reaction, which I haven’t yet read, is “The Don’t Go Hungry Diet,” by Dr. Amanda Sainsbury-Salis.
In my own experience, eating a lot of carbs invariably leads to weight gain even when overall caloric intake is within acceptable limits. Strict paleo, however, is not the answer for me. That just causes me to eat too few calories, which plummets my metabolism. What has worked for me is carb/calorie cycling where relatively higher carbs and calories are alternated every few days with relatively lower carbs and calories.
reticent: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I tried Atkins-type diets several times, and it was only the first time (when I was in my twenties) that I was unusually active. The other times I was just normally active.
The other thing is that you are correct: I detest eating that way, and so I probably didn’t eat a whole ton of the food. Problem is, there’s no way I could eat a lot of that sort of food unless you held a gun to my head, and even then I’d have to think about it. So if a person hates a certain diet that much, and actually feels sick on it the whole time (including right at the beginning, before any starvation mode would have time to kick in), and also doesn’t lose weight, I think we can safely assume it’s not the diet for them.
I’ve been impressed by how many people on the paleo diet or the Atkins diet or the restrictive diet du jour say, “Imagine how great! All the meat and bacon and eggs and butter and cheese you can eat!” Whereas the mere thought of eating that way makes me practically ill. I like meat at times, but too much of that sort of thing (and it doesn’t take much to be too much for me) makes me feel exhausted and almost poisoned. So I think I have to listen to my body.
One other new-age-y thing: I seem to recall that in Chinese philosophy all of those foods are very yang (warming, drying). When I went to an acupuncturist for my back and arm injuries and she was treating me, she said I was overly yang and needed to stay away from too many yang foods. I’m not at all sure I believe that sort of thing, but it certainly conforms to my observations about how I do on something like the Atkins diet.