I read this article today and just LOVED it. Let me retype that.
L-O-V-E-D this article.
Gallup Poll Finds: Republicans and Mental Health go together
Here is a quote from the conclusion/discussion at the end of the article. I had to frame this somewhere. This blog became the 'where'.
"Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel)."
Have a beautiful day.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Capitalism and Free Markets.
I was recently sent a fantastic video clip of Milton Friedman explaining capitalism and free markets. It is spectacular http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A.
I then made a colossal mistake. I scrolled down. There was the comment section. Filled mostly with good comments (after all, how many people who don't like capitalism or this charming small giant in economics would bother watching this? Phil Donahue gets his (surprisingly ugly) head handed to him). But there was one person who had posted claiming Friedman had been proven wrong on everything, and who said (full quote lifted) "but i don't want business to even exist, i want everything in public ownership".
This was too juicy to pass up. I spent the next 1/2 hour putting together a response from my heart, only to find there is a 500character limit for posting on YouTube. Probably wise of them. Or the comment sections would outweigh the storage of the videos. Anyway, not to be deterred, I tried to post it in parts. I obviously don't understand the vagueries of posting on YouTube. After all, I'm only a webmaster with my own dedicated server and a bloggist here.
Still not to be deterred (too close to "détente" for my taste) I decided to post it here. So. Here it is. Unedited. But then, unposted on YouTube also, so perhaps I should have edited it.
I find it difficult to believe bigmac's links are working properly. He could not have been watching the same video clip. But then again he certainly can't be right anyway, because he claims Milton Friedman was proven wrong on everything. The whole middle of this clip appears to have escaped detection (you know, you're supposed to watch the whole thing...) Friedman is completely correct when he says the only times in history where people have escaped true poverty (not the two-car, four-television, 300lb cable-watching couch potato poverty we have here) is when there is capitalism and free trade. It is not called "equal distribution of wealth" it is called capitalism and free market economy.
Your premise is completely and totally flawed and it is proven by every example in history: if you vote in politicians who are going to redistribute wealth to you, you are going to get what they want to give you, not what your dreamy vision expects. Only the privileged few (chosen by the politicians) are going to have "wealth" and that wealth is going to be in the style of the former USSR where one car, an actual free-standing house, and enough food to eat was considered "aristocracy". How do I know this? My best friend as I was growing up was from the USSR where he lived in "upscale" housing because his father had a highly respected job. They shared a floor of a ten-story building where the elevator never worked (!) with seven other families and ONE BATHROOM for the whole hall. Apparently, he said, people drilled holes in the bathroom in order to see who was taking so long. Again, this was "upscale".
Perhaps the impression that communism (or, if you prefer, call it socialism - though the arguments here seem to be for actual communism) is going to be some "everyone lives a six-figure lifestyle" solution comes from our current examples of communism? Perhaps it comes from the high standard of living enjoyed by our current welfare recipients?
Even China has moved towards capitalism and free trade. They're giving up the only part of communism that is apparently being espoused by some on this thread.
Taking businesses out of private hands and putting them in the "public trust" has the very unfortunate (and very foreseeable) effect of putting someone else in charge of what goods and services you are allowed to have. Government officials, based on their personal self interests (not the self interests of those who elected them) decide what services you may have, what foods and drinks you may consume, what pastimes you may enjoy, what habitations you may use, and what the punishments are for going against their will. In a free market, if enough people want something, it is made available. How much people want it - what else they are willing to sacrifice for it - determines how much that something will cost.
It is an illusion that you will be able to have everything you want if all things are publicly owned. Look where it is tried: you have quotas and lines. The government decides only so many rolls of toilet paper are going to be made, and therefore how many you are allowed to have. If you use your roll up for the week, you are ".... out of luck" so to speak. You can't get a bunch in advance, you can get only what is given out on the day it is given.
The plea to have business removed form society can only come from those who imagine themselves able to lounge around in hedonism if only the government ran everything.
They had better awaken and look around the world: as was mentioned in the beginning of the video, there are a lot of have-nots out there. That's what you get when there is no capitalism.
Yes, capitalism and free market economies produce some insanely wealthy people. It also produces a "poverty line" which has to be measured against a national average because there is no comparison to real poverty found in non-capitalist societies.
It is NOT in your best interest to vote for politicians who want to redistribute wealth. They will (as is proven throughout history and current events) CAUSE - YOUR poverty.
So, as you can see, my post was a little over the 500 character limit. Sorry about that.
I then made a colossal mistake. I scrolled down. There was the comment section. Filled mostly with good comments (after all, how many people who don't like capitalism or this charming small giant in economics would bother watching this? Phil Donahue gets his (surprisingly ugly) head handed to him). But there was one person who had posted claiming Friedman had been proven wrong on everything, and who said (full quote lifted) "but i don't want business to even exist, i want everything in public ownership".
This was too juicy to pass up. I spent the next 1/2 hour putting together a response from my heart, only to find there is a 500character limit for posting on YouTube. Probably wise of them. Or the comment sections would outweigh the storage of the videos. Anyway, not to be deterred, I tried to post it in parts. I obviously don't understand the vagueries of posting on YouTube. After all, I'm only a webmaster with my own dedicated server and a bloggist here.
Still not to be deterred (too close to "détente" for my taste) I decided to post it here. So. Here it is. Unedited. But then, unposted on YouTube also, so perhaps I should have edited it.
--==<< >>==--
I find it difficult to believe bigmac's links are working properly. He could not have been watching the same video clip. But then again he certainly can't be right anyway, because he claims Milton Friedman was proven wrong on everything. The whole middle of this clip appears to have escaped detection (you know, you're supposed to watch the whole thing...) Friedman is completely correct when he says the only times in history where people have escaped true poverty (not the two-car, four-television, 300lb cable-watching couch potato poverty we have here) is when there is capitalism and free trade. It is not called "equal distribution of wealth" it is called capitalism and free market economy.
Your premise is completely and totally flawed and it is proven by every example in history: if you vote in politicians who are going to redistribute wealth to you, you are going to get what they want to give you, not what your dreamy vision expects. Only the privileged few (chosen by the politicians) are going to have "wealth" and that wealth is going to be in the style of the former USSR where one car, an actual free-standing house, and enough food to eat was considered "aristocracy". How do I know this? My best friend as I was growing up was from the USSR where he lived in "upscale" housing because his father had a highly respected job. They shared a floor of a ten-story building where the elevator never worked (!) with seven other families and ONE BATHROOM for the whole hall. Apparently, he said, people drilled holes in the bathroom in order to see who was taking so long. Again, this was "upscale".
Perhaps the impression that communism (or, if you prefer, call it socialism - though the arguments here seem to be for actual communism) is going to be some "everyone lives a six-figure lifestyle" solution comes from our current examples of communism? Perhaps it comes from the high standard of living enjoyed by our current welfare recipients?
Even China has moved towards capitalism and free trade. They're giving up the only part of communism that is apparently being espoused by some on this thread.
Taking businesses out of private hands and putting them in the "public trust" has the very unfortunate (and very foreseeable) effect of putting someone else in charge of what goods and services you are allowed to have. Government officials, based on their personal self interests (not the self interests of those who elected them) decide what services you may have, what foods and drinks you may consume, what pastimes you may enjoy, what habitations you may use, and what the punishments are for going against their will. In a free market, if enough people want something, it is made available. How much people want it - what else they are willing to sacrifice for it - determines how much that something will cost.
It is an illusion that you will be able to have everything you want if all things are publicly owned. Look where it is tried: you have quotas and lines. The government decides only so many rolls of toilet paper are going to be made, and therefore how many you are allowed to have. If you use your roll up for the week, you are ".... out of luck" so to speak. You can't get a bunch in advance, you can get only what is given out on the day it is given.
The plea to have business removed form society can only come from those who imagine themselves able to lounge around in hedonism if only the government ran everything.
They had better awaken and look around the world: as was mentioned in the beginning of the video, there are a lot of have-nots out there. That's what you get when there is no capitalism.
Yes, capitalism and free market economies produce some insanely wealthy people. It also produces a "poverty line" which has to be measured against a national average because there is no comparison to real poverty found in non-capitalist societies.
It is NOT in your best interest to vote for politicians who want to redistribute wealth. They will (as is proven throughout history and current events) CAUSE - YOUR poverty.
--==<< >>==--
So, as you can see, my post was a little over the 500 character limit. Sorry about that.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Lightening Up.
Okay. I admit it. I need to lighten up.
Not politically (I need to heavy down some more there) but physically. I was just joking (well, partly) with my family and friends, and here are some of the highlights:
A lot of us have tried low-carbohydrate diets, and most of us who have, had great results at one point or another. I lost 45 lbs and got into some of the best shape of my life the first time I tried the Atkins diet. I was leaner, more energetic, fit into all my old clothes, enjoyed the food, had a better attitude, absolutely everything. My health was phenomenal. But, as with almost everyone I've talked to who had "done that diet" or one like it, we stuck with it for a long time, had fabulous results, and then at one point (usually a major holiday) we just reverted (fast or slow) to old eating habits. For most of us, the 'bad' results happened slowly. We stayed slim for a while, and we had changed enough to drop certain carb-heavy foods (for example, sugary drinks almost never make a comeback). Instead of with many diets, where you finish the diet and bounce back to your old weight and then surpass it, most of us seemed to gain the weight back slowly, and often were less heavy than originally, but now stunned and disappointed because we knew we could take and keep it of.
That's right. The ultimate problem with the Atkins or low-carb diet is that you have proven to yourself you're in control. You can lose the weight, you can keep it off, and it's only your big, fat, greedy, oversized mouth that does you in. I say you. I mean me.
I know that, if I can stick with the diet again, honestly and seriously, I can lose the weight and fast. Unfortunately, it is never as easy as the first time. I have several interlaced theories why: First and foremost, we aren't doing it seriously and honestly. We're doing it half-assed (which, ironically, provides for a full-sized ass). We know all the little secrets for the so-called "maintenance" phase, which is after the diet when you do have a smattering of carbs here and there. Only we have more than a smattering, we have confused the maintenance phase with the regain-the-weight phase we enjoyed so much after we actually (and usually unknowingly) stopped doing the diet right. This "more than a smattering" for most of us takes the form of (or the shape of, if you're the other Wonder Twin, or both form of and shape of if you're the size of two people) little semi-or-full carb snacks that, on their own, would not destroy even a day's worth of carb count. After all, for me (and most, I believe) we can have well over 30 grams of carbs a day and still keep the weight off. You can eat a nice serving of chips, or a bowl of actual ice cream, of have a delicious "adult" beverage, or two slices of pizza. The problem is like a poorly written formula that gives the wrong results we go from "or" to "and". Our 30 gram day goes to 300. Then, we decide that today is the "one day" off of the diet this month, and we have a bowl of Fettuccine Alfredo with garlic-bread, chased down with the ice-cream version of Mississippi Mud Pie, and for a treat (as if that wasn't enough) a nightcap-tumbler of Kahlua & Cream (the cream, of course, is on the diet, so it makes everything else okay, right? Our 300 gram day goes to 1200. Then we repeat the process, if not tomorrow, then worse, the day after tomorrow, for the day between we have a lot of high-fat, low-carb foods that would have comprised a great day for the diet, but now is merely fodder for the set of four full-sized tractor spare tires around our waist because the carbs on either side of being "good" won't let us metabolize the fat.
But, we tell ourselves, at least we got a lot of protein.
Small consolation when your ass is the size of Wisconsin. (No offense is meant to Wisconsin, I have never been there. I would have said Arkansas, but that would have been intentional and personal).
So, most of us reason, we will exercise. We could do with a little buffing up, some nice pectorals, some rounded biceps, some washboard abs. Now, most of us forget a couple things here, namely that it takes many more years to exercise yourself into shape than to diet yourself into shape. Bodybuilders don't become Mr. Universe overnight. It takes decades. Decades of going to the gym every day for more than a 30-minute "I feel better about myself but accomplished almost nothing" workouts. Decades of going to the gym and burning valuable eating time. Since you can't edge out the other responsibilities in your life (work, kids, whatever else you must do) you have to take away personal time. This is time that could have been put to better use watching your favorite television shows, playing mindless computer games, eating your fifth three-course meal that evening, stuffing ultra-cheese popcorn in your mouth, polishing off that wasted extra piece of cake in the freezer, and washing it all down the with gallon of milk that was just opened close enough to its freshness date that you don't want it to go to waste.
Here's the worst irony for me: every time I exercise, because I'm not going to sacrifice hours of my time to exercise (I simply don't like it enough until it gets really expensive as in playing ice hockey on a team) I exercise about 30 to 45 minutes a day. And I gain weight! Not just that lame excuse of "muscle weighs more than fat" which is meant to comfort people who are losing ground despite trying harder but actual around-the-middle-jiggle weight that makes my attempts to exercise look absolutely comical (when it's not so sad you cry). I mean, the fatty-fat-fatso jiggling and bouncing on the dance-mats or rippling and lapping like a kiddie-pool while working the free weights kind of sad comedy.
It was pointed out to me (and I had actually been doing research about this about 10 years ago) that the problem is our bodies are not designed with modern civilization in mind. We have to remember that for 50,000 or more years we were designed to survive on the "feast and famine" concept. There was food to go around, but it was a heck of a lot more savvy about its impending fate. Around my house the deer get aggressive if you don't feed them enough, and will actually stand around your car waiting for you in the morning. Not to mention with greenhouse farming (which is often more 'organic' than traditional farming, by the way) we have fresh fruit and produce year-round. On top of that we know how to preserve food in cans and freezers. There is no famine! It is feast, feast, feast! But while our minds know this, our bodies do not.
The body is convinced that The Big Famine is coming. After all, that's the only reason we could be eating this much, right? It had better store every morsel and scrap of processable fat (carbohydrates, as I understand it, are translated into gooey body-fats by insulin) for the time when the food runs out. We just might, it reasons, live through the famine if we're fat enough. That is, after all, why we don't stay hungry after two or three days of no food. The body realizes The Famine has begun and starts happily consuming all the fats it was smart enough to store up.
Of course, there are other problems with fasting, or intentional starvation. Largely, we still don't get enough exercise (which would have been hunting the next wildebeest about 7000 years ago, or farming land diligently for food that won't show up for weeks) and often we don't pay attention to when we should really be stopping. Our body isn't designed to live off our own fat forever. Even during "famine" it was used to having berries or grasses or something to vary up the steady flow of internal fats. So we end up with heart murmurs (I can't help it - I picture a strange muppet sketch where the heart is grumbling in some mauve cave), we pass out, we skate perilously close to death... and that's only if you can actually convince yourself to fast. (For more than ten minutes, people). I only know one person who has done that and she said risking death wasn't worth it. Fat and alive beats skinny and dead - or even hospitalized and possibly permanently broken.
Sorry, there's no great ending to this post that solves some major political question if only everyone in the world would agree with me and do it my way. I think I am going to keep exercising in the "almost helpful" area and eating "almost low-carbohydrate" days. The fact is that I can do everything I want and while I'm noticeably overweight, I'm not as spectacular an example of rotund as I sometimes make myself out to be. I think I'm just going to keep hanging out in public, after all there are so many really fat people out there maybe I will look skinny by comparison.
So, thank that fat person next time you see them. They're doing you a public service.
Not politically (I need to heavy down some more there) but physically. I was just joking (well, partly) with my family and friends, and here are some of the highlights:
A lot of us have tried low-carbohydrate diets, and most of us who have, had great results at one point or another. I lost 45 lbs and got into some of the best shape of my life the first time I tried the Atkins diet. I was leaner, more energetic, fit into all my old clothes, enjoyed the food, had a better attitude, absolutely everything. My health was phenomenal. But, as with almost everyone I've talked to who had "done that diet" or one like it, we stuck with it for a long time, had fabulous results, and then at one point (usually a major holiday) we just reverted (fast or slow) to old eating habits. For most of us, the 'bad' results happened slowly. We stayed slim for a while, and we had changed enough to drop certain carb-heavy foods (for example, sugary drinks almost never make a comeback). Instead of with many diets, where you finish the diet and bounce back to your old weight and then surpass it, most of us seemed to gain the weight back slowly, and often were less heavy than originally, but now stunned and disappointed because we knew we could take and keep it of.
That's right. The ultimate problem with the Atkins or low-carb diet is that you have proven to yourself you're in control. You can lose the weight, you can keep it off, and it's only your big, fat, greedy, oversized mouth that does you in. I say you. I mean me.
I know that, if I can stick with the diet again, honestly and seriously, I can lose the weight and fast. Unfortunately, it is never as easy as the first time. I have several interlaced theories why: First and foremost, we aren't doing it seriously and honestly. We're doing it half-assed (which, ironically, provides for a full-sized ass). We know all the little secrets for the so-called "maintenance" phase, which is after the diet when you do have a smattering of carbs here and there. Only we have more than a smattering, we have confused the maintenance phase with the regain-the-weight phase we enjoyed so much after we actually (and usually unknowingly) stopped doing the diet right. This "more than a smattering" for most of us takes the form of (or the shape of, if you're the other Wonder Twin, or both form of and shape of if you're the size of two people) little semi-or-full carb snacks that, on their own, would not destroy even a day's worth of carb count. After all, for me (and most, I believe) we can have well over 30 grams of carbs a day and still keep the weight off. You can eat a nice serving of chips, or a bowl of actual ice cream, of have a delicious "adult" beverage, or two slices of pizza. The problem is like a poorly written formula that gives the wrong results we go from "or" to "and". Our 30 gram day goes to 300. Then, we decide that today is the "one day" off of the diet this month, and we have a bowl of Fettuccine Alfredo with garlic-bread, chased down with the ice-cream version of Mississippi Mud Pie, and for a treat (as if that wasn't enough) a nightcap-tumbler of Kahlua & Cream (the cream, of course, is on the diet, so it makes everything else okay, right? Our 300 gram day goes to 1200. Then we repeat the process, if not tomorrow, then worse, the day after tomorrow, for the day between we have a lot of high-fat, low-carb foods that would have comprised a great day for the diet, but now is merely fodder for the set of four full-sized tractor spare tires around our waist because the carbs on either side of being "good" won't let us metabolize the fat.
But, we tell ourselves, at least we got a lot of protein.
Small consolation when your ass is the size of Wisconsin. (No offense is meant to Wisconsin, I have never been there. I would have said Arkansas, but that would have been intentional and personal).
So, most of us reason, we will exercise. We could do with a little buffing up, some nice pectorals, some rounded biceps, some washboard abs. Now, most of us forget a couple things here, namely that it takes many more years to exercise yourself into shape than to diet yourself into shape. Bodybuilders don't become Mr. Universe overnight. It takes decades. Decades of going to the gym every day for more than a 30-minute "I feel better about myself but accomplished almost nothing" workouts. Decades of going to the gym and burning valuable eating time. Since you can't edge out the other responsibilities in your life (work, kids, whatever else you must do) you have to take away personal time. This is time that could have been put to better use watching your favorite television shows, playing mindless computer games, eating your fifth three-course meal that evening, stuffing ultra-cheese popcorn in your mouth, polishing off that wasted extra piece of cake in the freezer, and washing it all down the with gallon of milk that was just opened close enough to its freshness date that you don't want it to go to waste.
Here's the worst irony for me: every time I exercise, because I'm not going to sacrifice hours of my time to exercise (I simply don't like it enough until it gets really expensive as in playing ice hockey on a team) I exercise about 30 to 45 minutes a day. And I gain weight! Not just that lame excuse of "muscle weighs more than fat" which is meant to comfort people who are losing ground despite trying harder but actual around-the-middle-jiggle weight that makes my attempts to exercise look absolutely comical (when it's not so sad you cry). I mean, the fatty-fat-fatso jiggling and bouncing on the dance-mats or rippling and lapping like a kiddie-pool while working the free weights kind of sad comedy.
It was pointed out to me (and I had actually been doing research about this about 10 years ago) that the problem is our bodies are not designed with modern civilization in mind. We have to remember that for 50,000 or more years we were designed to survive on the "feast and famine" concept. There was food to go around, but it was a heck of a lot more savvy about its impending fate. Around my house the deer get aggressive if you don't feed them enough, and will actually stand around your car waiting for you in the morning. Not to mention with greenhouse farming (which is often more 'organic' than traditional farming, by the way) we have fresh fruit and produce year-round. On top of that we know how to preserve food in cans and freezers. There is no famine! It is feast, feast, feast! But while our minds know this, our bodies do not.
The body is convinced that The Big Famine is coming. After all, that's the only reason we could be eating this much, right? It had better store every morsel and scrap of processable fat (carbohydrates, as I understand it, are translated into gooey body-fats by insulin) for the time when the food runs out. We just might, it reasons, live through the famine if we're fat enough. That is, after all, why we don't stay hungry after two or three days of no food. The body realizes The Famine has begun and starts happily consuming all the fats it was smart enough to store up.
Of course, there are other problems with fasting, or intentional starvation. Largely, we still don't get enough exercise (which would have been hunting the next wildebeest about 7000 years ago, or farming land diligently for food that won't show up for weeks) and often we don't pay attention to when we should really be stopping. Our body isn't designed to live off our own fat forever. Even during "famine" it was used to having berries or grasses or something to vary up the steady flow of internal fats. So we end up with heart murmurs (I can't help it - I picture a strange muppet sketch where the heart is grumbling in some mauve cave), we pass out, we skate perilously close to death... and that's only if you can actually convince yourself to fast. (For more than ten minutes, people). I only know one person who has done that and she said risking death wasn't worth it. Fat and alive beats skinny and dead - or even hospitalized and possibly permanently broken.
Sorry, there's no great ending to this post that solves some major political question if only everyone in the world would agree with me and do it my way. I think I am going to keep exercising in the "almost helpful" area and eating "almost low-carbohydrate" days. The fact is that I can do everything I want and while I'm noticeably overweight, I'm not as spectacular an example of rotund as I sometimes make myself out to be. I think I'm just going to keep hanging out in public, after all there are so many really fat people out there maybe I will look skinny by comparison.
So, thank that fat person next time you see them. They're doing you a public service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)