Housing Bubble.

So President Obama wants to help the housing market. Many people are now upside down on their mortgages and the only solution people want to hear, is that we have to get prices back up. Hello people. Getting things back to the way they were just recreates the problem. The reason these people are upside down on their loans is because they paid more than they should have and got a loan from a corrupt banking system that we just bailed out. For the most part these people were taken advantage of, and we should have bailed them out instead. Now it's too late to go back and fix the bailout fiasco, and we just have to realize that these people are going to have to deal with their loses on their own. But we cannot go back to having the prices back at the levels that they were. That is not a solution, it's just making the same mistake again.

Now we could maybe save these people by dissolving these banks and using the money to get these people back on their feet. What do you think about that? Maybe that would send a clear message to the banks.

Does this matter.

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And I feel it necessary to share some incites that too many people in this country either don't know or ignore. First of all, the best "cure" for cancer is prevention. There is plenty of scientific study out there that already proves that we should not be suffering from cancer the way we are in this country and others that have adopted our diets and our lifestyles. For example, in the early 1970's, the premier of China, Chou En-lai, was dying of cancer, so he initiated a nationwide survey to collect information about the extent and location of cancer in China. The result was the most comprehensive biomedical research project ever undertaken, involving more than 650,000 workers. It's known as The China Study, and it proves that our diets can, for the most part, prevent cancer. In fact, it proved that cancer is considered a "disease of affluence," or, as Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the director of the project more aptly called it a "disease of nutritional extravagance." I don't want to get into details about the study, that would take too long, and there are books on the subject that you should read, if you are interested.

So, moving on. One of the biggest obstacles for real cancer awareness, in my opinion, is all of the medical companies doing research. These companies are in this to make money, and if the solution is as simple as eating better, then they would all be out of jobs. Also, the medical industry itself, in our country especially, is about profits, so there is no incentive there either for people to be healthy, and to work towards prevention, rather than treatment.

Another obstacle could be the food industry. Not just the huge fast food changes, but the companies that make our groceries. Most of what is out there contains empty calories, harmful ingredients like hydrogenated oils, and very little nutritional value. A hundred years ago our diets where much healthier than they are now. By feeding us crap, we eat more, and they make more profit. If we eat more nutritional foods we wouldn't eat so much.

Yet another major obstacle is our government. They may not always purposely lead us astray, but because our government agencies are suppose to work for us, we believe in them to do what is right for the American people. Unfortunately, they don't. Too many times, the agencies that are suppose to work for us, are overseen by the heads of many of the very companies that we should be wary of. Does that make sense? That's not just like letting the fox into the hen house, but also like having the fox tell the farmer how to run the farm. (Personally, I hate animal analogies that make animals look bad, but it helps make the point I hope.)

Now, I don't want to make people think that I believe people who get cancer are getting what they deserve. That is not the case. I am, in fact, very saddened by how many wonderful people have suffered and died from this disease. And want to do what little I can to make a difference. If our government isn't going to get the truth out, and the cancer researchers aren't, then we are left with finding out the truth on our own. Please look into The China Study, and if you find it useful, pass the information along. Another good book on the subject is Healthy at 100, by John Robbins.

Does this matter? I'm guessing yes, because we have a whole month dedicated to it, but you decide.

Should labor unions join the "Occupy Wall Street" protest?

There's a lot of talk in the media now about the unions supporting the protestors on Wall Street, and I'm wondering if that is really a good thing. Unions have done a lot of good for workers in the past, but many of them have gotten very powerful and power hungry. In my opinion they began to add to the problems of our economy long ago. Because of unions a lot of jobs have gone over seas, and America can not compete economic with many other countries. Instead of continually wanting more raises and benefits from employers, that just cut into profits, why don't they try getting the guys at the top to stop taking such big bonuses and share the wealth with the workers?

Look at the example of the US Postal Service. That union is so strong, that they will be lucky to not be closed down by the end of this year. Eighty percent of the operational cost is salary! And they have a "no layoff" clause, so they can't legally cut back on their work force to help save jobs.

Anyway, rather than state too many of my ideas and opinions about unions on here, I want to make the point that there almost seems to be a conflict of interest between what the current protestors  are about, and what unions are about. The protestors seem to be more about changing things for the better, and lot letting corporate America continue to get away with horrible business practices the are hurting our economy. Things like taking bailouts for a problem they caused, and then paying their top screw ups bonuses for it. The unions are more about getting more for the laborers, regardless of whether is causes us the not be competitive with other countries and shoots us in both feet, legs, arms, and in the long run head, economically.

Does anybody else see this, and is this important?

Hunza Myths?

I wanted to see if I could find some good photos of the Hunza terraces that I had read about in "Healthy at 100", and I came across this guys website. He was attempting to use a lot of information that contradicted what I was reading to prove that the Hunzakuts, are not only not mainly vegetarian, but that they don't live as long as claimed. He also wanted to prove that eating more meat and animal fat was much healthier than being vegetarian. Does anyone else see the contradiction here? If he is claiming the Hunzakuts don't live as long, (based on the photos he saw, he was guessing the elders were only in their fifties), and he is claiming their diet was mostly animal based, then to me this suggests that an animal based diet is not as healthy.

Anyway, I don't want to seem too biased, and I would like to have others look at his site and tell me what they think. Maybe I am misunderstanding him. There was a lot of other interesting information about the Hunzakuts too, that I hadn't heard before. Don't know how much is fact, fiction, or speculation.

This is probably not that important. But you may enjoy it.

Healthy at 100

Healthy at 100 is a book by John Robbins that I have recently started to read. It's not only about living to be a hundred and beyond, but about doing so and being functional and healthy still. You see, although people are living longer in our modern world, on average they aren't very functional or healthy. In fact, you may say that in stead of living longer, we are dying longer. In a quote from the book, "A century ago, the average adult in Western nations spent only 1 percent of his or her life in a morbid or ill state, but today's average modern adult spends more than 10 percent of his or her life sick." The book is full of statistics and facts based on research. As usual, John Robbins is superb at collecting his facts. But basically it is about research that has been done of four different societies around the globe that are known to be long lived. For the most part these cultures are in pristine locations with plenty of clean air and fresh fruits and vegetables. Yes, their diets are mostly vegetarian, but the book is not about that. In fact, it isn't even about promoting the lifestyles of these cultures. In general these people are very poor, and have little or none of the modern conveniences that we enjoy. Realistically, what John Robbins wants to do with the book, is change our mindset about how we look at getting old. Some of the biggest factors mentioned in the book, are how respected the elders are in these society, compared to our modern industrialized view of being decrepit and ugly. The other stuff in the book, like the differences in diet and exercise are, in my opinion common knowledge, and of no real surprise. The only thing holding people back in these aspects of health are our own decisions. But our society's mentality towards aging effects us greatly too. Look at the media today, and you mostly see commercials, television shows, and movies with young "attractive people". Especially where women are concerned. How often do you see an average out of shape guy with a more attractive woman? And even things like birthday cards talking about being "over the hill". There are not many positive terms used to describe older people, but plenty of negative ones, like "geezer," "old fogey," old maid," "dirty old man," and my favorite, "old fart." In the cultures mentioned in the book, there on no negative terms for getting old. In fact, everything about being older is so revered that the elders often lie about their age and say they are older than they really are.

John Robbins makes a point of being very honest in the book. Even though he is a vegetarian he tells about the meat and dairy that they eat. It is a very small part of their diets, especially compared to what our society consumes, but not enough so to omit. He could have focused on how old some of these people claimed to be, but he made a point of showing that research had revealed that many of them were 20 or 30 years younger than they said they were. But the point wasn't really to show that these people lived to be well over a hundred, but to show that even if they were only in their 90's, they were still very fit, healthy and active. Most of the time the researches couldn't keep up with these elders, as they went about their everyday lives.

So, what am I getting out of this book? That, yes, clean air, a good diet and exercise are important to live a long and healthy happy life, but so is attitude. Not just our own, but of our society. We need to be surrounded with love and positive energy. Getting old should not mean, a loss of health and vitality. It should mean a gain in wisdom and respect. Not too surprising either, I hope.

Is this important?

Is there a problem with democracy?

I read an article yesterday about how the youth in so many countries are disillusioned with democracy now. Basically, they feel that the politicians are corrupt and work for the banks and other corporations, rather than the people who vote them into office. I admit, I've been feeling this way myself for quite a while now. Some of the remarks being made in the article mention how even in countries that had dictators, they are no longer happy with the democratic method. Their parents say they are happy to be able to vote, but the youth see past this to the new issues that exist.

There is a tone in the article that suggest trying to come up with another option to democracy all together. "Increasingly, citizens of all ages, but particularly the young, are rejecting conventional structures like parties and trade unions in favor of a less hierarchical, more participatory system modeled in many ways on the culture of the Web."

I love this creative thinking and can hardly wait to see what comes out of it. Unfortunately, I feel that America may become the last dinosaur of democracy. I say unfortunately, because I foresee things having to get a lot worse, before enough Americans are willing to make the radical changes necessary. We could of course, try things like opening up our democracy to more than just the two party system we have now. But I just don't see it happening soon enough. But maybe we need to hit bottom, so that we are willing to make real changes in the long run, and not just settle for half way measures that are still susceptible to corruption.

Does this matter?

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act

I recently got an email from PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) about this new bit of legislature called PAMTA (The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 965/S. 1211). Basically, it's about having the FDA re-evaluate using antibiotics on livestock. The simplified version of the problem is livestock producers place animals in overcrowded, unsanitary living conditions to maximize their output and profits. Then, to prevent the inevitable spread of disease from such conditions and to spur faster growth in the animals, they routinely add antibiotics to their feed. Widespread use of antibiotics gives rise to resistant bacteria. Through contact with farm workers and contaminated waste runoff, resistant bacteria can spread to humans and other animals.

I have to say, that even if I didn't believe there was an issue with resistant strains of bacteria, I would have to support this kind of legislation to help change what is going on in factory farms. Hopefully, people who don't care about the conditions the animals are in will still have more selfish reasons to consider a change.

Is this important?