It is not surprising that "things" which just happen day-to-day are made use of by us humans when they support our positions. But, sometimes such are used inappropriately, I think.
When one's "team" or individual wins a game, it is understandable that one might "crow" a little to other sportsminded friends. But it is often inappropriate to use that win as proof that that team or person is better than another. That's a simple example (thinking here particularly of professional baseball, football and tennis, but it goes for most other sports).
Much more complicated is the situation when one hears speeches or finds articles which support, say, that human energy activities are mainly responsible for "global warming." Al Gore, a political giant of the day, who is certainly not himself an "expert" in this field, has come out strongly with this sentiment on more than one occasion. Of course, he has some authoritative researchers, who conclude the same thing. And, most of current and very wide ranging and expensive government activities (both Federal and State) take this position for gospel, and thus use it as a given, with no allowance (to use a euphemism) for anyother authoritative evidence.
Then there is the "other side" as stated above, also authoritative researchers in the field of world-wide climate change, who maintain that it is premature to wholly take this position, while admitting (possibly even most of them do) that human activities probably do have appreciable effect. So it is not a matter of whether or not, it is a matter of proportion: long term human energy contributions to global worming on one side, and long term natural causes on the other.
There is good evidence, it seems to me, that finds "natural causes" as responsible for most of global warming. Thus, caution, at least, should be used before our political leadership not only takes the former side for gospel, but commits huge amounts of money and policy changes to it.
All of this said, I certainly agree that efforts should be made to mitigate the probable human contribution to global warming, but go at it in such a way that at least allows due credence for the other side's position in this crucial long term matter -- at least until the "real experts" come to a mostly homogenous conclusion.
Lately, for example, even we lay people in this field are reading that "particle physicists" have for some time elsewhere, but also presently are making use of the huge French/Swiss "particle accelerator" to mimic some cosmic energy effects that would support the view, if "positive," that natural causes (in the cosmos) contribute the most to what we are measuring, namely an appreciable tendency for the past hundred years or so for our earth's surface to be gradually warming. That much is not in real dispute.
After all, we are not talking here about ephemeral and inconseqential day-to-day matters such as whose team is better!
Dallas Tuthill, M.D.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Something to Ponder
Lee Roy Selmon died in his fifties yesterday (9-4-2011) of a massive stroke. He was in the Football Hall of Fame and became famous in the Tampa Bay area because of his former prowess as a Bucs football player. During the decades since his active football days, he progressively and favorably impressed all with his humility and honest willingness to serve his community.
I certainly agree with the community-wide assessment of Lee Roy Selmon, but I also believe that he was the same gentleman before, during, and after his football days.
I just wonder if he could have become such an influential icon if he had not been a football star?
Dallas Tuthill
I certainly agree with the community-wide assessment of Lee Roy Selmon, but I also believe that he was the same gentleman before, during, and after his football days.
I just wonder if he could have become such an influential icon if he had not been a football star?
Dallas Tuthill
Monday, October 18, 2010
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
I cannot remember when I was not for equal rights for women - even as a young man.
Recently was looking into the History of Women's Suffrage and of course the names of Anthony and Stanton were prominent, along with others. But these women both died in the early years of the 20th Century, years before the 19the Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote in any state of the nation.
Maybe I missed something that is prominent, but recently I watched a movie on a disc which depicted the lives of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, among others. These women, and others, staged a kind of civil disobedience before the White House (Wilson was President at the time, toward the end of WW I) protesting the lack of women's suffrage in the U.S.
They were never violent themselves apparently, but the movie graphically showed, among other things, their being jailed more than once, and later going on a hunger strike. They were physically brutalized, including being subjected to a crude kind of forced feeding. I couldn't believe it! The women "won" in the end, but this had to be Hollywood making it up, I thought.
Much to my surprise when I "googled" these names, I found that what the movie depicted actually happened! So far as I know -- which is little enough -- such never happened to Anthony or Stanton in the 19th Century. They were certainly flawed women in some ways perhaps, but they were very, very brave for decades, and their work was finally effective to be sure. Still, physical torture they did not have to endure!
So, I suppose people more knowledgeable than I about all of this know of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, but I doubt that the so-called "man-in-the-street" knows -- especially these days. But he should!
Further, I doubt very much that the 19th Amendment would have come about when it did without the incredible courage of these two women!
How could intelligent and educated men, especially the leaders, be so dumb for so long?
Recently was looking into the History of Women's Suffrage and of course the names of Anthony and Stanton were prominent, along with others. But these women both died in the early years of the 20th Century, years before the 19the Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote in any state of the nation.
Maybe I missed something that is prominent, but recently I watched a movie on a disc which depicted the lives of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, among others. These women, and others, staged a kind of civil disobedience before the White House (Wilson was President at the time, toward the end of WW I) protesting the lack of women's suffrage in the U.S.
They were never violent themselves apparently, but the movie graphically showed, among other things, their being jailed more than once, and later going on a hunger strike. They were physically brutalized, including being subjected to a crude kind of forced feeding. I couldn't believe it! The women "won" in the end, but this had to be Hollywood making it up, I thought.
Much to my surprise when I "googled" these names, I found that what the movie depicted actually happened! So far as I know -- which is little enough -- such never happened to Anthony or Stanton in the 19th Century. They were certainly flawed women in some ways perhaps, but they were very, very brave for decades, and their work was finally effective to be sure. Still, physical torture they did not have to endure!
So, I suppose people more knowledgeable than I about all of this know of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, but I doubt that the so-called "man-in-the-street" knows -- especially these days. But he should!
Further, I doubt very much that the 19th Amendment would have come about when it did without the incredible courage of these two women!
How could intelligent and educated men, especially the leaders, be so dumb for so long?
Friday, August 6, 2010
Philosophy versus Philosophy
Have noticed that "philosophy" means different things to most people.
On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.
On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.
Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."
Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.
Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.
In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.
On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.
Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."
Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.
Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.
In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
NPR RADIO -- FREE!
Read recently in the Tampa Tribune the results of an interview with Vivian Schiller, President and CEO of NPR. One of her "answers" was simply not true.
Ms. Schiller stated, "...It is at the heart of our mission that we will make our content available to people for free." That is false.
NPR was started years ago by the U.S. Federal Government, and it still subsidizes NPR. Our Federal Government does not have any money that it did not secure from taxpayers, in one way or another. Federal Government subsidies come from money so obtained. I am a taxpayer.
I like PBS, especially the "classical music," and have it on (radio) most all day, every day. For many years I donated substantial amounts of money to PBS yearly, but for several years now I have not. I believe PBS content is sufficiently good -- as their proponents keep telling us -- that PBS could now stand on its own without goverment subsidy.
When PBS "cuts this cord to mother," I will again donate to the cause yearly, not before.
D.B. Tuthill, M.D.
Ms. Schiller stated, "...It is at the heart of our mission that we will make our content available to people for free." That is false.
NPR was started years ago by the U.S. Federal Government, and it still subsidizes NPR. Our Federal Government does not have any money that it did not secure from taxpayers, in one way or another. Federal Government subsidies come from money so obtained. I am a taxpayer.
I like PBS, especially the "classical music," and have it on (radio) most all day, every day. For many years I donated substantial amounts of money to PBS yearly, but for several years now I have not. I believe PBS content is sufficiently good -- as their proponents keep telling us -- that PBS could now stand on its own without goverment subsidy.
When PBS "cuts this cord to mother," I will again donate to the cause yearly, not before.
D.B. Tuthill, M.D.
KEEPING A JOB
I read in the Tampa Tribune recently a list of "do's" in order to keep a job these days. The article I read was from Joyce E. A. Russell in a "special" to the Washington Post.
Among the recommendations were: Ask you manager for his/her goals; Work hard; Be a good "citizen"; Be on time. There were a couple more, but let these suffice.
Dumbfounding to this reader were: 1. That such a "special" could be sold to any newspaper for money. And, probably explaining, is 2. Why would anyone need such/em> obvious advice to "keep a job." What, pray, would a job-acceptor do otherwise to "keep a job"?
D. B. Tuthill, M.D.
The rubric over this article was, "Take the initiative to stand out at work" I knew things had deteriorated, but are we that bad off already?
Among the recommendations were: Ask you manager for his/her goals; Work hard; Be a good "citizen"; Be on time. There were a couple more, but let these suffice.
Dumbfounding to this reader were: 1. That such a "special" could be sold to any newspaper for money. And, probably explaining, is 2. Why would anyone need such/em> obvious advice to "keep a job." What, pray, would a job-acceptor do otherwise to "keep a job"?
D. B. Tuthill, M.D.
The rubric over this article was, "Take the initiative to stand out at work" I knew things had deteriorated, but are we that bad off already?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
EXERCISE ROOM MISTAKES
I live in a deed-restricted retirement community in Florida; the average age here is about 72 years. Among the many facilities available for all members is a monitored, well-equipped exercise room.
I use this exercise room three times per week to work out for 50 to 60 minutes each time. While not a professional physical trainer, I am a retired physician (internist), who has taken training from professionals in the past, and has ‘worked out’ regularly for many years.
Following are listed some of the simple “mistakes” older persons, male and female, frequently make in their exercise routines. They all have free access to beginners’ group training from a professional trainer, but only a few take advantage of that opportunity (that is the first mistake!). I infrequently call any of these mistakes to anyone’s attention because I have no “official status” to do so. Perhaps some of them will read this blog.
1. Noise: Often exercisers make loud and unnecessary noise when using the many exercise machines, especially when initially adjusting them. This is especially true when using the “free weights;” one should make the effort to be as quiet as possible. No matter how carefully one utilizes free weights, including dumb bells, they tend to make more noise than do machines which are usually “dedicated” to one particular kind of exercise for legs, arms or a segment of the back. It is well to consider the adjustment of these various machines as an integral part of the exercise. Usually one should squat down to carefully make these adjustments (i.e., changes for the exercisers’ differing sizes), and squatting down repeatedly is in itself a good exercise! (Admittedly, especially some of the smaller ladies may have “strength problems” making some of these adjustments quietly.)
2. Too much weight: Even oldsters, especially males it seems, have “macho” problems, and some of them seem to think they must choose a relatively large amount of weight for each machine, apparently to prove that “they can still do it,” or in the mistaken belief that “heavy” weight is necessary for a good work out. (And, often they even leave the weight stems in place!) Seldom should it be oldsters’ intent to increase one’s strength in preference to simply working out all major muscle groups.
3. Too few repetitions (“reps”): Usually it is exactly backwards: too much weight, coupled with too few reps. Specially older people should use less weight plus many more reps! A reasonable number of reps might be as a minimum, say, 20 for the arms and 30 for the legs and back.
4. Too fast: Let it be well understood that one cannot be too slow in lifting a given amount of weight and letting that weight down, but is possible to be too fast either way! And, that is what one often sees. The rubric should be: DO NOT THROW THE WEIGHTS! Yanking a weight up and rapidly letting it down is not the proper way to do any of the exercises. It is a false understanding of an exercise to, in effect, use gravity to let a weight down! That’s what one does when one yanks a weight up and lets it down rapidly. That is not a proper work out method. One should raise a weight slowly and equally slowly let that weight down. Resisting the weight’s downward motion (gravity) is when one gets the most out of an exercise!
5. Forget balance! What is the most frequent cause of old people’s breaking bones? Sure – falling! Aside from trying to be careful about how an older person goes about his or her daily activities – which is very important – one should utilize every opportunity to “exercise” the semi-circular canals that are in both ears”! These are the organs that are primarily responsible for a body’s orientation in space. I do not often see that the “gurus” recommend doing the simple things that could help “save” one’s ability to balance properly. Don’t forget, vision has a large role to play here. If you need convincing on this, just try, for example, standing on one leg, with eyes open versus closed. You will note a big difference! What you want is to save or enhance the ability of the semicircular canals to do their thing, regardless of the influence of sight. This can be done in many simple ways, most of which one can – thinking about it – come up with oneself. For example, when one is walking, say outside on the sidewalk, take the opportunity to look about in all directions – up and down and sideways – while trying to walk in the usual straight line. If you can do this at all it is because of your semicircular canals! Do things that keep them working properly. So, what do I see in the exercise room? I see people working on the “balance bar” for example, but with their eyes open at all times. Try the same exercises with the eyes closed, as well!
6. Forget aerobic exercise! What is aerobic exercise? Well, one could spend a lot of time talking about aerobic exercise, but it comes down to keeping one’s pulse up toward the “maximum” (Anyone’s “maximum” depends a lot of one’s age. That’s why the American Heart Association has come up with charts that recommend “maximum” pulse rates for different ages. Consult same.) Practically speaking, if one does an exercise that drives the pulse rate up, keeping it up is served by going smoothly from one exercise to another without too much delay in between.
7. Using too few machines! What does that mean, “too few machines”? The “correct” number of machines can indeed vary, depending upon the goal(s) one sets for him/herself. Younger persons usually are out to increase strength, and that’s a legitimate goal, within limits. Such persons often work out different groups of muscles on different days – they do not try to do it all in one go. Older people, on the other hand,usually are not out to increase their strength so much as to just work out to enhance their longevity. This goal can be met by three or four workouts per week, but with a plan that involves all major muscle groups each time. (I recommend that we oldsters work out six days a week, perhaps three in the exercise room and three “at home.” Perhaps it is reasonable to take one day a week off, and why not Sundays?) A good workout that involves all major muscle groups takes from 50 to 60 minutes, or more (not less).
8. Working out to lose weight! Forget it. Most of us do not work out enough to use up many calories. A couple large slices of bread, or the equivalent, can in very short order equal what most of our workouts use up. And using, or, much more important, avoiding taking in calories, is indeed what is necessary to weight loss. Again, we are talking of “oldsters” here. Don’t forget, “fat and fit” is preferable to “fat and unfit”! Sure, lose some weight; just do not expect your typical workouts to accomplish this alone.
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
I use this exercise room three times per week to work out for 50 to 60 minutes each time. While not a professional physical trainer, I am a retired physician (internist), who has taken training from professionals in the past, and has ‘worked out’ regularly for many years.
Following are listed some of the simple “mistakes” older persons, male and female, frequently make in their exercise routines. They all have free access to beginners’ group training from a professional trainer, but only a few take advantage of that opportunity (that is the first mistake!). I infrequently call any of these mistakes to anyone’s attention because I have no “official status” to do so. Perhaps some of them will read this blog.
1. Noise: Often exercisers make loud and unnecessary noise when using the many exercise machines, especially when initially adjusting them. This is especially true when using the “free weights;” one should make the effort to be as quiet as possible. No matter how carefully one utilizes free weights, including dumb bells, they tend to make more noise than do machines which are usually “dedicated” to one particular kind of exercise for legs, arms or a segment of the back. It is well to consider the adjustment of these various machines as an integral part of the exercise. Usually one should squat down to carefully make these adjustments (i.e., changes for the exercisers’ differing sizes), and squatting down repeatedly is in itself a good exercise! (Admittedly, especially some of the smaller ladies may have “strength problems” making some of these adjustments quietly.)
2. Too much weight: Even oldsters, especially males it seems, have “macho” problems, and some of them seem to think they must choose a relatively large amount of weight for each machine, apparently to prove that “they can still do it,” or in the mistaken belief that “heavy” weight is necessary for a good work out. (And, often they even leave the weight stems in place!) Seldom should it be oldsters’ intent to increase one’s strength in preference to simply working out all major muscle groups.
3. Too few repetitions (“reps”): Usually it is exactly backwards: too much weight, coupled with too few reps. Specially older people should use less weight plus many more reps! A reasonable number of reps might be as a minimum, say, 20 for the arms and 30 for the legs and back.
4. Too fast: Let it be well understood that one cannot be too slow in lifting a given amount of weight and letting that weight down, but is possible to be too fast either way! And, that is what one often sees. The rubric should be: DO NOT THROW THE WEIGHTS! Yanking a weight up and rapidly letting it down is not the proper way to do any of the exercises. It is a false understanding of an exercise to, in effect, use gravity to let a weight down! That’s what one does when one yanks a weight up and lets it down rapidly. That is not a proper work out method. One should raise a weight slowly and equally slowly let that weight down. Resisting the weight’s downward motion (gravity) is when one gets the most out of an exercise!
5. Forget balance! What is the most frequent cause of old people’s breaking bones? Sure – falling! Aside from trying to be careful about how an older person goes about his or her daily activities – which is very important – one should utilize every opportunity to “exercise” the semi-circular canals that are in both ears”! These are the organs that are primarily responsible for a body’s orientation in space. I do not often see that the “gurus” recommend doing the simple things that could help “save” one’s ability to balance properly. Don’t forget, vision has a large role to play here. If you need convincing on this, just try, for example, standing on one leg, with eyes open versus closed. You will note a big difference! What you want is to save or enhance the ability of the semicircular canals to do their thing, regardless of the influence of sight. This can be done in many simple ways, most of which one can – thinking about it – come up with oneself. For example, when one is walking, say outside on the sidewalk, take the opportunity to look about in all directions – up and down and sideways – while trying to walk in the usual straight line. If you can do this at all it is because of your semicircular canals! Do things that keep them working properly. So, what do I see in the exercise room? I see people working on the “balance bar” for example, but with their eyes open at all times. Try the same exercises with the eyes closed, as well!
6. Forget aerobic exercise! What is aerobic exercise? Well, one could spend a lot of time talking about aerobic exercise, but it comes down to keeping one’s pulse up toward the “maximum” (Anyone’s “maximum” depends a lot of one’s age. That’s why the American Heart Association has come up with charts that recommend “maximum” pulse rates for different ages. Consult same.) Practically speaking, if one does an exercise that drives the pulse rate up, keeping it up is served by going smoothly from one exercise to another without too much delay in between.
7. Using too few machines! What does that mean, “too few machines”? The “correct” number of machines can indeed vary, depending upon the goal(s) one sets for him/herself. Younger persons usually are out to increase strength, and that’s a legitimate goal, within limits. Such persons often work out different groups of muscles on different days – they do not try to do it all in one go. Older people, on the other hand,usually are not out to increase their strength so much as to just work out to enhance their longevity. This goal can be met by three or four workouts per week, but with a plan that involves all major muscle groups each time. (I recommend that we oldsters work out six days a week, perhaps three in the exercise room and three “at home.” Perhaps it is reasonable to take one day a week off, and why not Sundays?) A good workout that involves all major muscle groups takes from 50 to 60 minutes, or more (not less).
8. Working out to lose weight! Forget it. Most of us do not work out enough to use up many calories. A couple large slices of bread, or the equivalent, can in very short order equal what most of our workouts use up. And using, or, much more important, avoiding taking in calories, is indeed what is necessary to weight loss. Again, we are talking of “oldsters” here. Don’t forget, “fat and fit” is preferable to “fat and unfit”! Sure, lose some weight; just do not expect your typical workouts to accomplish this alone.
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)