In previous posts, I have tried hard to provide advice for seniors, "life hints" that will help us to overcome some of the debilitating effects of growing old, like forgetting our car keys in the freezer (it really kills the little button battery in the car-key remote).
Although we all have our physical aches and pains, nothing worries us more than losing our mental acumen. Being paralyzed from the neck down is a terrible thing indeed, but being paralyzed from the neck up is potentially even worse.
"What tricks do you have to help us avoid these common pitfalls in our daily lives," you ask?
Thank you for asking that question, because if you had not, I would probably not have anything to write about today.
Inevitably you will forget where you have left something – the keys in the freezer, your car in the mall parking lot, your spouse at the shopping center – and spend a lot of time even trying to remember WHAT it was you forgot, not to mention WHERE it was that you forgot it.
Thankfully, once again, science has come to our rescue and not a moment too soon! Research shows that by talking to yourself, you can actually help to improve your short-term memory. Scientists at the University of Wisconsin divided people into two groups and had some of them "talk to themselves" while the others did not.
These are not random conversations with yourself that we are talking about here.
The scientific research does not suggest that it will help you to blabber vitriolically to yourself about how you want to wring the neck of the dog next door who pees all over your garden and kills your roses!
No, this is strictly a strategy for helping you to find lost items. The group that wandered around repeating the name of the thing they were looking for was faster in retrieving that item than the group who searched in silence.
Leaving aside the question of how old the members of these groups were (if they were seniors, the silent group could have forgotten what they were looking for), the "talkative" group showed a marked difference in how quickly they were able to find the things they were hunting. The items were especially easy to find for this group if they were "characteristically colored". "Items like bananas, grapes and Cheerios had stronger associations with the chitchat than those with less specific colors, like Jell-O and Pop-Tarts*."
So to tie things together here into some cogent advice for seniors, there are a couple of important things you can do to make finding things in your life easier.
1. Say the name of the item aloud as you look for it. So as you shuffle up and down the rows of cars at the mall, repeat out loud to yourself, "Car... car... car... car...." This will help you to find it, hopefully before someone calls an emergency medical team.
2. Make sure that all the things you tend to misplace have "characteristic colors". This means that you want to get your husband to wear loud Hawaiian shirts and paisley, polyester pants (Maybe THAT is why a lot of seniors wear loud clothes; they instinctively understand this psychological principle.) When you potter through the shopping center saying, "John... John... John... John...," the "characteristic colors" will form a nagging image in your mind. Ignore helpful bystanders who point you to the restroom.
I hope these suggestions will improve your daily life and make it easier for you to live out your silver years without losing things so frequently.
Now... what was I looking for before I started this article? Oh yes... wine... wine... wine... wine....
- - - - - - - - - -
*Further research might reveal that this technique could also be an aid to dieting, since the unhealthy food items mentioned, Jell-O and Pop-Tarts were harder to find.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Dieting Made Easy
Before I get started, let me say that the movie "Free Willy" was not a documentary about Bill Clinton.
Just thought you would like to know.
But what I really wanted to talk about today is how we senior folks can keep healthy and lose weight. There are many advice columns out there, of course, but most focus on those things that we already know about: you know, the common stuff, like not eating or drinking too much. They often tell you how to be "as young as you feel" by getting enough roughage in your diet. This usually means a daily dose of something that has several pounds of sawdust suspended in it. You get the picture.
My father (a doctor) used to tell a joke about dieting.
An obese patient slumps dejectedly in his physician's office, listening to the doctor sternly tell him that he must cut out all between-meal snacks, eliminate his favorite desserts, stop drinking so much beer, and eat more vegetables and less steak. He should also go out and exercise at least three times a week.
The patient asks plaintively, "Doctor, if I do all these things, will I live longer?"
To which the doctor replies, "Probably not, but it will SEEM longer."
In fact, not all of us can avoid eating and drinking too much, and as we age it becomes harder and harder to keep the blubber from sticking to places where we would really rather not see it accumulate. Dying of heart disease or stroke is one thing, but getting harpooned by Japanese research whalers at the beach is quite another matter altogether.
So what can we do to make sure that the five-burrito meal (with refried beans AND rice) we have just devoured doesn't attach itself like parasitic jellyfish to our thighs? A lot of advice columnists will suggest things like, going out and walking 50 kilometers, or drinking 20 liters of water to flush it all from your system. Thanks a lot! Who really wants to do THAT?!
Ever helpful science brings us a better answer: sleep it off.
Yes! Finally a solution we can live with. No more difficult dieting or painful sacrifice. All you need to do is make sure that you get a good night's sleep every night and your body will AUTOMATICALLY self-tune itself to keep you slim.
But what IS a "good night's sleep", you ask?
Science provides an answer for that too (thank you science)!
Fasting (although it will SEEM slow) for 16 hours between dinner and breakfast has been shown to result in dramatic weight loss. So clearly you need to sleep about 16 hours a day, like a cat. And don't use an alarm clock to disturb that all-important dieting sleep! Using alarm clocks disrupts your natural body rhythms – a kind of "social jet lag" – and will cause you to put on an extra layer of insulating blubber as a protection against those pesky social demands, like work.
I am sure you are already asking, "How can I take advantage of these new breakthroughs in scientific discovery and start losing weight right NOW?"
The scientific evidence, however, is hard to understand for laymen like yourself, so let me outline a typical day for you. In this way you can get a clearer picture of what science is advising you to do to shed that extra lard.
Get up around 7:30 am every morning without using an alarm clock.
Eat your breakfast at 8:00. You can have anything you want! Science tells us that coffee will make you live longer, so why not include a couple of cups of java with your bacon, eggs, hash browns and biscuits with gravy? Might as well have those waffles too.
Eat lunch at 11:00. You will be hungry by then anyway, since a full 3 hours will have passed since breakfast.
Eat dinner at 2:30 PM. Go ahead, don't be shy! Enjoy that steak and those mashed potatoes. Don't cut back on the desserts either, because you will be using the new scientific method for losing calories in just one hour by going to sleep!
Go to bed around 3:15 but make sure you fall asleep by 3:30, so that you can get your full 16 hours in, before waking up at 7:30 the next morning!
Using this easy-to-follow regimen will allow anyone to lose weight the scientific way and bring out a more youthful and active you.
Just thought you would like to know.
But what I really wanted to talk about today is how we senior folks can keep healthy and lose weight. There are many advice columns out there, of course, but most focus on those things that we already know about: you know, the common stuff, like not eating or drinking too much. They often tell you how to be "as young as you feel" by getting enough roughage in your diet. This usually means a daily dose of something that has several pounds of sawdust suspended in it. You get the picture.
My father (a doctor) used to tell a joke about dieting.
An obese patient slumps dejectedly in his physician's office, listening to the doctor sternly tell him that he must cut out all between-meal snacks, eliminate his favorite desserts, stop drinking so much beer, and eat more vegetables and less steak. He should also go out and exercise at least three times a week.
The patient asks plaintively, "Doctor, if I do all these things, will I live longer?"
To which the doctor replies, "Probably not, but it will SEEM longer."
In fact, not all of us can avoid eating and drinking too much, and as we age it becomes harder and harder to keep the blubber from sticking to places where we would really rather not see it accumulate. Dying of heart disease or stroke is one thing, but getting harpooned by Japanese research whalers at the beach is quite another matter altogether.
So what can we do to make sure that the five-burrito meal (with refried beans AND rice) we have just devoured doesn't attach itself like parasitic jellyfish to our thighs? A lot of advice columnists will suggest things like, going out and walking 50 kilometers, or drinking 20 liters of water to flush it all from your system. Thanks a lot! Who really wants to do THAT?!
Ever helpful science brings us a better answer: sleep it off.
Yes! Finally a solution we can live with. No more difficult dieting or painful sacrifice. All you need to do is make sure that you get a good night's sleep every night and your body will AUTOMATICALLY self-tune itself to keep you slim.
But what IS a "good night's sleep", you ask?
Science provides an answer for that too (thank you science)!
Fasting (although it will SEEM slow) for 16 hours between dinner and breakfast has been shown to result in dramatic weight loss. So clearly you need to sleep about 16 hours a day, like a cat. And don't use an alarm clock to disturb that all-important dieting sleep! Using alarm clocks disrupts your natural body rhythms – a kind of "social jet lag" – and will cause you to put on an extra layer of insulating blubber as a protection against those pesky social demands, like work.
I am sure you are already asking, "How can I take advantage of these new breakthroughs in scientific discovery and start losing weight right NOW?"
The scientific evidence, however, is hard to understand for laymen like yourself, so let me outline a typical day for you. In this way you can get a clearer picture of what science is advising you to do to shed that extra lard.
Get up around 7:30 am every morning without using an alarm clock.
Eat your breakfast at 8:00. You can have anything you want! Science tells us that coffee will make you live longer, so why not include a couple of cups of java with your bacon, eggs, hash browns and biscuits with gravy? Might as well have those waffles too.
Eat lunch at 11:00. You will be hungry by then anyway, since a full 3 hours will have passed since breakfast.
Eat dinner at 2:30 PM. Go ahead, don't be shy! Enjoy that steak and those mashed potatoes. Don't cut back on the desserts either, because you will be using the new scientific method for losing calories in just one hour by going to sleep!
Go to bed around 3:15 but make sure you fall asleep by 3:30, so that you can get your full 16 hours in, before waking up at 7:30 the next morning!
Using this easy-to-follow regimen will allow anyone to lose weight the scientific way and bring out a more youthful and active you.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The Poppy Purchase Solution
It is a well-known fact that insurgent operations in Afghanistan are subsidized by the opium trade. Even the Taliban which suppressed opium agriculture during its reign in the country is now feeding off its production, buying weapons and recruiting soldiers with the enormous flow of funds.
So how much money are we talking about here?
Best estimates place the total annual value of Afghan opium production in the $4 billion range of which only about 25% goes to the farmers who raise the offending poppies.
US efforts to eradicate opium production have not been successful nor have policing measures, trying to interdict traffic or arrest major traffickers. The Afghan government has not been willing to take measures to stop opium cultivation since so many farmers depend on it for their livelihoods. Replacing the lucrative poppy trade with saffron or other crops has also seen a less than stellar performance. Traffickers are withholding supplies to keep the price high – this fact proven by the fact that legal opium for morphine and other drugs costs much less than its illegal counterpart which is sold as heroin in the developed world.
What should be done?
It's very simple. The US should buy up all the opium in Afghanistan.
The war costs the United States over 40 billion dollars a year. An additional $1 billion to buy opium directly from the farmers (25% of the total annual value) would probably pay for itself in reduced supplies of money to insurgent forces and thus a reduced combat level in the country. Establishing economic links to poor Afghan farmers who account for about 70% of the population would also undercut Taliban recruitment efforts and give the farmers a stake in a successful UN mission. Illegal dealers would not be able to offer higher prices to the farmers, since they are already withholding supplies to keep the international price high, and in any case there is no way they could outbid the US which should be willing to go as high as $4 billion a year, still a pittance relative to the costs of waging war there.
The US could then destroy the product it received from the farmers and with their newly established contacts, slowly wean them away from opium production and into something less destructive internationally, such as hashish or how about llamas which are also very cute.
In this way the US and its allies could slowly win over the population, undercutting the insurgency's access both to weapons and to recruits, and buy its way out of a difficult and interminable war.
So how much money are we talking about here?
Best estimates place the total annual value of Afghan opium production in the $4 billion range of which only about 25% goes to the farmers who raise the offending poppies.
US efforts to eradicate opium production have not been successful nor have policing measures, trying to interdict traffic or arrest major traffickers. The Afghan government has not been willing to take measures to stop opium cultivation since so many farmers depend on it for their livelihoods. Replacing the lucrative poppy trade with saffron or other crops has also seen a less than stellar performance. Traffickers are withholding supplies to keep the price high – this fact proven by the fact that legal opium for morphine and other drugs costs much less than its illegal counterpart which is sold as heroin in the developed world.
What should be done?
It's very simple. The US should buy up all the opium in Afghanistan.
The war costs the United States over 40 billion dollars a year. An additional $1 billion to buy opium directly from the farmers (25% of the total annual value) would probably pay for itself in reduced supplies of money to insurgent forces and thus a reduced combat level in the country. Establishing economic links to poor Afghan farmers who account for about 70% of the population would also undercut Taliban recruitment efforts and give the farmers a stake in a successful UN mission. Illegal dealers would not be able to offer higher prices to the farmers, since they are already withholding supplies to keep the international price high, and in any case there is no way they could outbid the US which should be willing to go as high as $4 billion a year, still a pittance relative to the costs of waging war there.
The US could then destroy the product it received from the farmers and with their newly established contacts, slowly wean them away from opium production and into something less destructive internationally, such as hashish or how about llamas which are also very cute.
In this way the US and its allies could slowly win over the population, undercutting the insurgency's access both to weapons and to recruits, and buy its way out of a difficult and interminable war.
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Abominable Abominations
You can tell my muses are not working as I am reduced to picking on the religious right again. How pathetic can I get; it's too easy.
I need another martini to drown my feelings of inadequacy.
US religious figure Billy Graham (93 – in human terms, 256) has recently rousted himself from the rigor mortis of his fossildom. Why? He wants to support the anti-gay-marriage amendment, recently proposed for the North Carolina constitution.
His view is that there is a terrible "moral decline" in the United States and that allowing loving gay people to get married like everyone else is somehow contributing to this decline.
There are two important questions to be asked here. Why does Billy Graham oppose gay marriage, and is his name related to the cracker of the same name (because wouldn't it be cool if it was)?
To answer the first question, Reverend Graham draws on the Bible for inspiration. He believes that the scriptures clearly state that homosexual relations are morally wrong and an "abomination" in the eyes of his god. Leviticus in the Bible is pretty clear about this. In verse 18:22, it specifically states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".
How bad is that?
It seems pretty clear to me that male homosexuality was an abomination to the writers of Leviticus.
Leviticus fails to mention anything about lesbianism, so presumably they would not be abominable. You North Carolinians might want to codify this exception in your amendment: guys nix, gals OK.
Many evangelical right-wingers use this scripture to justify their gay-bashing behavior and attitudes. What other possible reason could they have to prevent someone from marrying the person they love? They wave their Bibles in people's faces and claim that the Bible cannot be wrong because it is the word of god!
In a subsequent verse (20:13), Leviticus goes on to say, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." So presumably these rabid evangelicals also believe that male homosexuals should be put to death as well! North Carolina has the death penalty, so I am guessing that this will be next on their list of bills to pass. One does want to be consistent, right?
Lesbians can relax, the Bible doesn't single them out as abominable†.
The scriptures, however, do not stop there, and evangelical Christians should be aware of other abominations out there, rather than relying only on the ones featured on Fox News or in Billy Graham's fetid imagination.
Deuteronomy is pretty explicit. In verse 22:5, it proclaims, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
While it does not call for the death penalty for women wearing pants or other things "pertaining to a man" (FORGET women in uniform!*), it is very clear that their god would not be happy with this, and so evangelicals should not be either. Men should steer away from skirts and bras and probably earrings too, just to be safe.
Nor does it stop there! Leviticus also states that everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you. This explicitly rules out those yummy popcorn shrimp, the popular, beach-side clam bakes, and lobster thermidor. Oysters on the half-shell? No way! Scallop sushi? It is an abomination right up there with gay sex.
Leviticus also declares, "But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you," proving that in addition to being anti-gay, whoever wrote Leviticus also could not count. Still, the evangelicals should probably lay off any insects just in case. Japanese, however, are abominable! But wait... grasshoppers have 6 feet, so maybe they are OK.
But let's face it, the evangelicals like Billy Graham are Christians, right? So, they should not focus so much on the fuddy-duddy Old Testament but rather on the words of Jesus.
Did Jesus say anything about abominations?
Yes. Once.
In Luke 15, Jesus calls the love of money an abomination. Clearly he could not be a Republican these days.
And to answer question number two about Billy Graham, there does not seem to be any link between Billy Graham and the graham cracker, though it was invented by a minister named Sylvester Graham whose life was dedicated to the eradication of lust.
Those reverends! Whatever gets into them?
- - - - - - - - - -
* Some evangelical "scholars" interpret that the prohibition against women wearing men's clothing refers specifically to military garb. These "scholars" don't discuss men wearing women's wear, so you guys with earrings are on your own. I don't even want to THINK about colognes.
†Yes, all you Biblical "scholars", I am aware of Paul's antipathy to lesbianism. He wants the death penalty for them too. What a guy, eh? Fits right in with the mullahs in Iran!
For more about abominations in the Bible read this.
I need another martini to drown my feelings of inadequacy.
US religious figure Billy Graham (93 – in human terms, 256) has recently rousted himself from the rigor mortis of his fossildom. Why? He wants to support the anti-gay-marriage amendment, recently proposed for the North Carolina constitution.
His view is that there is a terrible "moral decline" in the United States and that allowing loving gay people to get married like everyone else is somehow contributing to this decline.
There are two important questions to be asked here. Why does Billy Graham oppose gay marriage, and is his name related to the cracker of the same name (because wouldn't it be cool if it was)?
To answer the first question, Reverend Graham draws on the Bible for inspiration. He believes that the scriptures clearly state that homosexual relations are morally wrong and an "abomination" in the eyes of his god. Leviticus in the Bible is pretty clear about this. In verse 18:22, it specifically states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".
How bad is that?
It seems pretty clear to me that male homosexuality was an abomination to the writers of Leviticus.
Leviticus fails to mention anything about lesbianism, so presumably they would not be abominable. You North Carolinians might want to codify this exception in your amendment: guys nix, gals OK.
Many evangelical right-wingers use this scripture to justify their gay-bashing behavior and attitudes. What other possible reason could they have to prevent someone from marrying the person they love? They wave their Bibles in people's faces and claim that the Bible cannot be wrong because it is the word of god!
In a subsequent verse (20:13), Leviticus goes on to say, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." So presumably these rabid evangelicals also believe that male homosexuals should be put to death as well! North Carolina has the death penalty, so I am guessing that this will be next on their list of bills to pass. One does want to be consistent, right?
Lesbians can relax, the Bible doesn't single them out as abominable†.
The scriptures, however, do not stop there, and evangelical Christians should be aware of other abominations out there, rather than relying only on the ones featured on Fox News or in Billy Graham's fetid imagination.
Deuteronomy is pretty explicit. In verse 22:5, it proclaims, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
While it does not call for the death penalty for women wearing pants or other things "pertaining to a man" (FORGET women in uniform!*), it is very clear that their god would not be happy with this, and so evangelicals should not be either. Men should steer away from skirts and bras and probably earrings too, just to be safe.
Nor does it stop there! Leviticus also states that everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you. This explicitly rules out those yummy popcorn shrimp, the popular, beach-side clam bakes, and lobster thermidor. Oysters on the half-shell? No way! Scallop sushi? It is an abomination right up there with gay sex.
Leviticus also declares, "But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you," proving that in addition to being anti-gay, whoever wrote Leviticus also could not count. Still, the evangelicals should probably lay off any insects just in case. Japanese, however, are abominable! But wait... grasshoppers have 6 feet, so maybe they are OK.
But let's face it, the evangelicals like Billy Graham are Christians, right? So, they should not focus so much on the fuddy-duddy Old Testament but rather on the words of Jesus.
Did Jesus say anything about abominations?
Yes. Once.
In Luke 15, Jesus calls the love of money an abomination. Clearly he could not be a Republican these days.
And to answer question number two about Billy Graham, there does not seem to be any link between Billy Graham and the graham cracker, though it was invented by a minister named Sylvester Graham whose life was dedicated to the eradication of lust.
Those reverends! Whatever gets into them?
- - - - - - - - - -
* Some evangelical "scholars" interpret that the prohibition against women wearing men's clothing refers specifically to military garb. These "scholars" don't discuss men wearing women's wear, so you guys with earrings are on your own. I don't even want to THINK about colognes.
†Yes, all you Biblical "scholars", I am aware of Paul's antipathy to lesbianism. He wants the death penalty for them too. What a guy, eh? Fits right in with the mullahs in Iran!
For more about abominations in the Bible read this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)