Interesting anecdote from Reason on how Canadian health care treated one woman, or rather failed to treat her, along with a doctor who puts up a price list on his website about what things cost. I tracked the website down and noted an interesting thing.
Some of you know that my dad was in the hospital a month ago. As it turns out, they gave him angioplasty (through the femoral artery, yeow!). If you go to that site, you'll see angioplasty costs $12,500.
That's expensive, but not unmanageable. Presumably, one wouldn't need a lot of angioplasty. And catastrophic coverage well, wouldn't need to be all that huge to cover it.
Now, my dad's two days in the hospital cost $140,000.
Frankly, that seems unpossible to me. Who could possibly afford that? How can something exist in a market that nobody could afford?
I suspect there may be market distortions at work.
If one wanted to fix the health care market, one might start by locating the distortions and removing them.
Just a thought.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Theory: Obama Is Stupid And Lazy
Now, don't get your knickers in a twist. I don't mean to suggest that the President does not have an average intellect. Possibly even an above-average, though seldom exercised, intellect. I'm not speaking of low IQs here, but of stupidity. (The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential, who work with brain-injured kids are fond of pointing out that there's no cure for stupidity.)
He might even be a genius, though I've really seen nothing from the man to suggest that he's anything more than a competent parroter of other people's words. I don't believe for a second that he actually wrote those books; writers write pretty much all the time. But lack of achievement is no disqualifier of genius. This is neither here nor there.
Because even geniuses can be stupid about things.
Let me see if I can support this potentially controversial theory. See if you can follow my byzantine logic here.
First, I'm going to assume the position that Obama is, more or less, exactly what he seems. A sincere fellow traveler who is not feigning surprise when someone suggests that FDR's wild spending and experimentation didn't actually end the Great Depression.
Therefore, Obama genuinely believes that what he's done and what he's trying to do isn't going to harm the economy, or at least isn't going to harm the economy so badly that it won't rebound against his party in 2010, and himself in 2012. (I don't subscribe to the notion that he's deliberately trying to harm the economy to force us into socialism, as Althouse describes Rush Limbaugh as saying, although I think Teddy Kennedy has expressed such sentiments.)
Let's look at some predictions versus actuality, courtesy of Michael at Innocent Bystanders:
As any smart politician knows, when pitching a plan with such short-term predictions, you predict the worst-case scenario for if your plan doesn't pass, and predict what you think will actually happen with or without your plan.
Get it? That way, if your plan does nothing but line your cronies' pockets and feed the political machine, you'll get credit for the better-than-worst case scenario. And, you know, we're lucky when politicians only line their own pockets versus when they actually try to do something (like push sub-prime mortgage loans, help out banks or provide universal education and health care).
There's no way that he expected to be standing here, mid-summer, with egg on his face.
But, okay, he's a true believer. He thinks government spending--even just the unfocused, delayed throwing of money about--solves problems. That's just ignorance.
But now he's thrown money around. He's "bailed out" various industries. He's seen the effect. He's continuing to push for economy-damaging plans, though, and arguing that they'll actually improve the economy. (Some have argued, because things should be this way, liberals believe they must be this way.)
Now, there's plenty of history to look at here. You can look at the effects of government spending, at the effects of tax cuts, at protectionism, at unions, and you can see what these things do. You can also see these things at work all over the world today.
This is where the stupid comes in. Because in order to take in all this information and use it, you have to be honest. Now, you almost never hear about honesty as a factor in intelligence, but it is. You hear the phrase "intellectual honesty" like there's a difference, but honesty is honesty.
The left loved to attack W as stupid on these same grounds. But rather than talk about him, I think it's more useful to look at Clinton. Clinton followed a similar trajectory, on a longer curve, but he was smart enough to take credit for conservative policies pushed through by his Republican Congress when they worked. He was smart enough to pronounce the era of big government being over.
Now, his motivations may have been entirely selfish. There's no doubt that some modern Presidents seem to look at things in terms of lookin' good for history versus doing what's right. But I doubt very much that he was unaffected by the policies he saw working. (And, gosh, aren't both Clintons awfully quiet on the health care issue?)
Perhaps Obama is just slow: It's hard to give up cherished beliefs no matter how badly they fail in practice, and he'll eventually be forced to confront reality--say, if the nation takes away his majority in 2010.
But my theory is that he'll continue doing what he's doing. No matter how much evidence piles up against his beliefs, he'll stay the course.
That's stupid.
The other half of my perhaps controversial theory is that he's lazy. His idea of work appears to be going on TV to read a speech that someone else wrote. Charges of inexperience abounded in the last election, but even his defenders were at best able to defend him with descriptions of impressive sounding positions he had achieved, rather than things he had actually done.
Not that I don't admire this. I work very hard at being lazy. But apparently being President is a lot of work. You have to study constantly. Protocols, histories, and all manner of things from massive industries to peculiar local customs. Any time you take off gets scrutinized--even if you're not taking time off, but working remotely. (Well, okay, Obama's not a Republican so he doesn't have to worry about that.)
But I haven't seen any indication that he's done any of this homework. In fact, a great many of the gaffes we've seen--like running out and getting the British PM a bunch of DVDs he wouldn't like and couldn't use--just seem to come from not having bothered to study.
The more serious problems, like the business of pushing through laws no one has read, seem to come from relying on lawmakers' competence and general good-hearted, fellow traveler status.
I mean, in order to ram through a bill like the unwritten health care laws, you have to have a whopping faith in some unnamed lawmaker to write a clear and cogent description of a hugely complex and detailed area of society. Or you have to just not care.
And that's just stupid. And lazy.
But we should be grateful. A truly smart, hard-working socialist (or communist, why split hairs?) would have cut the payroll tax, slashed regulation, changed the mark-t0-market rules and "saved" the economy. (The government, of course, is the biggest suppressor of the economy, so it can "save" it by backing off.)
When the economy rebounded, our smart, hard-working politico would have pretty much free rein to set up whatever he wanted. Who would have the mojo to challenge him?
Kind of a chilling thought. But maybe it's not always a bad thing that politics seeks destructive, short-term solutions.
UPDATE #1: Evidence in support of my theory provided on July 22nd, 2009. Obama has a press conference to bolster his health care plan in which he takes the opportunity to call the Cambridge Police stupid--after saying he didn't know all the facts in the case. He had to have believed that this was going to boost his popularity. What's more, since he arranged all the questions in advance, he had to have specifically picked this topic and worked out his answer in advance on the basis of believing that America shares the far left's contempt for police and wanted to hear that from the President.
I mean, look, I have mixed feelings about the police. On the whole, I thnk they do a good job. But I also think they're often more protective of each other than the job. But I don't want to hear the President weigh in on this! It's almost up there with the President going around to foreign countries to apologize for America's actions. The President is supposed to be an America booster; it's minimum spec for the job!
He might even be a genius, though I've really seen nothing from the man to suggest that he's anything more than a competent parroter of other people's words. I don't believe for a second that he actually wrote those books; writers write pretty much all the time. But lack of achievement is no disqualifier of genius. This is neither here nor there.
Because even geniuses can be stupid about things.
Let me see if I can support this potentially controversial theory. See if you can follow my byzantine logic here.
First, I'm going to assume the position that Obama is, more or less, exactly what he seems. A sincere fellow traveler who is not feigning surprise when someone suggests that FDR's wild spending and experimentation didn't actually end the Great Depression.
Therefore, Obama genuinely believes that what he's done and what he's trying to do isn't going to harm the economy, or at least isn't going to harm the economy so badly that it won't rebound against his party in 2010, and himself in 2012. (I don't subscribe to the notion that he's deliberately trying to harm the economy to force us into socialism, as Althouse describes Rush Limbaugh as saying, although I think Teddy Kennedy has expressed such sentiments.)
Let's look at some predictions versus actuality, courtesy of Michael at Innocent Bystanders:
As any smart politician knows, when pitching a plan with such short-term predictions, you predict the worst-case scenario for if your plan doesn't pass, and predict what you think will actually happen with or without your plan.Get it? That way, if your plan does nothing but line your cronies' pockets and feed the political machine, you'll get credit for the better-than-worst case scenario. And, you know, we're lucky when politicians only line their own pockets versus when they actually try to do something (like push sub-prime mortgage loans, help out banks or provide universal education and health care).
There's no way that he expected to be standing here, mid-summer, with egg on his face.
But, okay, he's a true believer. He thinks government spending--even just the unfocused, delayed throwing of money about--solves problems. That's just ignorance.
But now he's thrown money around. He's "bailed out" various industries. He's seen the effect. He's continuing to push for economy-damaging plans, though, and arguing that they'll actually improve the economy. (Some have argued, because things should be this way, liberals believe they must be this way.)
Now, there's plenty of history to look at here. You can look at the effects of government spending, at the effects of tax cuts, at protectionism, at unions, and you can see what these things do. You can also see these things at work all over the world today.
This is where the stupid comes in. Because in order to take in all this information and use it, you have to be honest. Now, you almost never hear about honesty as a factor in intelligence, but it is. You hear the phrase "intellectual honesty" like there's a difference, but honesty is honesty.
The left loved to attack W as stupid on these same grounds. But rather than talk about him, I think it's more useful to look at Clinton. Clinton followed a similar trajectory, on a longer curve, but he was smart enough to take credit for conservative policies pushed through by his Republican Congress when they worked. He was smart enough to pronounce the era of big government being over.
Now, his motivations may have been entirely selfish. There's no doubt that some modern Presidents seem to look at things in terms of lookin' good for history versus doing what's right. But I doubt very much that he was unaffected by the policies he saw working. (And, gosh, aren't both Clintons awfully quiet on the health care issue?)
Perhaps Obama is just slow: It's hard to give up cherished beliefs no matter how badly they fail in practice, and he'll eventually be forced to confront reality--say, if the nation takes away his majority in 2010.
But my theory is that he'll continue doing what he's doing. No matter how much evidence piles up against his beliefs, he'll stay the course.
That's stupid.
The other half of my perhaps controversial theory is that he's lazy. His idea of work appears to be going on TV to read a speech that someone else wrote. Charges of inexperience abounded in the last election, but even his defenders were at best able to defend him with descriptions of impressive sounding positions he had achieved, rather than things he had actually done.
Not that I don't admire this. I work very hard at being lazy. But apparently being President is a lot of work. You have to study constantly. Protocols, histories, and all manner of things from massive industries to peculiar local customs. Any time you take off gets scrutinized--even if you're not taking time off, but working remotely. (Well, okay, Obama's not a Republican so he doesn't have to worry about that.)
But I haven't seen any indication that he's done any of this homework. In fact, a great many of the gaffes we've seen--like running out and getting the British PM a bunch of DVDs he wouldn't like and couldn't use--just seem to come from not having bothered to study.
The more serious problems, like the business of pushing through laws no one has read, seem to come from relying on lawmakers' competence and general good-hearted, fellow traveler status.
I mean, in order to ram through a bill like the unwritten health care laws, you have to have a whopping faith in some unnamed lawmaker to write a clear and cogent description of a hugely complex and detailed area of society. Or you have to just not care.
And that's just stupid. And lazy.
But we should be grateful. A truly smart, hard-working socialist (or communist, why split hairs?) would have cut the payroll tax, slashed regulation, changed the mark-t0-market rules and "saved" the economy. (The government, of course, is the biggest suppressor of the economy, so it can "save" it by backing off.)
When the economy rebounded, our smart, hard-working politico would have pretty much free rein to set up whatever he wanted. Who would have the mojo to challenge him?
Kind of a chilling thought. But maybe it's not always a bad thing that politics seeks destructive, short-term solutions.
UPDATE #1: Evidence in support of my theory provided on July 22nd, 2009. Obama has a press conference to bolster his health care plan in which he takes the opportunity to call the Cambridge Police stupid--after saying he didn't know all the facts in the case. He had to have believed that this was going to boost his popularity. What's more, since he arranged all the questions in advance, he had to have specifically picked this topic and worked out his answer in advance on the basis of believing that America shares the far left's contempt for police and wanted to hear that from the President.
I mean, look, I have mixed feelings about the police. On the whole, I thnk they do a good job. But I also think they're often more protective of each other than the job. But I don't want to hear the President weigh in on this! It's almost up there with the President going around to foreign countries to apologize for America's actions. The President is supposed to be an America booster; it's minimum spec for the job!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sugar, Sweat and The Vanishing T-Zone
Our experiments in snake-oil continue apace. The Boy slipped a bit in his adherence to the program, so we've kind of been hanging fire for a couple of weeks. Even so, he's using half the per-meal insulin he was a couple of months ago, and starting to lower his daily insulin.
The interesting thing to me is how exact the predictions have been. Just as predicted, his blood sugar dropped low, and he had to lower his insulin. Then it came back up, so he had to raise it again. Just as predicted, he started spilling sugar in his urine; when it stopped we were to lower his insulin till it started again. And the cycle of stopping and starting was supposed to speed up, which it has done.
He's still not quite in the zone where things are really kicking in, which is a sort of frightening thought. Although diabetics are controlling for high blood sugar, the short-term danger is from low blood sugar, which can happen if his pancreas suddenly starts creating insulin while he's injecting insulin. (We've had a few rather low readings since starting this, but mostly The Boy has been very aware, very cautious and very diligent.)
Meanwhile, I've had a few interesting phenomena arise. My weight's held steady after dropping those 20 pounds (and the doctor looks concerned about me dropping more) though even though my weight hasn't changed in a month, people seem to be noticing more. So, I think something is happening. (I haven't gotten to my mom's gym for a fat test yet.)
On anther front, my "T-Zone" vanished, sort of. This is kind of amusing, because I can't seem to find anyone who remembers the "T-Zone" commercials. If you have oily skin (which I always have) but you have dry skin over your eyes, and down your nose, you have a "T-Zone". I forget what they were advertising, exactly, but it was probably some sort of moisturizer. (No, I didn't do anything about it. Why would a guy care if he had a "T-Zone"?)
Well, mine started getting extreme (as had happened occasionally before) with all kinds of dry, flaky skin, and then, over the course of a week, it started shrinking, until it was sort of an "i-Zone". Now it's just sort of the dot (the tittle, technically speaking) over the lower-case i.
The doc says, "Oh, that's just vitamin A deficiency."
Also, I'm sweating. I've never been a sweater. Em. I've never been one who sweats. I mean, sure, when working out in 100 degree heat in our tiny dojo back before it got A/C, I did some sweating. But not as much as other people by a long shot.
The theory being batted around at the time had to do with playing a lot of sports as a kid and developing your sweat glands at a young age. It's not a crazy thought, really: The body does a lot of things in reaction to activity. (You're not born with hip sockets, for example. They're created by the action of crawling.)
The theory might even be true. But my doctor offered another theory, since she has lots of guys who are suddenly sweating a lot: The body doesn't sweat because it's dehydrated.
Well, duh.
That's one of those things that's so obvious when you think about it, you feel stupid for never having thought of it yourself.
Weirdly, I've written a fair amount of (unpublished) fiction. At one point, when I took stock of what I had written, I became aware of how much I wrote focused on water. People being thirsty or dehydrated. (I even thought at one point of collecting all my water-themed stories together to make a movie.)
Wild, huh?
Even more interesting, according to this program, once you're up to snuff, your body actually makes most of what you need. You only take a couple of calciums (which are not in our foods, unfortunately).
The interesting thing to me is how exact the predictions have been. Just as predicted, his blood sugar dropped low, and he had to lower his insulin. Then it came back up, so he had to raise it again. Just as predicted, he started spilling sugar in his urine; when it stopped we were to lower his insulin till it started again. And the cycle of stopping and starting was supposed to speed up, which it has done.
He's still not quite in the zone where things are really kicking in, which is a sort of frightening thought. Although diabetics are controlling for high blood sugar, the short-term danger is from low blood sugar, which can happen if his pancreas suddenly starts creating insulin while he's injecting insulin. (We've had a few rather low readings since starting this, but mostly The Boy has been very aware, very cautious and very diligent.)
Meanwhile, I've had a few interesting phenomena arise. My weight's held steady after dropping those 20 pounds (and the doctor looks concerned about me dropping more) though even though my weight hasn't changed in a month, people seem to be noticing more. So, I think something is happening. (I haven't gotten to my mom's gym for a fat test yet.)
On anther front, my "T-Zone" vanished, sort of. This is kind of amusing, because I can't seem to find anyone who remembers the "T-Zone" commercials. If you have oily skin (which I always have) but you have dry skin over your eyes, and down your nose, you have a "T-Zone". I forget what they were advertising, exactly, but it was probably some sort of moisturizer. (No, I didn't do anything about it. Why would a guy care if he had a "T-Zone"?)
Well, mine started getting extreme (as had happened occasionally before) with all kinds of dry, flaky skin, and then, over the course of a week, it started shrinking, until it was sort of an "i-Zone". Now it's just sort of the dot (the tittle, technically speaking) over the lower-case i.
The doc says, "Oh, that's just vitamin A deficiency."
Also, I'm sweating. I've never been a sweater. Em. I've never been one who sweats. I mean, sure, when working out in 100 degree heat in our tiny dojo back before it got A/C, I did some sweating. But not as much as other people by a long shot.
The theory being batted around at the time had to do with playing a lot of sports as a kid and developing your sweat glands at a young age. It's not a crazy thought, really: The body does a lot of things in reaction to activity. (You're not born with hip sockets, for example. They're created by the action of crawling.)
The theory might even be true. But my doctor offered another theory, since she has lots of guys who are suddenly sweating a lot: The body doesn't sweat because it's dehydrated.
Well, duh.
That's one of those things that's so obvious when you think about it, you feel stupid for never having thought of it yourself.
Weirdly, I've written a fair amount of (unpublished) fiction. At one point, when I took stock of what I had written, I became aware of how much I wrote focused on water. People being thirsty or dehydrated. (I even thought at one point of collecting all my water-themed stories together to make a movie.)
Wild, huh?
Even more interesting, according to this program, once you're up to snuff, your body actually makes most of what you need. You only take a couple of calciums (which are not in our foods, unfortunately).
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Ouch!
I've continued to do the Wii and, like any other video game, it trains you to play it very well. I've actually gotten to the point where it doesn't insult me most of the time. ("You performed exceptionally poorly on the Don't Stick Your Thumb In Your Eye challenge. Is it because you are a big, clumsy American or are you especially uncoordinated?")
The Wii takes an exceptionally sensitive weight reading, then uses your keyed in height to calculate your BMI. And then helpfully displays your Wii as underweight, normal, fat or obese, based thereon. I honestly can't imagine a large American corporation coming up with an exercise system that called its users obese and clumsy.
This, however, has to be the unkindest cut (from F-- My Life):
So, yeah, I bet it caps out at 300 pounds. Fair warning. (Note: 330# according to various web sources.)
Look, treat as a fun way to get off your ass and you can have a good time. Also, if you use it daily, just to do a "body test": it'll keep track of your weight. It is, of course, a bad idea to focus on weight if you're trying to get in shape and, as I noted, the Wii Fit is very sensitive.
But while the Fit software tends to overreact to weight fluctuations, you know if you're looking at a normal weight shift or a third helping of mashed potatoes. It's programmed to not react to a minor weight shift, and notes that you can swing a couple of pounds in a day, but it's not unusual for me to swing five pounds in a single day. (Something I observed years ago, back in the karate days.)
But it's a lot harder to ignore a general trend. And regardless of how you view the Wii's general approach to fitness, you can do the weight thing every day.
Meanwhile, my personal trainer mother wants to give me a real body fat test at her gym.
Anyway, the only real weakness with the Fit is that there isn't enough content. The Wii Fit Plus should resolve that, for a while.
The Wii takes an exceptionally sensitive weight reading, then uses your keyed in height to calculate your BMI. And then helpfully displays your Wii as underweight, normal, fat or obese, based thereon. I honestly can't imagine a large American corporation coming up with an exercise system that called its users obese and clumsy.
This, however, has to be the unkindest cut (from F-- My Life):
Today, I finally got Wii Fit to lose some weight. Came home and set it all up only to be told that I weigh too much to use the board. FML
Look, treat as a fun way to get off your ass and you can have a good time. Also, if you use it daily, just to do a "body test": it'll keep track of your weight. It is, of course, a bad idea to focus on weight if you're trying to get in shape and, as I noted, the Wii Fit is very sensitive.
But while the Fit software tends to overreact to weight fluctuations, you know if you're looking at a normal weight shift or a third helping of mashed potatoes. It's programmed to not react to a minor weight shift, and notes that you can swing a couple of pounds in a day, but it's not unusual for me to swing five pounds in a single day. (Something I observed years ago, back in the karate days.)
But it's a lot harder to ignore a general trend. And regardless of how you view the Wii's general approach to fitness, you can do the weight thing every day.
Meanwhile, my personal trainer mother wants to give me a real body fat test at her gym.
Anyway, the only real weakness with the Fit is that there isn't enough content. The Wii Fit Plus should resolve that, for a while.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Weird Science
We were back at the dietitian's last Friday after a couple of weeks away, and both I and The Boy were dehydrated. Not a huge surprise, really: We'd been walking around the college, in the heat, I'd been working out a bit more, etc.
As a coda to this post about my weird dream, the dietitian was giving us signs of dehydration to watch for, so that we would know when to drink extra water. First one she mentions? Weird dreams. General sleep disturbances (I hadn't been sleeping well, or at least not long enough.)
So far, though, everything that she said would happen has happened. We had some blood sugar crashes early on (as The Boy's body released the artificial insulin it stored up) and then, in line with his graph being in the right place, he's started to have sugar in his urine.
Generally, you don't want sugar in your urine, but in this case it's supposed to be indicative of the healing process. Intriguingly, The Boy's sugars are very well in control, if a little wild. (They'll get suddenly high, then drop down just as suddenly, though never into a dangerous zone.) He's also on half the per-meal insulin he was a few months ago.
The theory is that artificial insulin is like a cast for the pancreas, so once the body starts healing, you need to take the cast off, letting your sugars get a bit high so that the pancreas will be stimulated to start producing.
I'm sure this could cause a panic attack in a lot of medical professionals. I'm sure it's dangerous. But you know what? So is diabetes-for-the-rest-of-your-life. They kind of feed you a cock-and-bull story about how you can be in the NBA and live a normal life, but the long term consequences for a diabetic, even one with well-controlled blood sugar, are really pretty horrible.
I love mainstream medicine, don't get me wrong, but really only for emergencies. Bad infections, broken bones, heart attacks, and so on. But if I have high blood pressure, I don't want to take a pill forever. I want my blood pressure back to normal. Same with high cholesterol.
But even if you're an all-mainstream-medicine-all-the-time-guy, the FDA sits on drugs that might help people in the name of protecting them, essentially protecting them to death. "Excuse me, Mr. Government, sir, but I'd like to try that cancer medicine, even if it might kill me. Because I'm going to die anyway."
I think Man has an inalienable right to his snake oil, as I've said here many times. I'm sure, in my case, that it's part of the pursuit of happiness. And in everyone's case, it's a matter of sovereignty over his body.
If the government would leave my body and my property alone, I'd be happy to have the social liberals and conservative battle out whatever they wanted.
As a coda to this post about my weird dream, the dietitian was giving us signs of dehydration to watch for, so that we would know when to drink extra water. First one she mentions? Weird dreams. General sleep disturbances (I hadn't been sleeping well, or at least not long enough.)
So far, though, everything that she said would happen has happened. We had some blood sugar crashes early on (as The Boy's body released the artificial insulin it stored up) and then, in line with his graph being in the right place, he's started to have sugar in his urine.
Generally, you don't want sugar in your urine, but in this case it's supposed to be indicative of the healing process. Intriguingly, The Boy's sugars are very well in control, if a little wild. (They'll get suddenly high, then drop down just as suddenly, though never into a dangerous zone.) He's also on half the per-meal insulin he was a few months ago.
The theory is that artificial insulin is like a cast for the pancreas, so once the body starts healing, you need to take the cast off, letting your sugars get a bit high so that the pancreas will be stimulated to start producing.
I'm sure this could cause a panic attack in a lot of medical professionals. I'm sure it's dangerous. But you know what? So is diabetes-for-the-rest-of-your-life. They kind of feed you a cock-and-bull story about how you can be in the NBA and live a normal life, but the long term consequences for a diabetic, even one with well-controlled blood sugar, are really pretty horrible.
I love mainstream medicine, don't get me wrong, but really only for emergencies. Bad infections, broken bones, heart attacks, and so on. But if I have high blood pressure, I don't want to take a pill forever. I want my blood pressure back to normal. Same with high cholesterol.
But even if you're an all-mainstream-medicine-all-the-time-guy, the FDA sits on drugs that might help people in the name of protecting them, essentially protecting them to death. "Excuse me, Mr. Government, sir, but I'd like to try that cancer medicine, even if it might kill me. Because I'm going to die anyway."
I think Man has an inalienable right to his snake oil, as I've said here many times. I'm sure, in my case, that it's part of the pursuit of happiness. And in everyone's case, it's a matter of sovereignty over his body.
If the government would leave my body and my property alone, I'd be happy to have the social liberals and conservative battle out whatever they wanted.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thinner
Darcy has a post up featuring Daniela Hantuchova, a Slovakian tennis player that she alludes to as having gotten "too thin", perhaps due to pressure to appear glamorous. This struck me as interesting because an athlete's first responsibility is to be functional in her sport.
You can't put the shot and be worried about fitting into a size 0.
In fact, those two goals (emulating a super-model and excelling in your sport) might be contrary. The post stirred a memories of a couple of movies (as most things do) which illustrate--something or other.
First of all: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Captain Kirk is climbing up El Capitan. The close shots, of course, are 57-year-old William Shatner. The reverse angles--the ass-up shots, if you will--are of some guy with a much, much skinnier ass. These shots--presumably masterminded by director Shatner--set the tone of meta-silliness that pervades that movie.
Second of all: Her Alibi. Back when it still seemed like a good idea to make TV icon Tom Selleck into a movie star. Real-life Czech supermodel Paulina Porizkova plays a Romanian acrobat, though completely lacking the body of an acrobat--or indeed, a body that was probably much good for anything, except looking at. Well, and snagging a rockstar husband. (All credit to her, though, since they're still married 20 years later.)
But whatever a body that thin can do, it can't do one thing her character could (and needed) to do: Climb a rope. And so we got the reverse of the Captain Kirk situation above. From one angle, skinny Paulina. From the other, a heftier stuntwoman.
I was struck by the fact that--much like Shatner--they couldn't find anyone even close to the body-type of the actor chosen to play the part.
A propos of nothing, I guess. Just flotsam bubbling up in the ol' Bit's mind.
You can't put the shot and be worried about fitting into a size 0.
In fact, those two goals (emulating a super-model and excelling in your sport) might be contrary. The post stirred a memories of a couple of movies (as most things do) which illustrate--something or other.
First of all: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Captain Kirk is climbing up El Capitan. The close shots, of course, are 57-year-old William Shatner. The reverse angles--the ass-up shots, if you will--are of some guy with a much, much skinnier ass. These shots--presumably masterminded by director Shatner--set the tone of meta-silliness that pervades that movie.
Second of all: Her Alibi. Back when it still seemed like a good idea to make TV icon Tom Selleck into a movie star. Real-life Czech supermodel Paulina Porizkova plays a Romanian acrobat, though completely lacking the body of an acrobat--or indeed, a body that was probably much good for anything, except looking at. Well, and snagging a rockstar husband. (All credit to her, though, since they're still married 20 years later.)
But whatever a body that thin can do, it can't do one thing her character could (and needed) to do: Climb a rope. And so we got the reverse of the Captain Kirk situation above. From one angle, skinny Paulina. From the other, a heftier stuntwoman.
I was struck by the fact that--much like Shatner--they couldn't find anyone even close to the body-type of the actor chosen to play the part.
A propos of nothing, I guess. Just flotsam bubbling up in the ol' Bit's mind.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
White Devils
I detailed my eight month treadmill desk experiment here and also my water drinking, and noted that neither of them caused any net weight loss. I'm sure I must have swapped some muscle for fat in those eight months, but as the water drinking was accompanied with a reduction in my soda drinking habits, I was expecting some sort of net weight loss. But no dice.
Of course, I started doing the Reams program in solidarity with The Boy and, much to my dismay, it worked. So, now I'm eating a largely vegetable diet, with meat two, three (okay, sometimes four) times a week. And there are things I am not eating.
No white flour. No white sugar. No white potatoes. Also, no corn syrup, and really, I'm not supposed to be eating corn (unless it's white corn on the cob). I do have popcorn and soda at the movies.
Well, I guess it's not mystery where my extra pounds were coming from. I've lost 20 pounds in two months. Without any exercise at all. I'm not supposed to exercise too much yet though I am finally back on that a little bit.
My interpretation of the various food prohibitions fall into two categories: Some foods are bad because they are actually harmful while others are bad because they take up the space you'd normally have for nutritious food. Shellfish, pork, protein bars are examples of food in the actually harmful category--something about the high protein content. (Again, this is my casual impression. I'm not claiming to understand this.)
Sure has made weight loss simple, though. If you call this living....
Of course, I started doing the Reams program in solidarity with The Boy and, much to my dismay, it worked. So, now I'm eating a largely vegetable diet, with meat two, three (okay, sometimes four) times a week. And there are things I am not eating.
No white flour. No white sugar. No white potatoes. Also, no corn syrup, and really, I'm not supposed to be eating corn (unless it's white corn on the cob). I do have popcorn and soda at the movies.
Well, I guess it's not mystery where my extra pounds were coming from. I've lost 20 pounds in two months. Without any exercise at all. I'm not supposed to exercise too much yet though I am finally back on that a little bit.
My interpretation of the various food prohibitions fall into two categories: Some foods are bad because they are actually harmful while others are bad because they take up the space you'd normally have for nutritious food. Shellfish, pork, protein bars are examples of food in the actually harmful category--something about the high protein content. (Again, this is my casual impression. I'm not claiming to understand this.)
Sure has made weight loss simple, though. If you call this living....
Friday, June 12, 2009
When Numbers Get Serious
A week ago, The Boy and I took one of our not infrequent road trips to visit the dietitian. I've been a little suspect of his devotion to the whole regime of vegetables, and I thought he'd been a bit lax with some of his supplements (vitamins and minerals).
But the numbers came back great. Mine came back pretty good, too, which sort of surprised me, since they'd been so bad before. I'm allowed to exercise a little and eat a little meat. (This diet discourages heavy meat eating. Three times a week, maximum.)
I spent a year and a half as a mostly-vegetarian. That is, I didn't eat any meat during the week, but since I went home for weekends and mom considers vegetarianism a personal affront, I did eat fish then. It was actually very difficult for me to start eating meat again. I mean, just contemplating it was sort of appalling.
Weird, eh? Well, I just spent six weeks as an actual vegetarian and I assure you my celebratory hot turkey sandwich was quite welcome. (I'm not even a turkey fan but--well, I'm not going to food blog just yet, but the sandwich will be back.)
I could observe that I continue to benefit from this program, and The Boy continues to reduce his insulin, but I see the government has already established that alternative forms of treatment are pretty much universally bunk.
Well, not really: They've apparently spent $2.5B paying other people to test them, in God knows what fashion. I've linked to this guy, Phil Plait, instead of to the direct article because he captures so well the attitude I've seen of some: It's vitally important to them that nobody ever believe anything that can't be proven in a double-blind study.
Frankly, I don't think most of these things work, but since placebos (called "dummy pills" now, apparently) have something like a 20% success rate, I tend to think the placebo is under-prescribed. I mean, I doubt those "male enhancement" pills have any effect whatsoever, but if a guy believes that they do and benefits from that belief, how cruel to take that away from him!
Most of the programs I've seen that seemed very effective were not really pharmaceutical replacements, they were regimens. Lifestyle changes. You could argue (successfully, I think) that the gains were from a variety of banal things, rather than, say, distilled water or walnut tincture.
And I wouldn't really care if you did, so long as I'm free to do whatever crazy thing I want.
My concern, of course, is that the government will get both wrong: Prescribing things that don't work while proscribing things that do. In fact, I can guarantee you that already happens, routinely.
But the numbers came back great. Mine came back pretty good, too, which sort of surprised me, since they'd been so bad before. I'm allowed to exercise a little and eat a little meat. (This diet discourages heavy meat eating. Three times a week, maximum.)
I spent a year and a half as a mostly-vegetarian. That is, I didn't eat any meat during the week, but since I went home for weekends and mom considers vegetarianism a personal affront, I did eat fish then. It was actually very difficult for me to start eating meat again. I mean, just contemplating it was sort of appalling.
Weird, eh? Well, I just spent six weeks as an actual vegetarian and I assure you my celebratory hot turkey sandwich was quite welcome. (I'm not even a turkey fan but--well, I'm not going to food blog just yet, but the sandwich will be back.)
I could observe that I continue to benefit from this program, and The Boy continues to reduce his insulin, but I see the government has already established that alternative forms of treatment are pretty much universally bunk.
Well, not really: They've apparently spent $2.5B paying other people to test them, in God knows what fashion. I've linked to this guy, Phil Plait, instead of to the direct article because he captures so well the attitude I've seen of some: It's vitally important to them that nobody ever believe anything that can't be proven in a double-blind study.
Frankly, I don't think most of these things work, but since placebos (called "dummy pills" now, apparently) have something like a 20% success rate, I tend to think the placebo is under-prescribed. I mean, I doubt those "male enhancement" pills have any effect whatsoever, but if a guy believes that they do and benefits from that belief, how cruel to take that away from him!
Most of the programs I've seen that seemed very effective were not really pharmaceutical replacements, they were regimens. Lifestyle changes. You could argue (successfully, I think) that the gains were from a variety of banal things, rather than, say, distilled water or walnut tincture.
And I wouldn't really care if you did, so long as I'm free to do whatever crazy thing I want.
My concern, of course, is that the government will get both wrong: Prescribing things that don't work while proscribing things that do. In fact, I can guarantee you that already happens, routinely.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Oh, Just Say You Don't Like It
...when people tinkle in the pool.
You don't have to cobble together some sort of "science".
I mean, seriously, let's say somebody empties a quart of urine into a good sized pool. Ours holds about 17,000 gallons. A quart is a sizable amount, probably more than the trickles that are likely (mostly from kids, and mostly due to the temperature change, I'd guess).
Even so, that's 150 parts per million, urine-to-water, if my math is right. Since urine is 95% water, we're down to 7.5 parts per million for the health threat. Given that the astronauts just celebrated by drinking pee, I'm guessing it's not too bad.
Meanwhile, we dump chlorine into pools, which is well and truly toxic. I like how the article conflates urine and sweat, saying that the problem is that they combine with chlorine. But you can't help but sweat in the pool, even if you don't know it.
CDC notwithstanding, I think we're seeing the sort of objections that arise when people realize they eat food with bug parts in it. Come on, people, a certain amount of unconscious ingestion of biological matter is part and parcel of life.
Learn to deal.
You don't have to cobble together some sort of "science".
I mean, seriously, let's say somebody empties a quart of urine into a good sized pool. Ours holds about 17,000 gallons. A quart is a sizable amount, probably more than the trickles that are likely (mostly from kids, and mostly due to the temperature change, I'd guess).
Even so, that's 150 parts per million, urine-to-water, if my math is right. Since urine is 95% water, we're down to 7.5 parts per million for the health threat. Given that the astronauts just celebrated by drinking pee, I'm guessing it's not too bad.
Meanwhile, we dump chlorine into pools, which is well and truly toxic. I like how the article conflates urine and sweat, saying that the problem is that they combine with chlorine. But you can't help but sweat in the pool, even if you don't know it.
CDC notwithstanding, I think we're seeing the sort of objections that arise when people realize they eat food with bug parts in it. Come on, people, a certain amount of unconscious ingestion of biological matter is part and parcel of life.
Learn to deal.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Water, Minerals, and Incredible Things
Well, The Boy has been on this new diet for two months. So far, everything that the nutritionist has suggested would happen has happened. He's had a few crashes that slowly came back up, but now we're at the point where his body needs less fake insulin, or so the theory goes.
In practice, he's reduced his per-meal insulin by half, while maintaining excellent blood sugar levels. He's less thrown off by dietary lapses, as well. Too many carbs raise his blood sugar less dramatically and for less long. (It used to take him days to get it back under control sometimes.)
As for me, well, I'm losing weight. Sort of funny: I think the walking for 20, 30 plus hours a week built up muscle as much as it reduced fat, so no weight change. Not losing weight drinking the water is a little harder to explain, except that I was very dehydrated.
I'm not supposed to be exercising right now and meat is out, to say nothing of the various junk foods, and it's difficult to impossible to maintain my weight without those things. (No tragedy; I can stand to lose a few pounds.) I am missing exercising, though.
Encouragement to be as good as I can so as to get my body in good enough shape to actually use it, I guess.
In practice, he's reduced his per-meal insulin by half, while maintaining excellent blood sugar levels. He's less thrown off by dietary lapses, as well. Too many carbs raise his blood sugar less dramatically and for less long. (It used to take him days to get it back under control sometimes.)
As for me, well, I'm losing weight. Sort of funny: I think the walking for 20, 30 plus hours a week built up muscle as much as it reduced fat, so no weight change. Not losing weight drinking the water is a little harder to explain, except that I was very dehydrated.
I'm not supposed to be exercising right now and meat is out, to say nothing of the various junk foods, and it's difficult to impossible to maintain my weight without those things. (No tragedy; I can stand to lose a few pounds.) I am missing exercising, though.
Encouragement to be as good as I can so as to get my body in good enough shape to actually use it, I guess.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
All Clear
OK, so tests came back and everything's fine.
Phew.
Everyone's happy with the results. No need for further tests. And my dietary numbers look good, too. Well, not good, but better.
I'm still not allowed to exercise. Exercise may have contributed to the situation, actually. (Though my money's still on the antibiotics.)
In any event, I'm good to go. I live...again.
UPDATE: And pardon my manners. Thank you all for being so supportive here. Means a lot, even though I wasn't all that communicative about it.
Phew.
Everyone's happy with the results. No need for further tests. And my dietary numbers look good, too. Well, not good, but better.
I'm still not allowed to exercise. Exercise may have contributed to the situation, actually. (Though my money's still on the antibiotics.)
In any event, I'm good to go. I live...again.
UPDATE: And pardon my manners. Thank you all for being so supportive here. Means a lot, even though I wasn't all that communicative about it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Medicine and Technology
The Boy and I watched an interesting demo today on a device that monitors blood sugar continuously for 72 hours. I was a little disappointed by it, because I thought it was going to be something like a watch you could look at to see your blood sugar at any time. Instead, it doesn't transmit the information at all. After the 72 hours you remove it and a computer reads the data.
How positively medieval.
This is all a come-on for an insulin pump. If I had known that, I probably wouldn't have bothered. Two extra trips downtown (one for the demo and sensor insertion, one to drop off the sensor later) for something I don't think we'll be using, but it was kind of interesting. The basic premise is simple enough: You wear an external device that acts sort of as a pancreas.
The pancreas does more than produce insulin but, hey, it's a start.
Anyway, the boy raked the rep--who was, of course, cute and hot, as all such reps seem to be--and the doctors over the coals: What were the bugs? What could go wrong with the system? His syringes sometimes leak, what if that happened? What if his blood sugar dropped too low at night? How would he know what his blood sugar was at any given moment?
The technology is pretty good, though, and delivers small amounts of insulin over time rather than big loads, and apparently can actually do so based on blood sugar readings from the sensor. (Via wireless bluetooth! Now we're talking! The rep said one guy had the readings hooked to his car GPS.)
Part of the appeal of this is that you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want.
But, you know, what if that's how you got into the mess you're in in the first place?
The Boy's numbers are looking good anyway. In the two months since we started the diet his scores have dropped 20% (lower is better), and he's started lowering his insulin again. (This time, theoretically, he should be able to keep the insulin lowered.)
The outlook for me is not so rosy, unfortunately. My numbers are rather dire and getting worse, and despite a checkout from a doctor, I'll be having X-rays and bloodwork done tomorrow. So wish me luck. (Again.)
How positively medieval.
This is all a come-on for an insulin pump. If I had known that, I probably wouldn't have bothered. Two extra trips downtown (one for the demo and sensor insertion, one to drop off the sensor later) for something I don't think we'll be using, but it was kind of interesting. The basic premise is simple enough: You wear an external device that acts sort of as a pancreas.
The pancreas does more than produce insulin but, hey, it's a start.
Anyway, the boy raked the rep--who was, of course, cute and hot, as all such reps seem to be--and the doctors over the coals: What were the bugs? What could go wrong with the system? His syringes sometimes leak, what if that happened? What if his blood sugar dropped too low at night? How would he know what his blood sugar was at any given moment?
The technology is pretty good, though, and delivers small amounts of insulin over time rather than big loads, and apparently can actually do so based on blood sugar readings from the sensor. (Via wireless bluetooth! Now we're talking! The rep said one guy had the readings hooked to his car GPS.)
Part of the appeal of this is that you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want.
But, you know, what if that's how you got into the mess you're in in the first place?
The Boy's numbers are looking good anyway. In the two months since we started the diet his scores have dropped 20% (lower is better), and he's started lowering his insulin again. (This time, theoretically, he should be able to keep the insulin lowered.)
The outlook for me is not so rosy, unfortunately. My numbers are rather dire and getting worse, and despite a checkout from a doctor, I'll be having X-rays and bloodwork done tomorrow. So wish me luck. (Again.)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Well, That Sucked!
I basically lost April from that damned ear infection, which now appears to be cleared up. My ears aren't right yet, but that'll take longer.
I started doing the same nutritional program as The Boy, only a bit more severely. I've just finished two weeks without meat, sugar, white flour--you know, all the good stuff.
Perhaps surprisingly, this hasn't been particularly hard. Despite Trooper posting pictures of pastry. (Hey, the best thing is still on the menu.) And I have eaten like this before, even if it was as a strident, organic-lovin', tofu-munchin', birkenstock-wearing post-teen.
Guess I should've kept it up.
Anyway, meat should be okay, at least in small quantities, after a while. And I don't plan to always be saintly. But for now, I'm on the wagon.
Weep for me.
I started doing the same nutritional program as The Boy, only a bit more severely. I've just finished two weeks without meat, sugar, white flour--you know, all the good stuff.
Perhaps surprisingly, this hasn't been particularly hard. Despite Trooper posting pictures of pastry. (Hey, the best thing is still on the menu.) And I have eaten like this before, even if it was as a strident, organic-lovin', tofu-munchin', birkenstock-wearing post-teen.
Guess I should've kept it up.
Anyway, meat should be okay, at least in small quantities, after a while. And I don't plan to always be saintly. But for now, I'm on the wagon.
Weep for me.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Ears and Links
About two years ago, the Barbarienne jammed her finger in my ear. Because of her age, her finger was just the right size to get into my ear canal; because of her strength, she jammed it in far enough to scratch my eardrum.
The resultant infection was so painful and persistent that I thought I might actually lose some hearing. It took weeks to clear up fully, but I was back hearing noises in that annoying 16-20K frequency range again in no time.
Which is a propos of nothing except that I recognized the problem sooner this time and didn't let the infection go too far before going to the local "urgent care". (Less than $100 and 30 minutes, with almost no paperwork.)
That, and I've been accumulating links from around the web but have been unable to cobble together much in the way of coherent posts. So here's a round-up.
A reprint of a massive 1981 article on Love Canal, and a 2004 follow-up, both at Reason. Massive government screw up plus hysteria equals bad law.
Co-D&D creator Dave Arneson died. It doesn't surprise me that there's some rancor and controversy over who did what. Even if TSR hadn't been dominated by a fairly shady couple, that might've arose. I'm glad the two did what they did. Of course, Gygax died at 69 and Arneson at 61, which might suggest the peril of too much gaming.
Vodkapundit tweeted this cute ad for--hell, I don't even know. Sabre? Saber! Still don't know what that is. One of these new "body products" they're pumping out for men. I'm bad at this stuff. I have no products. (I kind of thought "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was not awful, but I can't imagine personally being more uncomfortable than had I been in that situation myself.)
These body product commercials amaze me, because there seems to be a common thread. In particular, there's some severe exaggeration of the (formerly subtle) trope that women will pursue you if you spray this crap on you. (Pheremones! Science! 60% of the time, it works 100% of the time!) Like the Axe one where hundreds of women chase one guy on a desert island.
So, here they're saying, well, you know this isn't going to happen. What with the shortage of midichlorians on this planet and whatnot. You're too smart to believe this stuff, right? But, you know, maybe it works a little. Can you afford to take that chance?
Reverse-double-secret psychology? If I thought they were aimin' it at me, I'd probably be insulted. But, as noted, I don't buy "product".
Speaking of sexism, a bunch of people were tweeting this Naomi Wolf article on porn and pubic hair, blunting men's appetites for sex. First of all, I swear I read this years ago. Turns out, Althouse was blogging how old it was two years ago. And its was just as dumb then. The only thing that can turn a man off "the real thing" is a woman. And she has to work hard at it. (Womens' studies classes can give a gal all the ammo she needs, tho'.) And then the man is mostly not going to want sex with her in particular. That is, a man has to experience a lot of women like that to really be turned off sex. (I can only assume Naomi Wolf doesn't know very many men.)
Well, okay, in fairness, entire cultures can probably gear down their people's sex drives, by interjecting politics between Man and Woman. That might be what's going on in the developed world. Then again, it might be some other physiological factor.
In any case--with all due apologize to FARK--it ain't guys going, "She's got pointy knees," which is all Wolf's argument boils down to. Guys put Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth up on their lockers 60 years ago, but they still got busy with Betty and Rita next door.
Twitter doesn't allow you to tweet that much, so I just linked this delightful commercial. I almost expected a flame or two, but I'm not really on the radar of the perpetually outraged. (Advanced social studies study group question: Compare & contrast this commercial to the previous one, with special emphasis on how "personal products" are marketed to men versus women.)
Frank J asks the critical question of our day: Who is the more perfect leader? Obama or Kim Jong Il? The answer may surprise you. Then again, it may not.
Somebody I follow on Twitter, probably @thecardioexpert, linked this article on cholesterol. I like these kinds of things because the way our media presents things, it's all "OMG! THIS IS DEADLY! AVOID IT OR DIE!" And it doesn't matter if it's salt or asbestos or alar or what. You don't get a sense of the mechanics. And then you die because they didn't warn you against eating broken glass.
I haven't played with this site yet, but it's about musical instruction and resources. What I really want is to be able to score a piece on the computer--full orchestra--and have it come out with those instruments. I've seen a few things that do this, but the output embarrasses me, it's so bad. Obviously, there's a limit to how good it can be, but there should be moments when it sounds like something other than a fleet of DX7s.
Then there's the freaky bird here. Giant eyes--I mean, really giant eyes--are freaky. Reminds me of this guy who has remade Homer Simpson and Super Mario into their human selves. Also Jessica Rabbit, who doesn't look that freaky. At first I thought, "Huh, typical guy." Then I realized she's not nearly as humanized as the other two, plus her eyes are mostly closed reducing the freak out factor.
Lastly, there's this kinda-SIMS-y, kinda-The Movies-y, kinda-Playskool-y site where you can make your own 3D movies very easily. I haven't tried it. But I've seen worse animation and voice-acting on TV.
Enjoy!
The resultant infection was so painful and persistent that I thought I might actually lose some hearing. It took weeks to clear up fully, but I was back hearing noises in that annoying 16-20K frequency range again in no time.
Which is a propos of nothing except that I recognized the problem sooner this time and didn't let the infection go too far before going to the local "urgent care". (Less than $100 and 30 minutes, with almost no paperwork.)
That, and I've been accumulating links from around the web but have been unable to cobble together much in the way of coherent posts. So here's a round-up.
A reprint of a massive 1981 article on Love Canal, and a 2004 follow-up, both at Reason. Massive government screw up plus hysteria equals bad law.
Co-D&D creator Dave Arneson died. It doesn't surprise me that there's some rancor and controversy over who did what. Even if TSR hadn't been dominated by a fairly shady couple, that might've arose. I'm glad the two did what they did. Of course, Gygax died at 69 and Arneson at 61, which might suggest the peril of too much gaming.
Vodkapundit tweeted this cute ad for--hell, I don't even know. Sabre? Saber! Still don't know what that is. One of these new "body products" they're pumping out for men. I'm bad at this stuff. I have no products. (I kind of thought "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was not awful, but I can't imagine personally being more uncomfortable than had I been in that situation myself.)
These body product commercials amaze me, because there seems to be a common thread. In particular, there's some severe exaggeration of the (formerly subtle) trope that women will pursue you if you spray this crap on you. (Pheremones! Science! 60% of the time, it works 100% of the time!) Like the Axe one where hundreds of women chase one guy on a desert island.
So, here they're saying, well, you know this isn't going to happen. What with the shortage of midichlorians on this planet and whatnot. You're too smart to believe this stuff, right? But, you know, maybe it works a little. Can you afford to take that chance?
Reverse-double-secret psychology? If I thought they were aimin' it at me, I'd probably be insulted. But, as noted, I don't buy "product".
Speaking of sexism, a bunch of people were tweeting this Naomi Wolf article on porn and pubic hair, blunting men's appetites for sex. First of all, I swear I read this years ago. Turns out, Althouse was blogging how old it was two years ago. And its was just as dumb then. The only thing that can turn a man off "the real thing" is a woman. And she has to work hard at it. (Womens' studies classes can give a gal all the ammo she needs, tho'.) And then the man is mostly not going to want sex with her in particular. That is, a man has to experience a lot of women like that to really be turned off sex. (I can only assume Naomi Wolf doesn't know very many men.)
Well, okay, in fairness, entire cultures can probably gear down their people's sex drives, by interjecting politics between Man and Woman. That might be what's going on in the developed world. Then again, it might be some other physiological factor.
In any case--with all due apologize to FARK--it ain't guys going, "She's got pointy knees," which is all Wolf's argument boils down to. Guys put Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth up on their lockers 60 years ago, but they still got busy with Betty and Rita next door.
Twitter doesn't allow you to tweet that much, so I just linked this delightful commercial. I almost expected a flame or two, but I'm not really on the radar of the perpetually outraged. (Advanced social studies study group question: Compare & contrast this commercial to the previous one, with special emphasis on how "personal products" are marketed to men versus women.)
Frank J asks the critical question of our day: Who is the more perfect leader? Obama or Kim Jong Il? The answer may surprise you. Then again, it may not.
Somebody I follow on Twitter, probably @thecardioexpert, linked this article on cholesterol. I like these kinds of things because the way our media presents things, it's all "OMG! THIS IS DEADLY! AVOID IT OR DIE!" And it doesn't matter if it's salt or asbestos or alar or what. You don't get a sense of the mechanics. And then you die because they didn't warn you against eating broken glass.
I haven't played with this site yet, but it's about musical instruction and resources. What I really want is to be able to score a piece on the computer--full orchestra--and have it come out with those instruments. I've seen a few things that do this, but the output embarrasses me, it's so bad. Obviously, there's a limit to how good it can be, but there should be moments when it sounds like something other than a fleet of DX7s.
Then there's the freaky bird here. Giant eyes--I mean, really giant eyes--are freaky. Reminds me of this guy who has remade Homer Simpson and Super Mario into their human selves. Also Jessica Rabbit, who doesn't look that freaky. At first I thought, "Huh, typical guy." Then I realized she's not nearly as humanized as the other two, plus her eyes are mostly closed reducing the freak out factor.
Lastly, there's this kinda-SIMS-y, kinda-The Movies-y, kinda-Playskool-y site where you can make your own 3D movies very easily. I haven't tried it. But I've seen worse animation and voice-acting on TV.
Enjoy!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
My Preoccupation...
You guys have left some great comments, much appreciated. I hope to address them in a bit when I catch up on things.
Unlike some quitters, though, I'm not going to be running away to worship God. (He pretty much told me he needs me on the front lines. I think I'm supposed to be fodder.)
It's crunch time, diet-wise for The Boy. The doctor has reduced his meat intake dramatically, so he has little choice but to eat veggies or starve. (And starving's not an option.) I'm showing my solidarity here, so I'm also downing the rabbit chow.
I'll have a review of I Love You, Man soon. (Executive summary: Romantic comedy where the principles are straight males. Surprisingly charming and female friendly.)
Also, the refrigerator broke, distilling water is more complicated than it seems, the pilot light on the water heater keeps going out, and (on the positive side) I've apparently won Darcy.
No, don't tell me it was April Fool's Day. I don't wanna know.
Unlike some quitters, though, I'm not going to be running away to worship God. (He pretty much told me he needs me on the front lines. I think I'm supposed to be fodder.)
It's crunch time, diet-wise for The Boy. The doctor has reduced his meat intake dramatically, so he has little choice but to eat veggies or starve. (And starving's not an option.) I'm showing my solidarity here, so I'm also downing the rabbit chow.
I'll have a review of I Love You, Man soon. (Executive summary: Romantic comedy where the principles are straight males. Surprisingly charming and female friendly.)
Also, the refrigerator broke, distilling water is more complicated than it seems, the pilot light on the water heater keeps going out, and (on the positive side) I've apparently won Darcy.
No, don't tell me it was April Fool's Day. I don't wanna know.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Drink Too Much (b)
I've been drinking too much water, according to the latest tests. (The doctor has advised and tested me on the basis of me needing to be alive to pay for The Boy. Smart!) I haven't had any negative symptoms (e.g., headaches) but I'm reducing the amount of water I drink, and adding some fruit juice in.
The Boy, unfortunately, backslid a bit in the past two weeks. He's been having trouble keeping track of his water bottle and I think his guesses were on the low side. He's also got to start getting more aggressive as far as changing his diet. He's been good about trying new things, but if he finds something he likes, he'll eat it to the exclusion of all else. Variety is key.
Some of you asked about this program; I finally got the guy's name right: Carey Reams. This is just the first thing that came up on Google, so I don't know how accurate a representation it is, nor should it be considered a validation of other things on that site. (Or an invalidation, for that matter.)
Years ago I knew a woman with a mess of inoperable brain tumors who did this program and got rid of all of them. It took her a couple of years to go from "terminal" to a clean bill of health, but in the next ten years or so, she didn't have a relapse.
I just remembered that; interestingly, there's no connection between her and my doctor.
Stay tuned.
The Boy, unfortunately, backslid a bit in the past two weeks. He's been having trouble keeping track of his water bottle and I think his guesses were on the low side. He's also got to start getting more aggressive as far as changing his diet. He's been good about trying new things, but if he finds something he likes, he'll eat it to the exclusion of all else. Variety is key.
Some of you asked about this program; I finally got the guy's name right: Carey Reams. This is just the first thing that came up on Google, so I don't know how accurate a representation it is, nor should it be considered a validation of other things on that site. (Or an invalidation, for that matter.)
Years ago I knew a woman with a mess of inoperable brain tumors who did this program and got rid of all of them. It took her a couple of years to go from "terminal" to a clean bill of health, but in the next ten years or so, she didn't have a relapse.
I just remembered that; interestingly, there's no connection between her and my doctor.
Stay tuned.
Friday, March 6, 2009
All You Need Is Loaf?
For February, The Boy's blood sugar averaged 155. In the last two weeks of February, about the time we started with the water, it averaged 122. He seems to be keeping it in that low range, despite having cut his mealtime insulin by 25%.
This is good. The doctor reminds us that he's not actually on the program yet. He's just gearing up with the water and the green drink. (The "green drink" is basically a bunch of leafy greens fed through a juicer. Tastes as good as it sounds.) He's been doing some changes in his diet, as well, though that's been milder than it probably will need to be once we're actually on the program. But besides blood sugar, he's been sleeping well, and longer. The sickness passed last weekend, and he has only a mild nausea (also predicted by the doc).
As for me, well, the phenomena mentioned in earlier posts continue to persist. I didn't really mention the energy thing because "I feel so alert and full of energy" is such a cliché, and easily the most placebo-influenced effect at all. (Really: Change up your diet and exercise and start a new plan, and you'll find morale-related effects kick in immediately, even if the diet and exercise aren't very good.) A very concrete effect I've noticed is that after a difficult night (which is not rare when you have a bunch of kids) that gets cut short, I can still function very well and without the mid-afternoon drowsiness. I'm still tired and I fall asleep in the evening if my sleep is cut short, but my awake time is not overwhelmed with the urge to go unconscious.
There are also things I didn't mention because I'm not Titus. (Suggested in the title of this post.) Things have definitely improved in the area of his favorite subjects.
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I just lost a tiny piece of a molar. No pain; it just came out while flossing. The tooth pain I described earlier that went away is still gone. (Hmmm, but this piece is on the same side so I need to get to a dentist to figure out what's going on.) The mouth phenomena could be a complete coincidence.
Also, I'm feeling somewhat "acidic" at night, which, given the changes in body chemistry the water and juice might be bringing is worth watching. (The doctor wants me to do the full program at the same time, but I'm not sure I want to shift the focus away. On the other hand, the tests involved keep you from going too far one way or the other.) Come to think of it, though, this may be akin to the nausea the boy is feeling.
And, while it's not easy to drink this much water and still eat enough to maintain one's weight, I'm in there pitching. Still haven't lost anything. Heh.
This is good. The doctor reminds us that he's not actually on the program yet. He's just gearing up with the water and the green drink. (The "green drink" is basically a bunch of leafy greens fed through a juicer. Tastes as good as it sounds.) He's been doing some changes in his diet, as well, though that's been milder than it probably will need to be once we're actually on the program. But besides blood sugar, he's been sleeping well, and longer. The sickness passed last weekend, and he has only a mild nausea (also predicted by the doc).
As for me, well, the phenomena mentioned in earlier posts continue to persist. I didn't really mention the energy thing because "I feel so alert and full of energy" is such a cliché, and easily the most placebo-influenced effect at all. (Really: Change up your diet and exercise and start a new plan, and you'll find morale-related effects kick in immediately, even if the diet and exercise aren't very good.) A very concrete effect I've noticed is that after a difficult night (which is not rare when you have a bunch of kids) that gets cut short, I can still function very well and without the mid-afternoon drowsiness. I'm still tired and I fall asleep in the evening if my sleep is cut short, but my awake time is not overwhelmed with the urge to go unconscious.
There are also things I didn't mention because I'm not Titus. (Suggested in the title of this post.) Things have definitely improved in the area of his favorite subjects.
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I just lost a tiny piece of a molar. No pain; it just came out while flossing. The tooth pain I described earlier that went away is still gone. (Hmmm, but this piece is on the same side so I need to get to a dentist to figure out what's going on.) The mouth phenomena could be a complete coincidence.
Also, I'm feeling somewhat "acidic" at night, which, given the changes in body chemistry the water and juice might be bringing is worth watching. (The doctor wants me to do the full program at the same time, but I'm not sure I want to shift the focus away. On the other hand, the tests involved keep you from going too far one way or the other.) Come to think of it, though, this may be akin to the nausea the boy is feeling.
And, while it's not easy to drink this much water and still eat enough to maintain one's weight, I'm in there pitching. Still haven't lost anything. Heh.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
De-Talks
I wrote about fairness not long ago on these virtual pages and I wanted to point out that there is one area in which I'm particularly unreasonable on the topic: My children.
In an early experiment with one of the Boy Scout groups, The Boy entered a Pinewood Derby. Apart from shaping the wood with the power tools, which no one in his age group could do, I required him to do everything on his own. I was there to offer advice--not that I had much to give--but I wasn't going to be sanding, oiling, talcing or whatever tricks they do for those things.
Which, on the day of the race was evident, were extensive and well researched by all the fathers involved. The disinterest from the actual boys was obvious but the guys my age? They were into it. Not even the vaguest premise of having the troopers do their own work.
This is a minor unfairness, and it had its own value in showing The Boy the way of the world.
A more serious unfairness is that The Boy has been sick for the past three days from drinking water and the vegetable juice. His blood sugars have been great, fortunately, and this is precisely what the doctor said would happen, but I feel bad.
I'm an old man (at least relatively) and somehow this stuff isn't affecting me negatively at all. It's just unfair that a 13-year-old should have to put up with it. His whole life's been a lot harder than it should be. We do this on the hope that he'll come out the other side better.
Which brings me to the subject of de-toxification.
Detoxification is a hot topic because every quack pedlling snake oil talks about "detox". Like those foot guys on the television selling wasabi or kinoki or shinobi or whatever it is that, if I'm not mistaken, takes the dirty outer layer of skin off your feet and tells you you're being purified.
The drinking of distilled water at regular intervals is done to provide the body with a basic, necessary resource to let it do its thing. (The vegetable juice is for minerals; these guys are crazy about the minerals! Later we add calcium.) The symptoms of this detoxification process are runny or stuffy nose, sore throat, lots of phlegm in the lungs (with coughing), and even things like fever or some nausea. Even if you don't understand how it happens, you sort of have to respect the predictability of it, given that there's no conventional medical reason that slightly greater hydration should lead to it.
One of my main issues regarding "snake oil"--a term I use affectionately about a time period before the government locked up medicine--is that the theories behind them may be completely whack. That doesn't mean the medicine's no good.
My canonical reference is Ignaz Semmelweiss, who didn't know why washing your hands before surgery helped, he just knew that it did. Likewise, ancient astrologers (sorry, guys, they were astrologers at the time, not astronomers!) could map the motion of the planets in the sky, even though their understanding of said bodies was fanciful at best.
And so I take that approach with medicine. (Alternative or otherwise. You don't get a free pass from me just 'cause you can prescribe drugs.) I'm utterly unconvinced by the theories behind mood-altering drugs, and in every case I've seen them used, they've failed.
And then there are the enema guys.
You know the enema guys, right? They have a long, storied history going back to the Kellogg brothers of Battle Creek, Michigan. And, oh, my, they have pictures! Pictures of twisted intestines, all gnarled up by residual fecal matter and, heavens, it's quite awful.
But the enema guys have a problem, I think: We now have footage of the insides of people's colons, and they don't appear to be the messes that the enema guys predict. I haven't thoroughly researched this, mind you: I'm just going by the shots that I've seen which show the walls of the intestines to be pretty clear. (And by their own literature, the enema is necessary to clean said intestines out, the drink you get before a colonoscopy shouldn't be sufficient.)
I've not seen any benefits from enemas that couldn't be explained by the rapid infusion of caffeine into the blood stream. (Enemas are often done with coffee, and the lower intestines are way more absorptive than the digestive system from top-to-bottom.) And this absorption factor makes enemas potentially dangerous, too.
But now watch this sleight-of-hand: I'm totally willing to let the enema guys be, because, hey, I could be wrong. And people need to have the right to explore these things on their own. That's just how I roll. As it stands, right now conventional medicine is being hampered by government regulation. And, predictably, politics--more than science--seems to be the big factor in what gets made available.
An effort to make things fair always seems to make things even more unfair than ever.
In an early experiment with one of the Boy Scout groups, The Boy entered a Pinewood Derby. Apart from shaping the wood with the power tools, which no one in his age group could do, I required him to do everything on his own. I was there to offer advice--not that I had much to give--but I wasn't going to be sanding, oiling, talcing or whatever tricks they do for those things.
Which, on the day of the race was evident, were extensive and well researched by all the fathers involved. The disinterest from the actual boys was obvious but the guys my age? They were into it. Not even the vaguest premise of having the troopers do their own work.
This is a minor unfairness, and it had its own value in showing The Boy the way of the world.
A more serious unfairness is that The Boy has been sick for the past three days from drinking water and the vegetable juice. His blood sugars have been great, fortunately, and this is precisely what the doctor said would happen, but I feel bad.
I'm an old man (at least relatively) and somehow this stuff isn't affecting me negatively at all. It's just unfair that a 13-year-old should have to put up with it. His whole life's been a lot harder than it should be. We do this on the hope that he'll come out the other side better.
Which brings me to the subject of de-toxification.
Detoxification is a hot topic because every quack pedlling snake oil talks about "detox". Like those foot guys on the television selling wasabi or kinoki or shinobi or whatever it is that, if I'm not mistaken, takes the dirty outer layer of skin off your feet and tells you you're being purified.
The drinking of distilled water at regular intervals is done to provide the body with a basic, necessary resource to let it do its thing. (The vegetable juice is for minerals; these guys are crazy about the minerals! Later we add calcium.) The symptoms of this detoxification process are runny or stuffy nose, sore throat, lots of phlegm in the lungs (with coughing), and even things like fever or some nausea. Even if you don't understand how it happens, you sort of have to respect the predictability of it, given that there's no conventional medical reason that slightly greater hydration should lead to it.
One of my main issues regarding "snake oil"--a term I use affectionately about a time period before the government locked up medicine--is that the theories behind them may be completely whack. That doesn't mean the medicine's no good.
My canonical reference is Ignaz Semmelweiss, who didn't know why washing your hands before surgery helped, he just knew that it did. Likewise, ancient astrologers (sorry, guys, they were astrologers at the time, not astronomers!) could map the motion of the planets in the sky, even though their understanding of said bodies was fanciful at best.
And so I take that approach with medicine. (Alternative or otherwise. You don't get a free pass from me just 'cause you can prescribe drugs.) I'm utterly unconvinced by the theories behind mood-altering drugs, and in every case I've seen them used, they've failed.
And then there are the enema guys.
You know the enema guys, right? They have a long, storied history going back to the Kellogg brothers of Battle Creek, Michigan. And, oh, my, they have pictures! Pictures of twisted intestines, all gnarled up by residual fecal matter and, heavens, it's quite awful.
But the enema guys have a problem, I think: We now have footage of the insides of people's colons, and they don't appear to be the messes that the enema guys predict. I haven't thoroughly researched this, mind you: I'm just going by the shots that I've seen which show the walls of the intestines to be pretty clear. (And by their own literature, the enema is necessary to clean said intestines out, the drink you get before a colonoscopy shouldn't be sufficient.)
I've not seen any benefits from enemas that couldn't be explained by the rapid infusion of caffeine into the blood stream. (Enemas are often done with coffee, and the lower intestines are way more absorptive than the digestive system from top-to-bottom.) And this absorption factor makes enemas potentially dangerous, too.
But now watch this sleight-of-hand: I'm totally willing to let the enema guys be, because, hey, I could be wrong. And people need to have the right to explore these things on their own. That's just how I roll. As it stands, right now conventional medicine is being hampered by government regulation. And, predictably, politics--more than science--seems to be the big factor in what gets made available.
An effort to make things fair always seems to make things even more unfair than ever.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Up Till Now, Everything Was Okay
It is a characteristic of men that they are stoic. Not to say that all men are stoic, and certainly I know some who play up minor illnesses and injuries in a bid to win sympathy from their significant others. But stoicism is a manly feature. To the point of stupidity, even: Men will let health conditions go too long, until they're untreatable.
Up till recently, I'd not thought of myself as particularly stoic. I'd noticed a few things and I attributed them to getting older. Unlike, say, Instapundit, I'm not particularly concerned about death, but I've always--especially when younger--wondered which features normally attributed to senescence were not due to some other factors.
In my case, apparently, a lot. But until I started drinking the water, I didn't know how many.
I mentioned stiffness and morning vision blurriness, but in a week I've noticed that the occasional tinnitus, digestive issues, farsightedness, fatigue and a few other things I just assumed were me "getting older" have rolled back.
As I said, stoic to a fault: It's one thing to endure and another to be so accepting you never try to improve things.
We've started to add in some juiced leafy greens, which isn't as bad as it sounds.
The Boy's blood sugar has been coming down but it's still not quite under control. He's had to undergo some dietary changes, and I think he's somewhat depressed about that, though he is being a good sport. A big change is that he's waking up faster: Most of my kids have a "need that first cup of coffee" kind of wake-up cycle, The Boy especially so. The doc attributed that to low morning blood sugars. The water's made a big difference there.
I'll keep posting on it, as the story progresses.
Up till recently, I'd not thought of myself as particularly stoic. I'd noticed a few things and I attributed them to getting older. Unlike, say, Instapundit, I'm not particularly concerned about death, but I've always--especially when younger--wondered which features normally attributed to senescence were not due to some other factors.
In my case, apparently, a lot. But until I started drinking the water, I didn't know how many.
I mentioned stiffness and morning vision blurriness, but in a week I've noticed that the occasional tinnitus, digestive issues, farsightedness, fatigue and a few other things I just assumed were me "getting older" have rolled back.
As I said, stoic to a fault: It's one thing to endure and another to be so accepting you never try to improve things.
We've started to add in some juiced leafy greens, which isn't as bad as it sounds.
The Boy's blood sugar has been coming down but it's still not quite under control. He's had to undergo some dietary changes, and I think he's somewhat depressed about that, though he is being a good sport. A big change is that he's waking up faster: Most of my kids have a "need that first cup of coffee" kind of wake-up cycle, The Boy especially so. The doc attributed that to low morning blood sugars. The water's made a big difference there.
I'll keep posting on it, as the story progresses.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Skin and Bones
I don't want to get in the middle of the fat-battle between Trooper York and Freeman Hunt, but my attention was directed to this Sports Illustrated "models taking their own pictures" post.
Some of these women strike me as too thin, where "too thin" is a purely aesthetic consideration. My friend (mentioned in the Stacked Decks post linked above) was very thin, too, and used to fret putting on five pounds here and there. But, in person, she didn't look too skinny in person, usually. Meanwhile she had some other friends from back in the day who were the opposite type (shorter and curvier), who were clearly on the higher end of the BMI scale. They also looked fine in person.
I know "the camera adds ten pounds" but it also can subtract ten at certain angles. (There are angles on Chris Reeves in the Superman movies where he looks positively skinny, e.g.)
I've been thinking about weight lately because I haven't lost any. (I lost about ten pounds last year just due to changes in lifestyle, but none since I started doing the treadmill.) I suspect if I keep drinking water I'll lose weight, though. It seems to change your sense of taste and fullness.
Should be interesting.
Some of these women strike me as too thin, where "too thin" is a purely aesthetic consideration. My friend (mentioned in the Stacked Decks post linked above) was very thin, too, and used to fret putting on five pounds here and there. But, in person, she didn't look too skinny in person, usually. Meanwhile she had some other friends from back in the day who were the opposite type (shorter and curvier), who were clearly on the higher end of the BMI scale. They also looked fine in person.
I know "the camera adds ten pounds" but it also can subtract ten at certain angles. (There are angles on Chris Reeves in the Superman movies where he looks positively skinny, e.g.)
I've been thinking about weight lately because I haven't lost any. (I lost about ten pounds last year just due to changes in lifestyle, but none since I started doing the treadmill.) I suspect if I keep drinking water I'll lose weight, though. It seems to change your sense of taste and fullness.
Should be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
