if you had sent me to a psychiatrist every day for ten years at the age of 20, might i have eventually become comfortable enough with my body, and figure out a way to deal with some concept of masculinity, that i could deal with something like a spontaneous threesome by the time i was 30?
i dunno.
it's possible.
but, you'd have to convince me to want to do it, first.
right now, i'm 40, and i'd still cry if presented with a spontaneous threesome with somebody i cared about, i'm sure of it - but it's because i'm in the wrong body to deal with it, because i never transitioned.
i think i'd probably be a happy slut, if i had the body parts to facilitate it.
what's impossible is just approaching the issue with concepts of corrective rape and expecting me to "behave naturally" or something. that's not going to happen, i'm just going to get overwhelmed and malfunction.
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
the other thing i need to point out is that it's not like sarah didn't try to involve me in her rather outrageous sex life. to an extent, the sneaking around was a reaction to my own disinterest, because i'd made it clear that i couldn't handle it, and she just wasn't ready or interested in settling down. it was essentially the same impossible choice: she didn't want me to walk away from her, but she didn't want monogamy, either. but, that choice had to be made, because i couldn't psychologically handle it.
there were several situations where she asked me to participate in threesomes, or foursomes, and i got up and walked out. i was so overwhelmingly self-conscious about my body image, and so uncomfortable with my sexuality, that i could barely even have sex with one person that i knew. the idea of sex with strangers made me want to vomit and cry. it wasn't just unattractive to me, it was legitimately scary to me.
on some of these occasions, she even followed me out of the room, which was indicative of where her mind was at - she wanted to experiment, but not at the expense of alienating me. she understood that it bothered me, but she did not understand why i was crying, and tended to make demeaning comments to me about it. but, she didn't want to upset me, either.
it didn't help that she kept ambushing me because she wanted everything to be spontaneous and a "surprise". but, i would need to know somebody very, very well before i'd even feel comfortable being naked with them. it's the kind of thing i'd need to sit down and talk about. just springing it on me like that is going to make me retract and cry, every time.
like, i was the kid that went back to class in dirty gym clothes because i was too self-conscious about my body to go into the change room.
so, it was just really unworkable. like, legitimately...
there were several situations where she asked me to participate in threesomes, or foursomes, and i got up and walked out. i was so overwhelmingly self-conscious about my body image, and so uncomfortable with my sexuality, that i could barely even have sex with one person that i knew. the idea of sex with strangers made me want to vomit and cry. it wasn't just unattractive to me, it was legitimately scary to me.
on some of these occasions, she even followed me out of the room, which was indicative of where her mind was at - she wanted to experiment, but not at the expense of alienating me. she understood that it bothered me, but she did not understand why i was crying, and tended to make demeaning comments to me about it. but, she didn't want to upset me, either.
it didn't help that she kept ambushing me because she wanted everything to be spontaneous and a "surprise". but, i would need to know somebody very, very well before i'd even feel comfortable being naked with them. it's the kind of thing i'd need to sit down and talk about. just springing it on me like that is going to make me retract and cry, every time.
like, i was the kid that went back to class in dirty gym clothes because i was too self-conscious about my body to go into the change room.
so, it was just really unworkable. like, legitimately...
the way you beat a really badass motherfucker is you find someone even more badass.
it's not what they teach you in sunday school, i know. well, there's that other sunday school, too, and maybe it has better lessons....
but, it's the truth.
nobody was going to beat the nazis by taking the high road.
that's just how it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/
it's not what they teach you in sunday school, i know. well, there's that other sunday school, too, and maybe it has better lessons....
but, it's the truth.
nobody was going to beat the nazis by taking the high road.
that's just how it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/
it's the old cliche about stalin.
yeah, he was a real sonofabitch.
but, he saved the fucking world - we'd all be dead without him.
you need a certain level of stomach to wrestle an angry bear. i don't have it - i wouldn't last a second. but, i'm sure glad there are people that do, and that those people sometimes take the right side.
yeah, he was a real sonofabitch.
but, he saved the fucking world - we'd all be dead without him.
you need a certain level of stomach to wrestle an angry bear. i don't have it - i wouldn't last a second. but, i'm sure glad there are people that do, and that those people sometimes take the right side.
japan is a majorly strategic set of islands, and i certainly don't propose abandoning it, even as i realize they'd rather we left.
but, i have essentially no solidarity with the japanese people in the face of rising chinese aggression.
deep down, i hope the chinese enact their revenge.
one day.
when the time is right.
but, i have essentially no solidarity with the japanese people in the face of rising chinese aggression.
deep down, i hope the chinese enact their revenge.
one day.
when the time is right.
and, maybe you can sort of get a grasp of why i stand where i do on specific issues, like iran.
i don't want to bomb iran. or not yet, anyways. i don't currently see them as a threat.
but, they're a cause for some concern, sure - and the way they treat their people is atrocious. if we can get the worst of the fuckers out of there with minimal damage...i'm not going to push back against it...
i'd just want it to be all or nothing. if you take out a general here and there, they just replace them, and you probably make the repression worse. if you bomb the academy, and a dozen other places all at once, maybe you're getting somewhere.
whatever anybody else says, america retains air superiority - what i'm saying is feasible, even if it's an endpoint. which is all i'm actually saying.
i can't see a way i'd support an occupation of iran, at this time.
i don't want to bomb iran. or not yet, anyways. i don't currently see them as a threat.
but, they're a cause for some concern, sure - and the way they treat their people is atrocious. if we can get the worst of the fuckers out of there with minimal damage...i'm not going to push back against it...
i'd just want it to be all or nothing. if you take out a general here and there, they just replace them, and you probably make the repression worse. if you bomb the academy, and a dozen other places all at once, maybe you're getting somewhere.
whatever anybody else says, america retains air superiority - what i'm saying is feasible, even if it's an endpoint. which is all i'm actually saying.
i can't see a way i'd support an occupation of iran, at this time.
actually, i'm firmly opposed to capital punishment in a law enforcement sense. that is, if you have somebody locked up in a cage, that's enough - you don't have to kill them. and, you shouldn't, if it's solely out of retribution.
but, you don't always have the opportunity to capture.
sometimes, you have to shoot to kill - and you shouldn't feel bad about it when you do.
but, you don't always have the opportunity to capture.
sometimes, you have to shoot to kill - and you shouldn't feel bad about it when you do.
should we criticize ourselves for our own wrongs, and try ourselves for our own crimes?
sure.
but, not at the expense of defeating evils that were greater - that is when we need to be relativistic about it, and when we cannot be constrained, or feel bad about our own necessary atrocities.
so, we should criticize ourselves for our slavery, for the trail of tears, for the theft of indigenous land, for defoliation in vietnam, for iraq, for libya - yes. those are our crimes, and we should be held accountable for them in ways that are reasonable.
but, we should not criticize ourselves for dresden, for tokyo, for bombing isis or for anything else we had to do to wipe out forces that were much more evil than us.
we made hard choices; they were the right ones, and we should pride ourselves in having the resolve to push them forward.
sure.
but, not at the expense of defeating evils that were greater - that is when we need to be relativistic about it, and when we cannot be constrained, or feel bad about our own necessary atrocities.
so, we should criticize ourselves for our slavery, for the trail of tears, for the theft of indigenous land, for defoliation in vietnam, for iraq, for libya - yes. those are our crimes, and we should be held accountable for them in ways that are reasonable.
but, we should not criticize ourselves for dresden, for tokyo, for bombing isis or for anything else we had to do to wipe out forces that were much more evil than us.
we made hard choices; they were the right ones, and we should pride ourselves in having the resolve to push them forward.
so, was it fair to inflict a collective punishment on the japanese for what they did?
i think that there's a better argument for it than virtually any other place in history, including the nazis. the nazis targeted specific groups for extermination, and it was vicious. but, the japanese killed or enslaved the men and raped the women, leaving systemic levels of control and domination that are really, truly only rivaled by the mongols (and only eclipsed by them because the mongols won, and the japanese did not).
i understand that the reason that truman did it (and, a dying fdr likely had little knowledge of what was happening before the bomb dropped, although it's not clear if he'd have even wanted to stop it; i have the benefit of hindsight, and i'm not sure i'd have wanted to stop it) was to get to tokyo before stalin got there, which was the same reason that america went to germany the way it did (as a canadian, my history is a little different, as we declared war on the germans when they invaded poland, and fought in both theatres from the start). it was a race not just for territory and dominance, but for industrial capacity, for scientific know how, for engineering designs and for the scientists themselves - denazified, under project paperclip. it was nazi technology that got america to the moon first, and america doesn't seem to be as good at that, anymore, now that all of the nazis, save kissinger, knock on wood, are dead. they don't tell you that.
but, it doesn't even matter.
and, why?
that's the question.
because they fucking deserved it, for what they did.
i think that there's a better argument for it than virtually any other place in history, including the nazis. the nazis targeted specific groups for extermination, and it was vicious. but, the japanese killed or enslaved the men and raped the women, leaving systemic levels of control and domination that are really, truly only rivaled by the mongols (and only eclipsed by them because the mongols won, and the japanese did not).
i understand that the reason that truman did it (and, a dying fdr likely had little knowledge of what was happening before the bomb dropped, although it's not clear if he'd have even wanted to stop it; i have the benefit of hindsight, and i'm not sure i'd have wanted to stop it) was to get to tokyo before stalin got there, which was the same reason that america went to germany the way it did (as a canadian, my history is a little different, as we declared war on the germans when they invaded poland, and fought in both theatres from the start). it was a race not just for territory and dominance, but for industrial capacity, for scientific know how, for engineering designs and for the scientists themselves - denazified, under project paperclip. it was nazi technology that got america to the moon first, and america doesn't seem to be as good at that, anymore, now that all of the nazis, save kissinger, knock on wood, are dead. they don't tell you that.
but, it doesn't even matter.
and, why?
that's the question.
because they fucking deserved it, for what they did.
the greeks had to defend themselves against the damned persians, which is why alexander did what he did - he destroyed an empire that was in some ways worse than rome. the persians left us very little writing, sadly. but, they were white aryans, just like the romans - warlike, barbaric, hierarchical and in need of utter annihilation by the forces of freedom, anarchy and democracy.
and, the greeks are almost unique in their lack of hypocrisy, too. if you are convinced that power corrupts, that the new boss is just the old boss, then they offer a counter-example to history - because they read books. education is the solution we don't understand, because we don't read. see how that works?
they really hated war, in a way that we can only point to ourselves as analogues to; their world was created by the sword, and yet they refused to live by it.
they did not expand their borders. they did not launch imperialist conquests, or military adventures. they understood their borders as historical, and were content to trade with their neighbours.
unique.
well, almost.
i'm still waiting for the capital of our own empire to move to ottawa.
and, the greeks are almost unique in their lack of hypocrisy, too. if you are convinced that power corrupts, that the new boss is just the old boss, then they offer a counter-example to history - because they read books. education is the solution we don't understand, because we don't read. see how that works?
they really hated war, in a way that we can only point to ourselves as analogues to; their world was created by the sword, and yet they refused to live by it.
they did not expand their borders. they did not launch imperialist conquests, or military adventures. they understood their borders as historical, and were content to trade with their neighbours.
unique.
well, almost.
i'm still waiting for the capital of our own empire to move to ottawa.
it seems like my unwanted style editor removed the phrase that:
the romans were seen as destroyers of civilization.
it was in the paragraph about the greeks & mithridates (a very late hellenized achaemenid from the pontic region that launched the last serious resistance against roman hegemony); i'm not going to edit it back in, but you can do it yourself, mentally.
and, this is true.
you probably know about the temple scattering in jerusalem, but that is ironically the one example that is probably overblown. the jews were not scattered, and in the end they just converted to islam. the descendants of the ancient hebrews exist in the region, still, today. we call them palestinians, ironically after the name of a group of greek colonists called philistines. and, maybe you know that story about the giant indo-europeans, too. the one with the rock; it's very silly, but a fun children's fairy tale.
they burned corinth down, too.
and carthage.
they slaughtered armenians, celts, britons, germans - anybody that gave them the slightest bit of trouble.
that was why the rest of the world ganged up on them, in the end, and destroyed them - they were horrible.
but, what i meant in context was that, at the end of the hellenic period, they brought war back to a culture that had largely vanquished it. it is true that the various alexandrian successor states in the hellenic period had squabbles, and that cities would sometimes change hands, but they didn't fight wars. they considered it uncivilized. after all, they were all hellenes, right? let the barbarians fight their wars. have an olive, my friend. let us debate existence, instead.
yes, the greeks - truly a few strands in the genome ahead than the rest of them. the brits could only offer a weak emulation, as much as the shakespeares and bacons of the world desired otherwise.
so, this idea is all over the greek historical literature, or what survived the muslim rewriting and christian burning of it. the romans admired the greeks for their superior intellect, but the greeks viewed the romans as barbarians.
catholics are still taught that the romans created the world.
but, the greeks would have claimed they destroyed it.
the romans were seen as destroyers of civilization.
it was in the paragraph about the greeks & mithridates (a very late hellenized achaemenid from the pontic region that launched the last serious resistance against roman hegemony); i'm not going to edit it back in, but you can do it yourself, mentally.
and, this is true.
you probably know about the temple scattering in jerusalem, but that is ironically the one example that is probably overblown. the jews were not scattered, and in the end they just converted to islam. the descendants of the ancient hebrews exist in the region, still, today. we call them palestinians, ironically after the name of a group of greek colonists called philistines. and, maybe you know that story about the giant indo-europeans, too. the one with the rock; it's very silly, but a fun children's fairy tale.
they burned corinth down, too.
and carthage.
they slaughtered armenians, celts, britons, germans - anybody that gave them the slightest bit of trouble.
that was why the rest of the world ganged up on them, in the end, and destroyed them - they were horrible.
but, what i meant in context was that, at the end of the hellenic period, they brought war back to a culture that had largely vanquished it. it is true that the various alexandrian successor states in the hellenic period had squabbles, and that cities would sometimes change hands, but they didn't fight wars. they considered it uncivilized. after all, they were all hellenes, right? let the barbarians fight their wars. have an olive, my friend. let us debate existence, instead.
yes, the greeks - truly a few strands in the genome ahead than the rest of them. the brits could only offer a weak emulation, as much as the shakespeares and bacons of the world desired otherwise.
so, this idea is all over the greek historical literature, or what survived the muslim rewriting and christian burning of it. the romans admired the greeks for their superior intellect, but the greeks viewed the romans as barbarians.
catholics are still taught that the romans created the world.
but, the greeks would have claimed they destroyed it.
take a perusal through this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
several of these attacks resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead, at one time.
they were horrific - and they had to be stopped.
so, if the question is "why did americans accept this?", the answer is to look at what the japanese did, first. and, i can't help but think that anybody who seriously knows the history of japanese war crimes in the second world war would be less than empathetic about what happened to them, in the end.
the easy answer is that if you don't want to get nuked, don't try to conquer the world and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people at a time, repeatedly, while you're at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
several of these attacks resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead, at one time.
they were horrific - and they had to be stopped.
so, if the question is "why did americans accept this?", the answer is to look at what the japanese did, first. and, i can't help but think that anybody who seriously knows the history of japanese war crimes in the second world war would be less than empathetic about what happened to them, in the end.
the easy answer is that if you don't want to get nuked, don't try to conquer the world and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people at a time, repeatedly, while you're at it.
you know, i listened to this and i'm just baffled how you can have this discussion (and even go so far as to absurdly claim that dropping the bombs on japan was 'racist') without even bothering to talk about the atrocities that japan carried out in manchuria and nanking and all over china, and really all around southeast asia. they killed twenty million chinese civilians, in a vicious imperialist war that intended to wipe out or enslave every ethnic type that wasn't them, and they literally refused to surrender unless they were killed.
but we're racist for trying to stop them? it's absurd.
so, this entire discussion is based on what's called a false equivalency and it's an idea that the left has generally been pretty good at working through, but these two guys are just failing at, horribly.
killing a nazi (and the japanese were nazis, too - just as so many muslims are, today) is not the same thing as killing an innocent person, and if you walk around with that kind of mentality, we're going to end up enslaved by fascists in no time. we can't put these crimes on the same level, morally - it's not comparable, and shouldn't be considered that way.
regarding germany, attitudes did change after what was called the "phony war". and, the reason that happened is that the germans started sending v2 rockets into london. the british - quite reasonably - decided that if the nazis were going to bomb their own civilians, then they would bomb theirs, too. if we address our enemies with superior moral convictions, they're just going to wipe us out. that's not "taking the high road", it's taking the dumb road.
what's important is not instigating and, for that reason, i have more criticism for a rumsfeld or cheney than i do for a truman or eisenhower. the nuremberg trials explicitly specified a difference between self-defence and "planning and waging an offensive war". they got it right; kuznick doesn't.
now, i just have one further thing to point out, which is that, while world war two was particularly vicious, it was not the first time we saw millions slaughtered, and attitudes towards this kind of mass murder is something that shifts over time. it's an attitude that comes in and out of history. so, the mongols, for example, destroyed entire cities to the ground. they wiped out irrigation systems, so the victims couldn't rebuild. they raped millions of people at a time. the romans carried out repeated genocides against multiple people. the muslims and christians gave people the choice to convert or die.
but, the greeks were very different and the british were - sometimes - a little more humane, as well. the wars that happened during the hellenic period often occurred without any fighting at all. it was partly why the romans were able to conquer so quickly - and were view as such ruthless, violent killers. that was, after all, what mithridates fought against - and eventually lost the battle against.
so, i don't have a lot of sympathy for the dead japanese civilians, given what their empire did to the area around it.
and, i find it rather ridiculous that we spend our time complaining about interned japanese, and scolding ourselves for doing what was necessary, rather than condemning them for what they did.
https://theanalysis.news/interviews/why-did-u-s-public-accept-barbaric-slaughter-of-japanese-civilians-peter-kuznick/
but we're racist for trying to stop them? it's absurd.
so, this entire discussion is based on what's called a false equivalency and it's an idea that the left has generally been pretty good at working through, but these two guys are just failing at, horribly.
killing a nazi (and the japanese were nazis, too - just as so many muslims are, today) is not the same thing as killing an innocent person, and if you walk around with that kind of mentality, we're going to end up enslaved by fascists in no time. we can't put these crimes on the same level, morally - it's not comparable, and shouldn't be considered that way.
regarding germany, attitudes did change after what was called the "phony war". and, the reason that happened is that the germans started sending v2 rockets into london. the british - quite reasonably - decided that if the nazis were going to bomb their own civilians, then they would bomb theirs, too. if we address our enemies with superior moral convictions, they're just going to wipe us out. that's not "taking the high road", it's taking the dumb road.
what's important is not instigating and, for that reason, i have more criticism for a rumsfeld or cheney than i do for a truman or eisenhower. the nuremberg trials explicitly specified a difference between self-defence and "planning and waging an offensive war". they got it right; kuznick doesn't.
now, i just have one further thing to point out, which is that, while world war two was particularly vicious, it was not the first time we saw millions slaughtered, and attitudes towards this kind of mass murder is something that shifts over time. it's an attitude that comes in and out of history. so, the mongols, for example, destroyed entire cities to the ground. they wiped out irrigation systems, so the victims couldn't rebuild. they raped millions of people at a time. the romans carried out repeated genocides against multiple people. the muslims and christians gave people the choice to convert or die.
but, the greeks were very different and the british were - sometimes - a little more humane, as well. the wars that happened during the hellenic period often occurred without any fighting at all. it was partly why the romans were able to conquer so quickly - and were view as such ruthless, violent killers. that was, after all, what mithridates fought against - and eventually lost the battle against.
so, i don't have a lot of sympathy for the dead japanese civilians, given what their empire did to the area around it.
and, i find it rather ridiculous that we spend our time complaining about interned japanese, and scolding ourselves for doing what was necessary, rather than condemning them for what they did.
https://theanalysis.news/interviews/why-did-u-s-public-accept-barbaric-slaughter-of-japanese-civilians-peter-kuznick/
Monday, September 14, 2020
the great irony that will be recorded in history, as the ndp goes the way of social credit, is that they missed a perfect chance to seize the country's vanguard when they ran naomi klein out of the country, in a foolish drive towards the mushy middle.
if they had listened to naomi, right?
but they didn't - until it was too late.
and, that will be the writing on their gravestone:
here lies the ndp,
who told naomi klein to fuck off,
and were subsequently reduced to irrelevance
if they had listened to naomi, right?
but they didn't - until it was too late.
and, that will be the writing on their gravestone:
here lies the ndp,
who told naomi klein to fuck off,
and were subsequently reduced to irrelevance
what we're seeing, and it's not a coincidence that this is happening along with an increase in deindustrialization and a shift towards mechanization, is not merely a replacement or expansion of the left but a fundamental shift in what it means to be on the left.
since the last gilded age, and the rise of marxism after the failure of the french revolution, the left has been about adjusting to socialization in production. what it means to be left-wing is to push for some concept of equalization in society, be it via equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. but, nowadays, neither of these ideas is even controversial, anymore; the right has ceded the point, out of common sense, if not out of activism in their own ranks. why shouldn't we be vaguely equal, at least? these minor debates about policy are pretty inconsequential, in the face of virtually everybody agreeing with the basic premise of equality. it's the most inoffensive, status quo position in the world.
what's developing as a new left is the idea that equality is not only not enough but not even a proper starting point. rather, we need to radically alter the entire conception of capitalism, from the bottom up, if we wish to truly alter the course of history. we need cleaner sources of energy. we need to change how we eat. we need to change the fundamental relationship of what work is, not merely who the boss is, or how much people get paid. and, we need to do so in a way that benefits everybody, including non-human species, and not just an elite at the top.
the ndp has never really been a workers' party, and they've never really had a base east of ottawa. they made some inroads with seasonal workers in the last generation, but they never did well in farming communities, and the region never had an industrial base. so, there was never really room for them in the east, anyways.
but, there's not really any room for a party of this sort in the new spectrum, at all.
to the extent that we need a workers' party, that party needs to increasingly be focused on distributing the fruits of mechanized labour, which are no longer reliant on human input variables. and, it is truly only the greens that are positioned to do that - at least until they scare the liberals into taking them seriously.
this election probably won't scare the liberals into action. but, it could very well be a microcosm of canada's future - if not in two years, perhaps in six.
since the last gilded age, and the rise of marxism after the failure of the french revolution, the left has been about adjusting to socialization in production. what it means to be left-wing is to push for some concept of equalization in society, be it via equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. but, nowadays, neither of these ideas is even controversial, anymore; the right has ceded the point, out of common sense, if not out of activism in their own ranks. why shouldn't we be vaguely equal, at least? these minor debates about policy are pretty inconsequential, in the face of virtually everybody agreeing with the basic premise of equality. it's the most inoffensive, status quo position in the world.
what's developing as a new left is the idea that equality is not only not enough but not even a proper starting point. rather, we need to radically alter the entire conception of capitalism, from the bottom up, if we wish to truly alter the course of history. we need cleaner sources of energy. we need to change how we eat. we need to change the fundamental relationship of what work is, not merely who the boss is, or how much people get paid. and, we need to do so in a way that benefits everybody, including non-human species, and not just an elite at the top.
the ndp has never really been a workers' party, and they've never really had a base east of ottawa. they made some inroads with seasonal workers in the last generation, but they never did well in farming communities, and the region never had an industrial base. so, there was never really room for them in the east, anyways.
but, there's not really any room for a party of this sort in the new spectrum, at all.
to the extent that we need a workers' party, that party needs to increasingly be focused on distributing the fruits of mechanized labour, which are no longer reliant on human input variables. and, it is truly only the greens that are positioned to do that - at least until they scare the liberals into taking them seriously.
this election probably won't scare the liberals into action. but, it could very well be a microcosm of canada's future - if not in two years, perhaps in six.
if it comes down to it, it makes far more sense for the ndp to merge with the liberals than it does for them to merge with the greens.
they just don't have the proper focus on environmental concerns - like the liberals, their interest is primarily in industrial policy. they want jobs and wages, which means they want capital investment and dirty projects. you will, at most, get lip service from them.
the greens should be pushing back against the ndp, for that reason - they're just going to pollute the movement with bad ideas.
we need to start fresh and come to terms with the truth, which is that the ndp & liberals are both in a grand coalition with the conservatives to destroy the planet.
they just don't have the proper focus on environmental concerns - like the liberals, their interest is primarily in industrial policy. they want jobs and wages, which means they want capital investment and dirty projects. you will, at most, get lip service from them.
the greens should be pushing back against the ndp, for that reason - they're just going to pollute the movement with bad ideas.
we need to start fresh and come to terms with the truth, which is that the ndp & liberals are both in a grand coalition with the conservatives to destroy the planet.
this isn't that surprising, but one may note at this point that the ndp has been all but wiped out of the province.
i've been saying for years that canada is most stable in a four-party system configuration, and the rise of a party to the right of the conservatives is consequently really not a strange thing to see - we've usually had one. but, at least in the east, it seems like the greens are the new left.
one wonders if that pattern asserts itself elsewhere.
and it very well might.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-day-results-2020-1.5722438
i've been saying for years that canada is most stable in a four-party system configuration, and the rise of a party to the right of the conservatives is consequently really not a strange thing to see - we've usually had one. but, at least in the east, it seems like the greens are the new left.
one wonders if that pattern asserts itself elsewhere.
and it very well might.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-day-results-2020-1.5722438
it seems like it's another day and it's another flaky attempt by biden to change the topic that's fallen flat on it's face.
and, why is that?
because he's a self-interested career politician. and, you can ask him, and he won't even sugar coat it.
"why are you running for office, joe?"
and he'll tell you it's a legacy project, the end of his career. it's about him.
so, he stumbles from one poorly presented, haphazardly (half-assedly, even) thrown together policy proposal to another, without stopping long enough to get jeered for it, because he doesn't have any deep reason for running, any raison d'etre to win.
strategy is useful, and i can help.
but, at the end of the day, you have to actually have a reason to run - some goal, some dream, some purpose.
the only dream that biden seems to have is to have the title printed on his tombstone. and, if he keeps running around like this, at the top of a pandemic, instead of staying at home with his grandkids where he belongs, he's going to get the tombstone without the title.
he's making this very difficult on everybody - and it's just getting harder, by the day.
and, why is that?
because he's a self-interested career politician. and, you can ask him, and he won't even sugar coat it.
"why are you running for office, joe?"
and he'll tell you it's a legacy project, the end of his career. it's about him.
so, he stumbles from one poorly presented, haphazardly (half-assedly, even) thrown together policy proposal to another, without stopping long enough to get jeered for it, because he doesn't have any deep reason for running, any raison d'etre to win.
strategy is useful, and i can help.
but, at the end of the day, you have to actually have a reason to run - some goal, some dream, some purpose.
the only dream that biden seems to have is to have the title printed on his tombstone. and, if he keeps running around like this, at the top of a pandemic, instead of staying at home with his grandkids where he belongs, he's going to get the tombstone without the title.
he's making this very difficult on everybody - and it's just getting harder, by the day.
will cycle 25 be weak or strong?
we don't know the answer to this question, and suggestions that we do should be taken lightly.
but, people arguing that the next cycle should be the same as the last one, or weaker, due to a recent trend downwards are really making a particularly bad argument. given how poorly we understand how the sun works, we should be treating these cycles as independent. that means that it's really a coin flip, probabilistically, and trying to measure this using a regression analysis is fool-hardy.
and, given that perspective, it's actually the opposite argument that should be more compelling - because we've seen decreasing strength for a while, we're increasingly due for it to flip.
that doesn't mean that this particular cycle has a greater than 50% chance; these events are independent. this is a basic paradox that goes back to pascal. the correct answer is 50% every time, but it tends towards a mean...
so, i have to tell you it's 50/50.
but, my hunch is we're in for a ramp up, like we saw last in the late 90s. so, i have a confirmation bias towards this.
but, you'll get as many answers as you can find "experts"; we don't know, and while one guess may work out better than another in the end, that's all they are right now - guesses.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15263.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0QD9q-bHwcQVOH0dJOnGa6tw5lPYmPhtCy1u4JMFzEi3fUh4w0EGID6Yk
we don't know the answer to this question, and suggestions that we do should be taken lightly.
but, people arguing that the next cycle should be the same as the last one, or weaker, due to a recent trend downwards are really making a particularly bad argument. given how poorly we understand how the sun works, we should be treating these cycles as independent. that means that it's really a coin flip, probabilistically, and trying to measure this using a regression analysis is fool-hardy.
and, given that perspective, it's actually the opposite argument that should be more compelling - because we've seen decreasing strength for a while, we're increasingly due for it to flip.
that doesn't mean that this particular cycle has a greater than 50% chance; these events are independent. this is a basic paradox that goes back to pascal. the correct answer is 50% every time, but it tends towards a mean...
so, i have to tell you it's 50/50.
but, my hunch is we're in for a ramp up, like we saw last in the late 90s. so, i have a confirmation bias towards this.
but, you'll get as many answers as you can find "experts"; we don't know, and while one guess may work out better than another in the end, that's all they are right now - guesses.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15263.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0QD9q-bHwcQVOH0dJOnGa6tw5lPYmPhtCy1u4JMFzEi3fUh4w0EGID6Yk
what's my fall temperature forecast?
it's a la nina, and that may make some difference, sometimes. but, the sun is now moving in tandem with the warmer climate for the next 7-10 years, so i would expect sea surface temperatures in the atlantic, rather than the pacific, to be the dominant force in the eastern part of north america. i see little reason to think that temperatures in the atlantic won't stay warm over that period.
we may see a bit of a lag for the next few years before the new reality sets in with force.
but, i would expect a mild fall, followed by a relatively mild winter.
it's a la nina, and that may make some difference, sometimes. but, the sun is now moving in tandem with the warmer climate for the next 7-10 years, so i would expect sea surface temperatures in the atlantic, rather than the pacific, to be the dominant force in the eastern part of north america. i see little reason to think that temperatures in the atlantic won't stay warm over that period.
we may see a bit of a lag for the next few years before the new reality sets in with force.
but, i would expect a mild fall, followed by a relatively mild winter.
sarah has, like no poker face.
it's what she says that matters - i'll be the first to tell you that. even if it's not what she feels, even if she's failing to hide something....she has the right to make that choice. she has the right to suppress her feelings, and it's her prerogative to be distracting, if it's what she wants, too. obviously. and, it's sad that i have to say that, explicitly.
but, it was about as obvious as could be that she was always excited and happy to see me, when i did bump into her.
one of the last times i bumped into her, she literally started skipping. like a little girl. and, so i asked her the question with the obvious answer: is this weird? is she uncomfortable? and she said yes, and i left.
i wonder if she regrets telling me that, but i had an obligation to listen, and i knew it.
but, she wasn't mad at me, she didn't hate me...she was trying to coerce me into detransitioning, or something...
i was sure she'd get over it, and i gave her years to do it, through a series of careful checks and balances.
i guess i was wrong.
it's what she says that matters - i'll be the first to tell you that. even if it's not what she feels, even if she's failing to hide something....she has the right to make that choice. she has the right to suppress her feelings, and it's her prerogative to be distracting, if it's what she wants, too. obviously. and, it's sad that i have to say that, explicitly.
but, it was about as obvious as could be that she was always excited and happy to see me, when i did bump into her.
one of the last times i bumped into her, she literally started skipping. like a little girl. and, so i asked her the question with the obvious answer: is this weird? is she uncomfortable? and she said yes, and i left.
i wonder if she regrets telling me that, but i had an obligation to listen, and i knew it.
but, she wasn't mad at me, she didn't hate me...she was trying to coerce me into detransitioning, or something...
i was sure she'd get over it, and i gave her years to do it, through a series of careful checks and balances.
i guess i was wrong.
they're going after hadju...
what i'm going to say is this: she seems to have been chosen for the role as a spokesperson, which was fine last year, when that was about what you needed for a health minister.
but, frankly, i would have replaced her with somebody more qualified eons ego.
and, anybody arguing that the country needs a non-politician health minister at this point is, indeed, correct.
the liberals have a deep caucus, and i know for a fact that there's a few doctors in there. but, what they really need in this role right now is a statistician, not a doctor - and definitely not a social worker, or a career politician.
and, ms. hadju should really offer minimal resistance; if she's smart, she knows that.
what i'm going to say is this: she seems to have been chosen for the role as a spokesperson, which was fine last year, when that was about what you needed for a health minister.
but, frankly, i would have replaced her with somebody more qualified eons ego.
and, anybody arguing that the country needs a non-politician health minister at this point is, indeed, correct.
the liberals have a deep caucus, and i know for a fact that there's a few doctors in there. but, what they really need in this role right now is a statistician, not a doctor - and definitely not a social worker, or a career politician.
and, ms. hadju should really offer minimal resistance; if she's smart, she knows that.
ugh.
nobody wants our poisonous oil, anymore.
it's just utter stupidity. straight up.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/o-toole-says-energy-east-off-the-table-after-talking-pipelines-with-legault-1.5104152
nobody wants our poisonous oil, anymore.
it's just utter stupidity. straight up.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/o-toole-says-energy-east-off-the-table-after-talking-pipelines-with-legault-1.5104152
you have to wonder if this is the work of some group of maskophile vigilantes, upset at people gathering in freedom and happiness, and having fun.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-westminster-firefighters-scramble-to-put-out-pier-blaze-1.5722770
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-westminster-firefighters-scramble-to-put-out-pier-blaze-1.5722770
it's right on schedule, in my estimation - because i'm basing my analysis on the idea that canada is just a few months behind the united states in terms of the spread of the virus, and not on the idea that the various measures taken were more effective.
and, that's actually weakly testable. it's not a silver bullet, and not a clear deduction.
however.
bogoch is right when he says that if the lower numbers over the summer months were due to the actions of government then he wouldn't expect higher numbers until later in the year, which presents some reason to think maybe the lower numbers over the summer months were due to something else, like a smaller number of initial cases requiring more time to circulate.
and, what we're seeing is at least consistent with the the idea that my mathematical analysis was more useful than his analysis, as a doctor, was. which isn't and shouldn't be surprising - this is a math problem, not a medical diagnosis.
so, what do you do?
if you weren't able to stop it in the first place, there's little reason to think you'll be able to stop it, now. and, i'm going to be just viciously blunt: bringing in draconian measures, at this stage, will not stop the spread of the virus.
you need to understand your own risk factors, as an individual, and take the proper steps to protect yourself. that's what needs to be done.
the world won't save you.
and, the state sure won't...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-case-numbers-rising-legislature-returns-1.5720931
and, that's actually weakly testable. it's not a silver bullet, and not a clear deduction.
however.
bogoch is right when he says that if the lower numbers over the summer months were due to the actions of government then he wouldn't expect higher numbers until later in the year, which presents some reason to think maybe the lower numbers over the summer months were due to something else, like a smaller number of initial cases requiring more time to circulate.
and, what we're seeing is at least consistent with the the idea that my mathematical analysis was more useful than his analysis, as a doctor, was. which isn't and shouldn't be surprising - this is a math problem, not a medical diagnosis.
so, what do you do?
if you weren't able to stop it in the first place, there's little reason to think you'll be able to stop it, now. and, i'm going to be just viciously blunt: bringing in draconian measures, at this stage, will not stop the spread of the virus.
you need to understand your own risk factors, as an individual, and take the proper steps to protect yourself. that's what needs to be done.
the world won't save you.
and, the state sure won't...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-case-numbers-rising-legislature-returns-1.5720931
i bumped into her a few times after the cut-off point, and she really wasn't angry with me. if anything, she was strangely flirty, in ways i hadn't seen from her in years.
like, when she called me around 2007/2008, it was just going for lunch with an old friend, which is what i wanted to maintain for, like, ever. there was legit comfort there. we trusted each other.
but, when i bumped into her in 2011 or 2012, she was all fidgety and weird, like a teenager trying to hide a secret crush - which weirded me out, 'cause i wasn't expecting it. like, at all.
like, i thought maybe it might ease her into it if we went shopping, and she had a fit.
and, it kind of clicked, that a part of the problem was that she feared she might be triggered by the effects of the hormones into something deeper, even as she was ultimately just waiting it out, under the assumption i'd fall back off them again.
...which i didn't, and which i don't want to.
i still think she'd return my calls, even now, if i dropped the t-blockers, at least. 'cause, i'm ultimately not of any use to her, if i can't get hard....
like, when she called me around 2007/2008, it was just going for lunch with an old friend, which is what i wanted to maintain for, like, ever. there was legit comfort there. we trusted each other.
but, when i bumped into her in 2011 or 2012, she was all fidgety and weird, like a teenager trying to hide a secret crush - which weirded me out, 'cause i wasn't expecting it. like, at all.
like, i thought maybe it might ease her into it if we went shopping, and she had a fit.
and, it kind of clicked, that a part of the problem was that she feared she might be triggered by the effects of the hormones into something deeper, even as she was ultimately just waiting it out, under the assumption i'd fall back off them again.
...which i didn't, and which i don't want to.
i still think she'd return my calls, even now, if i dropped the t-blockers, at least. 'cause, i'm ultimately not of any use to her, if i can't get hard....
i have every reason to believe, still, that what sarah legitimately wanted was an open relationship with me. she wanted to go out and do whatever she wanted and then she wanted the person that was at home waiting for her to very specifically be me.
but, i mean...
is that fair?
i didn't want to walk out on her.
and, she didn't want me to walk out.
but, she refused to budge on it. and, i just couldn't deal with it.
again: i worried she might get pregnant, or aids or something. and, she did get pregnant....and insisted on having it...
i didn't really want to, but i had to get out.
and, i know i made the right choice, even if i still wish she'd return my calls, and it still tears me up that she won't.
but, i mean...
is that fair?
i didn't want to walk out on her.
and, she didn't want me to walk out.
but, she refused to budge on it. and, i just couldn't deal with it.
again: i worried she might get pregnant, or aids or something. and, she did get pregnant....and insisted on having it...
i didn't really want to, but i had to get out.
and, i know i made the right choice, even if i still wish she'd return my calls, and it still tears me up that she won't.
and, again - what happened with sarah is that i dumped her because she refused to commit to a monogamous relationship. there was some mutuality around the issue, but, at the end of the day, i'm the one that did the walking, and she's the one that did the begging.
we got a place together in mid 2004. i was a student; she was...she said she was a waitress, but she tended to have a lot of extra cash, and the diner she worked at had a strip club downstairs. it's not like i would have judged her for that - i would have recognized her autonomy, and her rights to make her own decisions - but she would have been embarrassed about telling me. so, i never brought it up. but, i knew, and she knew i knew. and, at the end of the day, i'm certain that it was at the crux of the actual problem.
we borrowed money from each other over the years we knew each other; i initially had some extra cash saved away and lent it to her to help her save money to go to bc (and then ended up going with her), and she fronted me a little money while i was doing odd jobs over the summer, before the student loan came in over september. it balanced out, in the end. really. i gave her a chunk of cash in september, and she used it to buy a bicycle.
so, she came to me one day and said "i want an open relationship, now". in truth, she'd been sleeping with several other people over the time we were dating, including some people i introduced her to, while i was absolutely monogamous. and, i told her "no, i can't deal with that". but, what i couldn't deal with was her disappearing on random weekends, and spending all of that time alone.
what she wanted was a roommate with benefits, and my skin was far too thin to deal with that.
so, i gave the landlord three months, unilaterally dissolved the lease and told her i was moving out.
she initially refused to accept this, because she thought i'd never leave her - she took me for granted. but, i was fed up. i wanted to stay friends, but i couldn't live with her any more, not with her lifestyle choices. like, she didn't like to use condoms - which is why she accidentally got impregnated a few months later. oops.
i kept telling her "sarah, i'm moving on feb 1st. what are you doing?" and she refused to believe i was moving until the truck showed up. she just kept saying "you're not really moving, you wouldn't do that.".
and, yet i did do that.
and, predictably, she showed up at my apartment door in mid-february, looking to move in. i actually had no choice but to decline, as my co-signer (my dad) made it a condition to refuse her entry. she stayed a few nights in my new place, and managed to seduce me in the communal sauna in front of some elderly tenants who gave me smirks for months, but she ended up in a rooming house, in the end.
so, what does that suggest?
she was bluffing.
but, i was fed up...
we were still having sex for years afterwards, too; she didn't cut me off until i went back on hormones, which is when she finally gave up.
so, there was the time i bought her fajitas and talked her into eating protein, when she was pregnant. there was the time when she asked me to bring her flour, and i brought her flowers (which she kept on her kitchen table for years, to the enragement of her boyfriend). there was the time we went for a walk through the tulip festival, and the time she brought me to the family lunch at the clocktower on her birthday, to the stern consternation of her father, who thought they'd gotten rid of me years ago. and many other times...
like, we strung each other along for years.
i don't know what stories are floating around out there, but when your ex calls you for lunch four or five years after you've broken up, she's still feeling something, there.
i couldn't handle the kids - and she had two of them, last i checked in, neither of which are mine, as far as i can tell (although the first was named after me, and she also asked me to be her godfather, which i declined). i just did not want kids, and had the decency to be crystal clear that making the decision to have and raise kids meant she would need to find a partner willing to do it with her. everything else aside, it was a non-starter, end of story, game over. and, you can call me names, but i think i have self-determination here, and she never really seemed to be angry with me about it...
....until i went back on hormones.
that was her red line. clearly.
we got a place together in mid 2004. i was a student; she was...she said she was a waitress, but she tended to have a lot of extra cash, and the diner she worked at had a strip club downstairs. it's not like i would have judged her for that - i would have recognized her autonomy, and her rights to make her own decisions - but she would have been embarrassed about telling me. so, i never brought it up. but, i knew, and she knew i knew. and, at the end of the day, i'm certain that it was at the crux of the actual problem.
we borrowed money from each other over the years we knew each other; i initially had some extra cash saved away and lent it to her to help her save money to go to bc (and then ended up going with her), and she fronted me a little money while i was doing odd jobs over the summer, before the student loan came in over september. it balanced out, in the end. really. i gave her a chunk of cash in september, and she used it to buy a bicycle.
so, she came to me one day and said "i want an open relationship, now". in truth, she'd been sleeping with several other people over the time we were dating, including some people i introduced her to, while i was absolutely monogamous. and, i told her "no, i can't deal with that". but, what i couldn't deal with was her disappearing on random weekends, and spending all of that time alone.
what she wanted was a roommate with benefits, and my skin was far too thin to deal with that.
so, i gave the landlord three months, unilaterally dissolved the lease and told her i was moving out.
she initially refused to accept this, because she thought i'd never leave her - she took me for granted. but, i was fed up. i wanted to stay friends, but i couldn't live with her any more, not with her lifestyle choices. like, she didn't like to use condoms - which is why she accidentally got impregnated a few months later. oops.
i kept telling her "sarah, i'm moving on feb 1st. what are you doing?" and she refused to believe i was moving until the truck showed up. she just kept saying "you're not really moving, you wouldn't do that.".
and, yet i did do that.
and, predictably, she showed up at my apartment door in mid-february, looking to move in. i actually had no choice but to decline, as my co-signer (my dad) made it a condition to refuse her entry. she stayed a few nights in my new place, and managed to seduce me in the communal sauna in front of some elderly tenants who gave me smirks for months, but she ended up in a rooming house, in the end.
so, what does that suggest?
she was bluffing.
but, i was fed up...
we were still having sex for years afterwards, too; she didn't cut me off until i went back on hormones, which is when she finally gave up.
so, there was the time i bought her fajitas and talked her into eating protein, when she was pregnant. there was the time when she asked me to bring her flour, and i brought her flowers (which she kept on her kitchen table for years, to the enragement of her boyfriend). there was the time we went for a walk through the tulip festival, and the time she brought me to the family lunch at the clocktower on her birthday, to the stern consternation of her father, who thought they'd gotten rid of me years ago. and many other times...
like, we strung each other along for years.
i don't know what stories are floating around out there, but when your ex calls you for lunch four or five years after you've broken up, she's still feeling something, there.
i couldn't handle the kids - and she had two of them, last i checked in, neither of which are mine, as far as i can tell (although the first was named after me, and she also asked me to be her godfather, which i declined). i just did not want kids, and had the decency to be crystal clear that making the decision to have and raise kids meant she would need to find a partner willing to do it with her. everything else aside, it was a non-starter, end of story, game over. and, you can call me names, but i think i have self-determination here, and she never really seemed to be angry with me about it...
....until i went back on hormones.
that was her red line. clearly.
given that he needs to win some combination of states that include arizona, north carolina, wisconsin, new hampshire & minnesota, i'm not exactly sure why biden thinks walking right into a debate on gun control is a good idea.
i mean, it's one thing to hold a position when pushed on it.
it's another to make it a ballot issue.
so, of course fox is nailing him on it.
again: i don't think this is substantive policy. i don't care much for guns, and won't stand up for gun rights. but, i don't think that gun control is going to reduce crime, either. i see it as irrelevant.
but, i'm the minority.
and, it doesn't matter what the margin in california is.
i mean, it's one thing to hold a position when pushed on it.
it's another to make it a ballot issue.
so, of course fox is nailing him on it.
again: i don't think this is substantive policy. i don't care much for guns, and won't stand up for gun rights. but, i don't think that gun control is going to reduce crime, either. i see it as irrelevant.
but, i'm the minority.
and, it doesn't matter what the margin in california is.
so, i got a fruit bowl. and, i'm actually caught up on my diet now - this is the end of sunday's meal, not the start of monday's, and i'm not hungry. goodbye pasta....
i couldn't stomach the banana peel. gross.
but, i put it away for later...
if one peel has about 10% each of a, c, b1, b6 & e, which seems to be roughly right (i wish i could find a better source), then a banana peel smoothie with 7 peels, and maybe some chocolate soy, would be a good vitamin top-up once a week. that way, i don't have to taste it...
i could potentially put the strawberry tops in there, too, and leave the salad for more delicious ingredients.
the capsicum seeds were, in the long run, quite a chunk of fibre for me, and i certainly felt it this afternoon, through a couple of trips. i'm ok. but, if that happens again after grinding, i think i'll pass on it further.
the a & e are fat soluble, and the c and b aren't. so, i'm going to add this to the diet, as well. so...
daily:
1) fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
2) salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- red pepper seeds (ground)
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
every second day:
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
weekly:
banana peel smoothie:
- 7 banana peels
- strawberry tops
- chocolate soy
- cherry ice cream
i couldn't stomach the banana peel. gross.
but, i put it away for later...
if one peel has about 10% each of a, c, b1, b6 & e, which seems to be roughly right (i wish i could find a better source), then a banana peel smoothie with 7 peels, and maybe some chocolate soy, would be a good vitamin top-up once a week. that way, i don't have to taste it...
i could potentially put the strawberry tops in there, too, and leave the salad for more delicious ingredients.
the capsicum seeds were, in the long run, quite a chunk of fibre for me, and i certainly felt it this afternoon, through a couple of trips. i'm ok. but, if that happens again after grinding, i think i'll pass on it further.
the a & e are fat soluble, and the c and b aren't. so, i'm going to add this to the diet, as well. so...
daily:
1) fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
2) salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- red pepper seeds (ground)
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
every second day:
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
weekly:
banana peel smoothie:
- 7 banana peels
- strawberry tops
- chocolate soy
- cherry ice cream
Sunday, September 13, 2020
sarah went after me, i didn't go after her.
and, i'd have normally rejected her, but she got me in a singular weak point, when i was just going into transition.
she explicitly asked me to experiment, and i said "ok, i'll try".
she hooked me on an emotional level, not a sexual one. and, i just didn't have the maturity to deal with it.
and, i'd have normally rejected her, but she got me in a singular weak point, when i was just going into transition.
she explicitly asked me to experiment, and i said "ok, i'll try".
she hooked me on an emotional level, not a sexual one. and, i just didn't have the maturity to deal with it.
i spent the first 21 years of my life completely single. when i met sarah, i wasn't just a virgin, i was somebody that had never experienced a kiss, had never been on a date, and had never had a boyfriend or girlfriend. i had absolutely no sexual or romantic experience with anybody at all, whatsoever. in fact, i barely even had any friends - i could count the number of people i'd called a friend since elementary school on one hand.
i then went through a phase with sarah that lasted about 36 months and left me entirely disinterested in women as lovers.
i have neither had sex nor romance since. and, i don't expect i will ever again.
i was primarily attracted to men, sexually, the whole time, i just didn't know how to process it. i didn't feel like a "gay man", i felt more like a woman. so, i broadly resisted my urges, under the argument that i would't really be able to satisfy them. anal sex just struck me as a bad compromise. it wasn't what i actually fantasized about or what i actually wanted.
i guess i'm a perfectionist in a lot of ways; if i can't get exactly what i want, i don't bother. and, i knew i couldn't get what i wanted, so i waited. and waited.
i would rather be sexless, at this point; that's a choice i made a long time ago, and one i want to follow through with. my desires have not altered, and i'm not changing what i want. don't think i'm giving up. even if forced to detransition, my end goal will remain surgical castration. it's not just sex that i find unappealing, but sexuality, itself.
but, i may have to face the facts in front of me for the near future: i am going to be unable to suppress my testosterone, whether i like it or not.
and, i'll have to decide whether i want to experience that or not, as it happens.
i then went through a phase with sarah that lasted about 36 months and left me entirely disinterested in women as lovers.
i have neither had sex nor romance since. and, i don't expect i will ever again.
i was primarily attracted to men, sexually, the whole time, i just didn't know how to process it. i didn't feel like a "gay man", i felt more like a woman. so, i broadly resisted my urges, under the argument that i would't really be able to satisfy them. anal sex just struck me as a bad compromise. it wasn't what i actually fantasized about or what i actually wanted.
i guess i'm a perfectionist in a lot of ways; if i can't get exactly what i want, i don't bother. and, i knew i couldn't get what i wanted, so i waited. and waited.
i would rather be sexless, at this point; that's a choice i made a long time ago, and one i want to follow through with. my desires have not altered, and i'm not changing what i want. don't think i'm giving up. even if forced to detransition, my end goal will remain surgical castration. it's not just sex that i find unappealing, but sexuality, itself.
but, i may have to face the facts in front of me for the near future: i am going to be unable to suppress my testosterone, whether i like it or not.
and, i'll have to decide whether i want to experience that or not, as it happens.
so, what's going to happen if i detransition against my will, and don't have the courage to kill myself?
1) if you're a ciswomen, do not talk to me. i am likely to become violent and aggressive with you. i may very well harm you. i don't want you to hit on me. i don't want to be your friend. i want you to leave me alone until i can figure out how to adjust. it could be a very, very long time before i'm able to deal with this.
2) if you're a gay man, i may be more open to communicating with you, but you have to understand that i'm a total sub.
what i'm going to do is go out of my way to avoid people.
and, the feds may get what they want - i may walk around in a ski mask, because i'm too embarrassed to show my face in public.
1) if you're a ciswomen, do not talk to me. i am likely to become violent and aggressive with you. i may very well harm you. i don't want you to hit on me. i don't want to be your friend. i want you to leave me alone until i can figure out how to adjust. it could be a very, very long time before i'm able to deal with this.
2) if you're a gay man, i may be more open to communicating with you, but you have to understand that i'm a total sub.
what i'm going to do is go out of my way to avoid people.
and, the feds may get what they want - i may walk around in a ski mask, because i'm too embarrassed to show my face in public.
i lost my tabs on an unwanted reboot, but i was cleaning them up before it happened.
so, final thoughts on flavonols are...
1) like most things, you want to eat them with a little fat. so, putting ice cream in my fruit bowl helps with absorption. i already knew that, though.
2) you want to avoid eating them with animal protein, as they may bind to it. you want these things to get in your system in a way that they're able to bind to open electrons, so you don't want them to bind to animal proteins, first.
3) while there may be certain things that can be done to these molecules to increase absorption, information as to what is naturally available appears to be scarce. aglycones appear to exist in some unknown ratio in most foods that have flavonols, and methylation appears to occur in unclear concentrations. these are ideas i should look at on a flavonoid-by-flavonoid basis.
i went from being unable to stay awake to being unable to sleep and i wish i understood the factors underlying it, besides my hormones fluctuating, which i just can't avoid, because i'm not getting sufficient access to care. i'm noticing some unwanted effects of cutting back on the t-blockers, and i can't do anything about it but hide inside, cry by myself and try to get a hold of a surgeon. but, over the last 12 hours or so, i'm noticing rising levels of angry, depressive and violent thoughts along with extreme difficulties focusing. testosterone kills brain cells. so, i don't know what to do, besides point to the fact that i warned everybody about the consequences of detransition, before it happens.
i'm very unhappy right now.
so, i don't know what's next.
what i need to do next, regarding the diet work through, is to connect the various dietary components to actual food sources and try to add it all up. but, i'm not sure i'm in a mental state that's going to allow me to do anything except shiver in the corner and cry.
so, final thoughts on flavonols are...
1) like most things, you want to eat them with a little fat. so, putting ice cream in my fruit bowl helps with absorption. i already knew that, though.
2) you want to avoid eating them with animal protein, as they may bind to it. you want these things to get in your system in a way that they're able to bind to open electrons, so you don't want them to bind to animal proteins, first.
3) while there may be certain things that can be done to these molecules to increase absorption, information as to what is naturally available appears to be scarce. aglycones appear to exist in some unknown ratio in most foods that have flavonols, and methylation appears to occur in unclear concentrations. these are ideas i should look at on a flavonoid-by-flavonoid basis.
i went from being unable to stay awake to being unable to sleep and i wish i understood the factors underlying it, besides my hormones fluctuating, which i just can't avoid, because i'm not getting sufficient access to care. i'm noticing some unwanted effects of cutting back on the t-blockers, and i can't do anything about it but hide inside, cry by myself and try to get a hold of a surgeon. but, over the last 12 hours or so, i'm noticing rising levels of angry, depressive and violent thoughts along with extreme difficulties focusing. testosterone kills brain cells. so, i don't know what to do, besides point to the fact that i warned everybody about the consequences of detransition, before it happens.
i'm very unhappy right now.
so, i don't know what's next.
what i need to do next, regarding the diet work through, is to connect the various dietary components to actual food sources and try to add it all up. but, i'm not sure i'm in a mental state that's going to allow me to do anything except shiver in the corner and cry.
the only other thing i'd suggest is that those live versions of king kong are really existent in the midpoint between period davis and early doors.
i am not a doors fan - i think they were terrible.
but, i think that ray manzarek's influence on both fusion and progressive rock is rather understated.
early zappa was, in some ways, a parody of the doors. it was zappa that went to town with it and gets most of the credit.
but, it was really the doors that presented the document 0, as it was.
if you ask roger waters, he'll tell you they were initially based on the doors, as well - which is key, as they were the first to do it in the uk.
i am not a doors fan - i think they were terrible.
but, i think that ray manzarek's influence on both fusion and progressive rock is rather understated.
early zappa was, in some ways, a parody of the doors. it was zappa that went to town with it and gets most of the credit.
but, it was really the doors that presented the document 0, as it was.
if you ask roger waters, he'll tell you they were initially based on the doors, as well - which is key, as they were the first to do it in the uk.
for historical purposes, let it be recorded here that this appears to be the earliest example of jazz fusion, as it is understood today, i.e. with guitars. you could make arguments that davis was playing with this style with his work with williams in the "post-bop" style, but there is only one track with a guitar in it on miles in the sky and mclaughlin didn't step in until 1969.
so, yes - it was frank that did it first.
1967:
1968:
so, yes - it was frank that did it first.
1967:
1968:
however, there is a caveat to this.
mclaughlin was not miles' first choice.
miles wanted hendrix, who couldn't commit.
if miles had talked hendrix into it earlier, he might have gotten this out before frank did, and it might have entirely redefined the concept.
that's not what happened, though - it was frank that did it first, and it's hard not to hear the influence that frank had on what we now call jazz fusion, as a result of it.
68 years is a long time.
i couldn't imagine that kind of loss.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/09/13/aline-chretien-wife-of-former-pm-jean-chretien-dead-at-84.html
i couldn't imagine that kind of loss.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/09/13/aline-chretien-wife-of-former-pm-jean-chretien-dead-at-84.html
...and, i just seem to have shit out some capsicum seeds. how 'bout that.
i didn't do a thorough survey, but, by eyeing it, i'd say the seeds came out at about 20% of the volume they came in at. so, i guess there's some chance that my stomach sucked out the good parts and spat out the cellulose, but it seems to be more likely that it just couldn't do much with them, and any shrinkage is just from acidification.
so, i'll try grinding them next time and see what happens.
i didn't do a thorough survey, but, by eyeing it, i'd say the seeds came out at about 20% of the volume they came in at. so, i guess there's some chance that my stomach sucked out the good parts and spat out the cellulose, but it seems to be more likely that it just couldn't do much with them, and any shrinkage is just from acidification.
so, i'll try grinding them next time and see what happens.
there's a few early prog tracks that my interpretation of eulogy is probably unconsciously built on.
if you're familiar with early genesis, you know how much of a big influence they were on early tool, in terms of song structure. one can't help but wonder if this early gabriel tune may have been a direct influence, if my interpretation has any value. the ending section at 7:00 or so is very, very tool - and something genesis did over and over again for years.
if you're familiar with early genesis, you know how much of a big influence they were on early tool, in terms of song structure. one can't help but wonder if this early gabriel tune may have been a direct influence, if my interpretation has any value. the ending section at 7:00 or so is very, very tool - and something genesis did over and over again for years.
this appropriation of english medieval language was kind of a common theme in genesis.
while a little different, this is basically a tool song with keyboards:
so is this, although you need to get through the early tapping workout first (which van halen has credited as being influential on him):
this is also basically a tool song, with keyboards, or at least starts off as one, although nobody plays guitar like this guy. nobody.
so, people cite crimson, but i think that's more of a drumming thing. really. crimson never did anything quite like tool, but you could often mistake genesis for tool.
anyways, the point i'm making is that there's some context, here, it's not random.
i always interpreted eulogy as being an anti-war song, and i think it may be the most powerful anti-war song i've ever heard. their fan base tends to interpret it differently.
would you die for me?
don't you fucking lie.
don't you step out of line.
you've claimed all this time that you would die for me
why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?
yeah, maybe that could be about jesus. or something.
it makes more sense to me that it's about the united states marines.
and, of course, aenema is a vicious attack on hollywood and contemporary mainstream culture....
these are viewpoints i found interesting.
his (not so) recent turn towards religion is not interesting to me at all. sorry.
would you die for me?
don't you fucking lie.
don't you step out of line.
you've claimed all this time that you would die for me
why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?
yeah, maybe that could be about jesus. or something.
it makes more sense to me that it's about the united states marines.
and, of course, aenema is a vicious attack on hollywood and contemporary mainstream culture....
these are viewpoints i found interesting.
his (not so) recent turn towards religion is not interesting to me at all. sorry.
i liked tool when they were angry, critical and mean.
i don't like them since they've become "philosophical", "spiritual" and "deep".
this is the tool i liked:
and, i understand that, if you're a little younger, you might not even recognize that as tool....
....but it's the older version i liked, not the newer version...
i don't like them since they've become "philosophical", "spiritual" and "deep".
this is the tool i liked:
and, i understand that, if you're a little younger, you might not even recognize that as tool....
....but it's the older version i liked, not the newer version...
did i change?
sure.
a little.
but, ideologically speaking, i went in one direction and they went in the exact opposite.
by about 2003/2004, i was listening almost entirely to what became labelled "post-rock", bands like tortoise and gybe!, and a collection of electronic artists that got grouped under the label 'idm', which was centered mostly around the warp records catalogue.
as such, i consider alternative rock to be a mostly 80s phenomenon, that happened as an outgrowth of the punk movement and had completely run it's course well before the year 2000.
the basic idm/post-rock combination remained where my musical brain existed until roughly the year 2010, when i became aware of a punk revival being led by bands like touche amore, screaming females and la dispute. this rekindled an interest in me in a new generation of punk bands, in a period where alternative rock was long dead and both idm & post-rock had become stale. there was some outgrowth in acts like son lux, but the act i was hoping would lead the way forward - 65dayofstatic - seems to have largely evaporated.
the last couple of years have been pretty stale, in terms of new music, and i have't found myself attracted to much of anything. there's been some guitar-driven techno-funk acts like sunsquabi, but not much else. so, i've been mostly exploring music from the past; i've been more excited about beethoven than anything really new.
there's an opportunity here for new music to assert itself, and we'll see what the kids can come up with. i'm trying to get my head around this myself, but i may never solve my living arrangement concerns and, as such, may never finish my discography. sadly.
what i'd like to hear is a more serious fusion of electronic music & classical music, and there's lots of space for guitars in that synthesis. but, we'll see what other people think - and if i like it or think it's worthwhile or not.
styles i'm not likely to get excited about include folk, metal, opera, country, pop and hip-hop. together, that seems to be saturating even independent music circles, right now. but, things will get better in time, they always do.
sure.
a little.
but, ideologically speaking, i went in one direction and they went in the exact opposite.
by about 2003/2004, i was listening almost entirely to what became labelled "post-rock", bands like tortoise and gybe!, and a collection of electronic artists that got grouped under the label 'idm', which was centered mostly around the warp records catalogue.
as such, i consider alternative rock to be a mostly 80s phenomenon, that happened as an outgrowth of the punk movement and had completely run it's course well before the year 2000.
the basic idm/post-rock combination remained where my musical brain existed until roughly the year 2010, when i became aware of a punk revival being led by bands like touche amore, screaming females and la dispute. this rekindled an interest in me in a new generation of punk bands, in a period where alternative rock was long dead and both idm & post-rock had become stale. there was some outgrowth in acts like son lux, but the act i was hoping would lead the way forward - 65dayofstatic - seems to have largely evaporated.
the last couple of years have been pretty stale, in terms of new music, and i have't found myself attracted to much of anything. there's been some guitar-driven techno-funk acts like sunsquabi, but not much else. so, i've been mostly exploring music from the past; i've been more excited about beethoven than anything really new.
there's an opportunity here for new music to assert itself, and we'll see what the kids can come up with. i'm trying to get my head around this myself, but i may never solve my living arrangement concerns and, as such, may never finish my discography. sadly.
what i'd like to hear is a more serious fusion of electronic music & classical music, and there's lots of space for guitars in that synthesis. but, we'll see what other people think - and if i like it or think it's worthwhile or not.
styles i'm not likely to get excited about include folk, metal, opera, country, pop and hip-hop. together, that seems to be saturating even independent music circles, right now. but, things will get better in time, they always do.
nine inch nails:
pretty hate machine: B+
broken: A
fixed: A+
march of the pigs: A-
the downward spiral: A-
closer: A+
further down the spiral v1/v2: A+
the perfect drug: A-
the fragile: B (deviations: A-)
things falling apart: F
still: A+
with teeth: D
year zero: B- (remixed: C+)
ghosts: B
the slip: D
hesitation marks: C-
trilogy: C (jessica edit: B+)
do you see the pattern?
pretty hate machine: B+
broken: A
fixed: A+
march of the pigs: A-
the downward spiral: A-
closer: A+
further down the spiral v1/v2: A+
the perfect drug: A-
the fragile: B (deviations: A-)
things falling apart: F
still: A+
with teeth: D
year zero: B- (remixed: C+)
ghosts: B
the slip: D
hesitation marks: C-
trilogy: C (jessica edit: B+)
do you see the pattern?
this is why i look for paul.
this is such a sober analysis in such a crazy time.
but, let me ask this question: is it worth it to hold your nose? or should we wait for 2024?
https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-blurring-almost-everything-thomas-ferguson/
this is such a sober analysis in such a crazy time.
but, let me ask this question: is it worth it to hold your nose? or should we wait for 2024?
https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-blurring-almost-everything-thomas-ferguson/
i'm just about to make some eggs, and i guess there's just one more thing.
how much of the fruit am i wasting, currently? if i'm ultimately looking for increases in vitamins, should i just eat the rest of the fruit, somehow?
1) strawberries. i currently cut off the tops, and while i don't want to eat the receptacle, i'm considering throwing the tops in the salad. it's just a different type of lettuce, right? if strawberries are full of c, there should be lots in the leaves, too.
2) kiwis. i cut the little receptacle out, but i eat the kiwi skins.
3) bananas. nobody eats the peels, right? this study suggests they're 50% vitamin e. yeah...that maybe solves some problems right there....although, how to eat them without consuming the pesticide is another question. i've tried a few times, and they're legit gross.
https://www.imedpub.com/articles/gcms-analysis-of-bioactive-components-from-banana-peelmusa-sapientum-peel.pdf
4) raspberries & blueberries don't come with leaves on them...
5) i eat the whole tomato.
6) red peppers. i'm going to try to throw the seeds into my omelette and see what happens. again - if the peppers are high in vitamin a, the seeds must be too, right? this confirms that a (of the gamma isomer) and c are both in there, but doesn't explain how much. i could throw them in the salad, as well.
how much of the fruit am i wasting, currently? if i'm ultimately looking for increases in vitamins, should i just eat the rest of the fruit, somehow?
1) strawberries. i currently cut off the tops, and while i don't want to eat the receptacle, i'm considering throwing the tops in the salad. it's just a different type of lettuce, right? if strawberries are full of c, there should be lots in the leaves, too.
2) kiwis. i cut the little receptacle out, but i eat the kiwi skins.
3) bananas. nobody eats the peels, right? this study suggests they're 50% vitamin e. yeah...that maybe solves some problems right there....although, how to eat them without consuming the pesticide is another question. i've tried a few times, and they're legit gross.
https://www.imedpub.com/articles/gcms-analysis-of-bioactive-components-from-banana-peelmusa-sapientum-peel.pdf
4) raspberries & blueberries don't come with leaves on them...
5) i eat the whole tomato.
6) red peppers. i'm going to try to throw the seeds into my omelette and see what happens. again - if the peppers are high in vitamin a, the seeds must be too, right? this confirms that a (of the gamma isomer) and c are both in there, but doesn't explain how much. i could throw them in the salad, as well.
i've posted this a few times and pulled back but i think i'm done, now.
so, what is the list of everything i need to get?
13 vitamins:
1) A
2) B1 (thiamine)
3) B2 (riboflavin)
4) B3 (niacin)
5) B5 (pantothenic acid)
6) B6.
7) B7 (biotin)
8) B12.
9) Folic acid.
10) C
11) D
12) E,
13) K
15 amino acids:
1) histidine
2) isoleucine
3) leucine
4) lysine
5) methionine
6) phenylalanine
7) threonine
8) tryptophan
9) valine
10) arginine
11) cysteine
12) glycine
13) glutamine
14) proline
15) tyrosine.
4 fatty acids:
1) linoleic acid
2) ala
3) dha
4) epa
23 minerals:
1) calcium
2) phosphorus
3) potassium
4) sulfur
5) sodium
6) chlorine
7) magnesium
8) iron
9) zinc
10) copper
11) manganese
12) iodine
13) selenium
14) molybdenum
15) chromium
16) fluoride
17) bromine
18) cobalt
19) tin
20) vanadium
21) silicon
22) boron
23) nickel
24) lead?
carotenoids (not including pro-vitamin a)
1) lutein
2) zeaxanthin
3) lycopene
4) phytofluene
5) phytoene
6) astaxanthin
7) capsanthin
8) canthaxanthin
9) cryptoxanthin
chlorophyll:
1) chlorophyll a
2) chlorophyll b
other molecules required for proper metabolic functions:
1) choline (cannot synthesize properly)
2) coQ10
3) lipoic acid
4) glutathione precursors
glucose:
i'm more concerned about diabetes than weight gain, so...
the glycemic index is:
running total...
fiber:
i don't need many different types, i just need some. i'm not worrying about this.
& water
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
so, what is the list of everything i need to get?
13 vitamins:
1) A
2) B1 (thiamine)
3) B2 (riboflavin)
4) B3 (niacin)
5) B5 (pantothenic acid)
6) B6.
7) B7 (biotin)
8) B12.
9) Folic acid.
10) C
11) D
12) E,
13) K
15 amino acids:
1) histidine
2) isoleucine
3) leucine
4) lysine
5) methionine
6) phenylalanine
7) threonine
8) tryptophan
9) valine
10) arginine
11) cysteine
12) glycine
13) glutamine
14) proline
15) tyrosine.
4 fatty acids:
1) linoleic acid
2) ala
3) dha
4) epa
23 minerals:
1) calcium
2) phosphorus
3) potassium
4) sulfur
5) sodium
6) chlorine
7) magnesium
8) iron
9) zinc
10) copper
11) manganese
12) iodine
13) selenium
14) molybdenum
15) chromium
16) fluoride
17) bromine
18) cobalt
19) tin
20) vanadium
21) silicon
22) boron
23) nickel
24) lead?
carotenoids (not including pro-vitamin a)
1) lutein
2) zeaxanthin
3) lycopene
4) phytofluene
5) phytoene
6) astaxanthin
7) capsanthin
8) canthaxanthin
9) cryptoxanthin
chlorophyll:
1) chlorophyll a
2) chlorophyll b
other molecules required for proper metabolic functions:
1) choline (cannot synthesize properly)
2) coQ10
3) lipoic acid
4) glutathione precursors
i'm more concerned about diabetes than weight gain, so...
the glycemic index is:
running total...
fiber:
i don't need many different types, i just need some. i'm not worrying about this.
& water
also, let's measure flavonoids:
anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin
flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide
flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin
flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin
isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin
i should try to measure some further phytoestrogens:
1) matairesinol
2) secoisolariciresinol
3) pinoresinol
4) lariciresinol
& finally, let's also measure:
1) saponins
2) ursolic acid (& precursors)
3) cafestol
4) resveratrol
5) ellagic acid
6) coumarin
7) tyrosol
8) hydroxytyrosol
9) oleocanthal
10) oleuropein
11) gingerol
12) phytic acid
anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin
flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide
flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin
flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin
isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin
i should try to measure some further phytoestrogens:
1) matairesinol
2) secoisolariciresinol
3) pinoresinol
4) lariciresinol
5) coumestrol
1) saponins
2) ursolic acid (& precursors)
3) cafestol
4) resveratrol
5) ellagic acid
6) coumarin
7) tyrosol
8) hydroxytyrosol
9) oleocanthal
10) oleuropein
11) gingerol
12) phytic acid
so, here's what i'm looking at, let's see what makes the cut in what percentage, in the end....
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
regarding phytosterols...
i'm almost a vegetarian. my total cholesterol levels are exceedingly low, and my ldl:hdl ratio is truly outstanding. the high ratio of plant to animal cholesterol in my diet is the reason why.
that said, it seems to be a reason to increase my vitamin a and vitamin e levels to roughly 200% of the rdi. so, my feeling that i was running low on these vitamins may have been rather astute.
and, that's something vegetarians should be aware of that i was not previously - we focus mostly on the b12. but, you need to get your e and a up, too, because your inherently low hdl levels make it harder to transport them, and you need to overcome that with brute force.
make sure you're eating the right produce to deal with that.
i'm almost a vegetarian. my total cholesterol levels are exceedingly low, and my ldl:hdl ratio is truly outstanding. the high ratio of plant to animal cholesterol in my diet is the reason why.
that said, it seems to be a reason to increase my vitamin a and vitamin e levels to roughly 200% of the rdi. so, my feeling that i was running low on these vitamins may have been rather astute.
and, that's something vegetarians should be aware of that i was not previously - we focus mostly on the b12. but, you need to get your e and a up, too, because your inherently low hdl levels make it harder to transport them, and you need to overcome that with brute force.
make sure you're eating the right produce to deal with that.
Saturday, September 12, 2020
so, to recall, here's where we're at
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- microwaved broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- microwaved broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
In men, too much estrogen builds up in three common situations: obesity, excessive alcohol use, and smoking. This occurs because chronic inflammation, which is associated with these conditions, increases the conversion of testosterone into estrogen. Since estrogen causes the liver to produce more of the carrier protein for testosterone, which is known as sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), less free, or unbound, testosterone results. Low levels of free testosterone and higher estrogen levels in men are associated with excess body fat, reduced sex drive, depression, and erectile dysfunction.
Since only free testosterone easily crosses into the brain, muscles and fat cells, much of the desirable action of testosterone has to do with the free portion. Free testosterone represents only a tiny amount of the total testosterone, equal to only 2 percent of the total in men and even less in women.
DIM is able to support free testosterone without changing total testosterone levels; it does not raise testosterone levels but supports its activity through its effects on estrogen metabolism. This helps to maintain a healthy level of free, active testosterone.
https://fortwaynephysicalmedicine.com/blog/the-benefits-of-dim
Since only free testosterone easily crosses into the brain, muscles and fat cells, much of the desirable action of testosterone has to do with the free portion. Free testosterone represents only a tiny amount of the total testosterone, equal to only 2 percent of the total in men and even less in women.
DIM is able to support free testosterone without changing total testosterone levels; it does not raise testosterone levels but supports its activity through its effects on estrogen metabolism. This helps to maintain a healthy level of free, active testosterone.
https://fortwaynephysicalmedicine.com/blog/the-benefits-of-dim
so, for me, that means kale is fine, too, especially if i can get my testicles removed, quickly; it may "liberate" free testosterone, but (1) i don't hardly have any of that, due to the t-blockers, (2) the concentration i'm getting from the food is very, very low and (3) it won't undo the effects of the t-blockers or stimulate more testosterone production.
good.
in the end, i'll probably pick one or the other depending on availability and price.
right now, i gotta eat to get around the idiot upstairs. and, i may pass out, again. fuck.
so, that disgusting old man is being disgusting again and i may have to get up to eat.
he also looks like he's gained about 100 pounds since the last time i saw him; when i moved in here, he would have been described as an aging jock, but now he's just fat and ugly. he's also grown a very unattractive amount of facial hair.
gotta love what that shit does to you.
he also looks like he's gained about 100 pounds since the last time i saw him; when i moved in here, he would have been described as an aging jock, but now he's just fat and ugly. he's also grown a very unattractive amount of facial hair.
gotta love what that shit does to you.
ok, so what's my final take on the I3C-destroying-estrogen-fiasco?
1) i was going to microwave my broccoli anyways, because this article suggests that it increases the amount of vitamins e & a:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
2) according to this article, microwaving will remove most of the estrogen-destroying precursors:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722699/
3) this study, which is too vague to be useful, suggests that they initially didn't observe an increase in blood serum levels until they "adjusted" for it. they don't even indicate dosages. i think we may have found something pushed by the broccoli industry!
https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/9/8/773
4) going back to the original source,
i) there are ~ 30 mg of total glucosinolates in a half cup of chopped raw brocolli florets, which is about 40g
ii) <15% of that, 4.5 mg, is the precursor i'm worried about
iii) microwaving it should cut that by half, to around 2 mg
iv) there will be some loss in conversion to I3C
v) that itself needs to be converted to DIM
vi) so, i'm looking at, what? 1 mg? less?
Peak plasma concentration of DIM following ingestion of 400 mg I3C was 61 ng/mL
if we're looking at roughly linear changes in concentration, which is reasonable, then peak plasma concentration after 2 mg of consumption would be 0.3 ng/ml.
further, that appears likely to be cleared within an hour or two.
so, i'm clearing broccoli for minimal use...which i'm interested in for the a and the e and the not this stuff....
kale seems to have about twice as much as this stuff as broccoli, and if i don't need the extra vitamins, i may step back from it, except to ask what effect it has on testosterone. which is the next thing to figure out....
so, again: this chemical may be useful in fighting cancer if you take it as a supplement in high dosages (upwards of a gram/day), and if you're a transgendered person that finds themselves with a cancer caused by estrogen then you may be forced to detransition or die and this chemical is likely going to accelerate that detransition if you have to take it, but it doesn't appear to occur in food in sufficient dosages to worry about, or to have much of a cancer-fighting effect, either.
1) i was going to microwave my broccoli anyways, because this article suggests that it increases the amount of vitamins e & a:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
2) according to this article, microwaving will remove most of the estrogen-destroying precursors:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722699/
3) this study, which is too vague to be useful, suggests that they initially didn't observe an increase in blood serum levels until they "adjusted" for it. they don't even indicate dosages. i think we may have found something pushed by the broccoli industry!
https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/9/8/773
4) going back to the original source,
i) there are ~ 30 mg of total glucosinolates in a half cup of chopped raw brocolli florets, which is about 40g
ii) <15% of that, 4.5 mg, is the precursor i'm worried about
iii) microwaving it should cut that by half, to around 2 mg
iv) there will be some loss in conversion to I3C
v) that itself needs to be converted to DIM
vi) so, i'm looking at, what? 1 mg? less?
Peak plasma concentration of DIM following ingestion of 400 mg I3C was 61 ng/mL
if we're looking at roughly linear changes in concentration, which is reasonable, then peak plasma concentration after 2 mg of consumption would be 0.3 ng/ml.
further, that appears likely to be cleared within an hour or two.
so, i'm clearing broccoli for minimal use...which i'm interested in for the a and the e and the not this stuff....
kale seems to have about twice as much as this stuff as broccoli, and if i don't need the extra vitamins, i may step back from it, except to ask what effect it has on testosterone. which is the next thing to figure out....
so, again: this chemical may be useful in fighting cancer if you take it as a supplement in high dosages (upwards of a gram/day), and if you're a transgendered person that finds themselves with a cancer caused by estrogen then you may be forced to detransition or die and this chemical is likely going to accelerate that detransition if you have to take it, but it doesn't appear to occur in food in sufficient dosages to worry about, or to have much of a cancer-fighting effect, either.
the magic number was around 200,000.
and here we are, in mid september - meaning there's what, six weeks before the election?
it's not going to stop tomorrow - people will keep dying for a long time. but, this is the turning point.
the united states, baffling as it may be, is likely nearing natural herd immunity.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
and here we are, in mid september - meaning there's what, six weeks before the election?
it's not going to stop tomorrow - people will keep dying for a long time. but, this is the turning point.
the united states, baffling as it may be, is likely nearing natural herd immunity.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
the dauphin would not remember the dauphin experiment, aging as he may be, now.
the federal liberals tried an experiment with the ubi in the 70s, but the results were never released. the open secret is that it worked a little too well.
the provincial liberals were experimenting with a ubi before they lost the 2018 election, and they seemed to be on the brink of adopting it. it's one of the first things that doug ford trashed when he took over.
the greens have had a ubi in their platform for years.
the ndp have generally opposed the policy, but have recently jumped on the bandwagon as a reaction to the pandemic.
the provincial liberals were experimenting with a ubi before they lost the 2018 election, and they seemed to be on the brink of adopting it. it's one of the first things that doug ford trashed when he took over.
the greens have had a ubi in their platform for years.
the ndp have generally opposed the policy, but have recently jumped on the bandwagon as a reaction to the pandemic.
you'll tell me a jobs guarantee is better because it reduces reliance.
reliance on what, exactly?
it's often presented as the more "socialist" position than a ubi, but when that argument is presented it generally tends to indicate that the person presenting it hasn't actually read any marx. i mean, i'll concede that a ubi is more like communism than it is like socialism, but socialists that reject communism are called reactionaries.
a jobs guarantee just makes workers reliant on capital; you end up giving people the choice between working and starving, forcing them into things they don't want to do (and it's the anarchist in me that hates that.) and holding them at the whim of whatever capital decides. moving to unions doesn't fix that.
so, what's worse - being reliant on the state or being reliant on capital? you pick your poison, but at least the state is marginally democratic.
the central argument produced by marx is that the socialization of production makes worker reliance unavoidable; we need a social contract between each other, because we can't avoid our reliance on each other anymore. arguing against reliance and in favour of total self-ownership is undoing history. it's an argument for the return of an agrarian society (and if we're going there anyway, let's dust of paine. you may be surprised to find out that...).
so, that's kind of a dumb argument.
and, i don't even think you have to choose - there's no contradiction between a ubi and a jobs guarantee, if you want one.
but, i'm an artist, i don't want one.
reliance on what, exactly?
it's often presented as the more "socialist" position than a ubi, but when that argument is presented it generally tends to indicate that the person presenting it hasn't actually read any marx. i mean, i'll concede that a ubi is more like communism than it is like socialism, but socialists that reject communism are called reactionaries.
a jobs guarantee just makes workers reliant on capital; you end up giving people the choice between working and starving, forcing them into things they don't want to do (and it's the anarchist in me that hates that.) and holding them at the whim of whatever capital decides. moving to unions doesn't fix that.
so, what's worse - being reliant on the state or being reliant on capital? you pick your poison, but at least the state is marginally democratic.
the central argument produced by marx is that the socialization of production makes worker reliance unavoidable; we need a social contract between each other, because we can't avoid our reliance on each other anymore. arguing against reliance and in favour of total self-ownership is undoing history. it's an argument for the return of an agrarian society (and if we're going there anyway, let's dust of paine. you may be surprised to find out that...).
so, that's kind of a dumb argument.
and, i don't even think you have to choose - there's no contradiction between a ubi and a jobs guarantee, if you want one.
but, i'm an artist, i don't want one.
there is some non-zero chance that bay street may decide that a guaranteed basic income is the best way to stop street revolts and push it through.
it may crunch the numbers, and decide it's a more economical form of social welfare.
and, it may pick it up in the form of a negative income tax. that is the kind of party this is, when it's fully functioning, and at it's best.
but, recently, they just tend to ignore the convention, altogether - to their own detriment.
we'll see what happens.
it may crunch the numbers, and decide it's a more economical form of social welfare.
and, it may pick it up in the form of a negative income tax. that is the kind of party this is, when it's fully functioning, and at it's best.
but, recently, they just tend to ignore the convention, altogether - to their own detriment.
we'll see what happens.
you go to one of these conventions, and you think you're at a convention for a party that's a member of the socialist international; they're not "progressive" in the farmers-rights sense, they're often flat out socialist.
but, then you realize that the liberal party of canada is a member of the socialist international, and has historically been this country's worker's party, not the ndp. yet, they're also the bankers party - and the bankers tend to win, and direct policy. it's very weird.
it's a "natural governing party" in a very real sense.
but, then you realize that the liberal party of canada is a member of the socialist international, and has historically been this country's worker's party, not the ndp. yet, they're also the bankers party - and the bankers tend to win, and direct policy. it's very weird.
it's a "natural governing party" in a very real sense.
the liberal party and it's members are two very different groups of people. the conventions are always very, very far to the left of what actually happens, when they govern.
it's fun to attack the liberals as campaigning on the left and governing on the right, but the truth is that that's as much of an observation on the disconnect between the party and it's members as it is anything else.
if history is any guide, they will pass a resolution and the prime minister will act like it never happened.
but, these conventions also define the discourse, so let's hope they ramp it up.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guaranteed-basic-income-priorities-liberals-1.5721943
it's fun to attack the liberals as campaigning on the left and governing on the right, but the truth is that that's as much of an observation on the disconnect between the party and it's members as it is anything else.
if history is any guide, they will pass a resolution and the prime minister will act like it never happened.
but, these conventions also define the discourse, so let's hope they ramp it up.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guaranteed-basic-income-priorities-liberals-1.5721943
can we save brocolli?
an increase of 10 g of broccoli was associated with an increase of 0.01 (95% CI, −0.09 to 0.11) in 2:16 values.
so, they couldn't measure the effects of indole-3-carbinol much.
i need a nap. but i think i can save the broccoli and kale, too - supplements seem to demonstrate some effect, but there's not enough absorption to make a difference.
an increase of 10 g of broccoli was associated with an increase of 0.01 (95% CI, −0.09 to 0.11) in 2:16 values.
so, they couldn't measure the effects of indole-3-carbinol much.
i need a nap. but i think i can save the broccoli and kale, too - supplements seem to demonstrate some effect, but there's not enough absorption to make a difference.
that's not the answer i want, it doesn't seem.
farmed trout has about the same ratio as brocolli or kale, it's just more concentrated. i'm not getting anywhere with that.
what i need is something like this, and i'll keep an eye out for it:
http://www.kuterra.com/
http://www.littlecedarfalls.com/steelhead-salmon.html
https://sustainableblue.com/
tuna is actually even better, for what i want it for, but it doesn't seem to be happening indoors at all, at this point.
we'll see what the numbers look like, when i add them up.
farmed trout has about the same ratio as brocolli or kale, it's just more concentrated. i'm not getting anywhere with that.
what i need is something like this, and i'll keep an eye out for it:
http://www.kuterra.com/
http://www.littlecedarfalls.com/steelhead-salmon.html
https://sustainableblue.com/
tuna is actually even better, for what i want it for, but it doesn't seem to be happening indoors at all, at this point.
we'll see what the numbers look like, when i add them up.
what i want is, like, an inland growing pond, not putting them in a cage on the shore.
i wouldn't expect any serious difference in mercury concentrations, if all you're doing is putting a cage around them. you have to take them out of the ocean, for that, altogether...
so, i guess i want freshwater farmed fish, to start.
i wouldn't expect any serious difference in mercury concentrations, if all you're doing is putting a cage around them. you have to take them out of the ocean, for that, altogether...
so, i guess i want freshwater farmed fish, to start.
if the flax at least won't convert the circulating 16 into 2 once it's been metabolized from estrone, how do i get more estrogenic 16-isomers?
this article suggests that it's the omega-6 that converts estrone to 16-isomers and the omega-3 that converts estrone to 2-isomers. that suggests that the reason the flax increased 2-isomer production may be that it's high in omega-3s. it also suggests that, ultimately, the cancer risk is tied into the omega-3:omega-6 ratio, rather than any specific component of the diet.
like everybody else, i have a positive 6:3 ratio because it's just how we eat. you'd essentially have to eat primarily seafood, and accept the risk of the mercury content, to get around that.
so, i need to be careful - on the one hand, i want sufficient 6s to overpower the 2s to feminize, but, on the other hand, i want low total fat to keep the testosterone down and prevent a cancer risk.
i seem to be doing that right as it is.
https://www.baritzwellness.com/storage/app/media/estrogen-metabolism.pdf
this article suggests that it's the omega-6 that converts estrone to 16-isomers and the omega-3 that converts estrone to 2-isomers. that suggests that the reason the flax increased 2-isomer production may be that it's high in omega-3s. it also suggests that, ultimately, the cancer risk is tied into the omega-3:omega-6 ratio, rather than any specific component of the diet.
like everybody else, i have a positive 6:3 ratio because it's just how we eat. you'd essentially have to eat primarily seafood, and accept the risk of the mercury content, to get around that.
so, i need to be careful - on the one hand, i want sufficient 6s to overpower the 2s to feminize, but, on the other hand, i want low total fat to keep the testosterone down and prevent a cancer risk.
i seem to be doing that right as it is.
https://www.baritzwellness.com/storage/app/media/estrogen-metabolism.pdf
this is what i want - a randomized study with a sufficient sample size for post-menopausal women:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01635581.2018.1516789
it took me some time to understand it, though.
this is the takeaway: there were statistically relevant increases of the 2-isomer and of the 2:16 isomer ratio, without any statistically relevant effect on the 16. there were not statistically relevant effects on any other estrogens, but there was a slight decrease in prolactin. so, the 2 went up and the 16 stayed steady, and everything else stayed steady, too, except the prolactin. that means that it is not the case that the 16 was converted into 2 - it is the case that the female body increased production of the 2-isomer. their concern is cancer, so they very specifically want less 16 and more 2. so, from their perspective, the trial failed to convert the 16 into the 2.
but, this article here explains that the 16 is more feminizing than the 2:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/2-methoxyestrone
that means i actually don't want that conversion to happen, and am happy it was not observed.
further, to be clear:
Flaxseed intake did not significantly influence circulating levels of estradiol, free estradiol, estrone, or estrone sulfate in our study. This is consistent with other intervention studies assessing serum (32,35,36), plasma (37), or urinary (33) estrogen levels in postmenopausal women, with the exception of a crossover trial reporting statistically significant reductions in serum estradiol and estrone sulfate with 10 g flaxseed/day for 7 weeks (34). The most biologically active estrogens, estradiol, and estrone, have been associated with elevated postmenopausal breast cancer risk (18,19), thus factors decreasing their levels may be protective. In vitro studies have suggested that lignans may decrease estrogen synthesis by inhibiting the aromatase enzyme responsible for converting testosterone and androstenedione to estradiol and estrone, respectively (28,29,60). However, evidence from intervention trials, including ours, provides stronger support for flaxseed’s role in modifying estrogen metabolism (e.g., 2-hydroxylation of estrone) rather than inhibiting estrogen synthesis.
so, it seems like what they're suggesting is that i shouldn't expect the lignans in flaxseed to have any effect on estrogen circulating in my bloodstream at all, and that is at least a start - do no harm. the decrease in prolactin is also fine, as i produce some as a byproduct of the testosterone suppression.
then, if i wouldn't expect an effect on circulating estrogens, might flaxseed help to suppress testosterone production in genetic men?
apparently, yes - flax consumption, in conjunction with low total fat, should cut down testosterone production by more than a half:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2703189/
so, we're adding some flax :)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01635581.2018.1516789
it took me some time to understand it, though.
this is the takeaway: there were statistically relevant increases of the 2-isomer and of the 2:16 isomer ratio, without any statistically relevant effect on the 16. there were not statistically relevant effects on any other estrogens, but there was a slight decrease in prolactin. so, the 2 went up and the 16 stayed steady, and everything else stayed steady, too, except the prolactin. that means that it is not the case that the 16 was converted into 2 - it is the case that the female body increased production of the 2-isomer. their concern is cancer, so they very specifically want less 16 and more 2. so, from their perspective, the trial failed to convert the 16 into the 2.
but, this article here explains that the 16 is more feminizing than the 2:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/2-methoxyestrone
that means i actually don't want that conversion to happen, and am happy it was not observed.
further, to be clear:
Flaxseed intake did not significantly influence circulating levels of estradiol, free estradiol, estrone, or estrone sulfate in our study. This is consistent with other intervention studies assessing serum (32,35,36), plasma (37), or urinary (33) estrogen levels in postmenopausal women, with the exception of a crossover trial reporting statistically significant reductions in serum estradiol and estrone sulfate with 10 g flaxseed/day for 7 weeks (34). The most biologically active estrogens, estradiol, and estrone, have been associated with elevated postmenopausal breast cancer risk (18,19), thus factors decreasing their levels may be protective. In vitro studies have suggested that lignans may decrease estrogen synthesis by inhibiting the aromatase enzyme responsible for converting testosterone and androstenedione to estradiol and estrone, respectively (28,29,60). However, evidence from intervention trials, including ours, provides stronger support for flaxseed’s role in modifying estrogen metabolism (e.g., 2-hydroxylation of estrone) rather than inhibiting estrogen synthesis.
so, it seems like what they're suggesting is that i shouldn't expect the lignans in flaxseed to have any effect on estrogen circulating in my bloodstream at all, and that is at least a start - do no harm. the decrease in prolactin is also fine, as i produce some as a byproduct of the testosterone suppression.
then, if i wouldn't expect an effect on circulating estrogens, might flaxseed help to suppress testosterone production in genetic men?
apparently, yes - flax consumption, in conjunction with low total fat, should cut down testosterone production by more than a half:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2703189/
so, we're adding some flax :)
wait.
does flax increase or decrease estrogen levels?
obviously, i don't want to take anything that might decrease it.
so, that's my immediate task - to determine whether flax & broccoli, at dietary levels, are actually estrogen blockers. if they are, no thank you. if they're not, i can move forward with them.
google searches are throwing back contradictory answers.
does flax increase or decrease estrogen levels?
obviously, i don't want to take anything that might decrease it.
so, that's my immediate task - to determine whether flax & broccoli, at dietary levels, are actually estrogen blockers. if they are, no thank you. if they're not, i can move forward with them.
google searches are throwing back contradictory answers.
and, i just learned that you can digest flax, if you ground it first.
i mentioned somewhere back there - a couple of times - that flax seeds are a total waste of time, because they're just fibre.
but, i didn't realize that you could fix that if you grind them. that's good news, as they should more or less perfectly balance out the hemp seeds.
so, this is where i'm at so far.
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- broccoli leaves or kale
- dandelion leaves
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
i mentioned somewhere back there - a couple of times - that flax seeds are a total waste of time, because they're just fibre.
but, i didn't realize that you could fix that if you grind them. that's good news, as they should more or less perfectly balance out the hemp seeds.
so, this is where i'm at so far.
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
ok...
that chemical seems to be poorly absorbed. still, it's something to be very wary of. maybe i might want to find away around that, in getting vitamins e and a. that's a major strike against both broccoli and kale, and "cruciferous vegetables", which i've long viewed as overrated but was finally coming around to, in general.
if i don't need them, maybe i shouldn't bother.
so, this is where i'm at so far.
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- broccoli leaves or kale
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
that chemical seems to be poorly absorbed. still, it's something to be very wary of. maybe i might want to find away around that, in getting vitamins e and a. that's a major strike against both broccoli and kale, and "cruciferous vegetables", which i've long viewed as overrated but was finally coming around to, in general.
if i don't need them, maybe i shouldn't bother.
so, this is where i'm at so far.
fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- blueberries
- raspberries
- rosehips (if locatable)
- ice cream
- soy milk
salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- chopped carrots
- hemp seeds
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread
- salami?
- olive oil margarine
- + apple juice
and, then i read this, which is freaking me out about both broccoli and kale...
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/phytochemicals/indole-3-carbinol
seems like i might want to avoid those?
more research required, clearly.
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/phytochemicals/indole-3-carbinol
seems like i might want to avoid those?
more research required, clearly.
Friday, September 11, 2020
so, i was talking about flavonoids and wanted to post a summary. i still have some reading to do, but...
i can't find any actual science telling me what they're supposed to do; we can barely absorb them, we don't seem to need them for anything, and while eating berries seems to be correlated with healthiness, it's not clear if the flavonoids have anything to do with it. there's lots of other reasons why strawberries are good for you.
so, while these chemicals are antioxidants, your body doesn't seem to use them that way and claims that blueberries or red wine or chocolate help you fight off cancer or prevent dementia would consequently appear to be largely pseudo-science, at this point. that doesn't mean they're not good for you, though; and, it doesn't even mean that the science underlying the premise that the flavonoids is unsound. what it means is that you're not getting substantive levels of these chemicals from any of these foods in a way that you can actually absorb and use. the only ambiguity is that it's not totally clear if the glycoside metabolites may have some fleeting benefit that we don't currently understand, before we piss them out (despite it appearing to be unlikely). but, your body doesn't accept the flavonoids the way it accepts the carotenoids, either, so there's less of a reason to think there's an evolutionary process at work. one thing i'll want to see is what foods have a higher aglycone:glycoside ratio, and if i find something i may want to try it, but it's not clear to me how widely studied this is, and it seems like the assumption is that you get the two of them together in some unclear mix, where the glycoside almost always dominates (due to the poor stability of the aglycones).
that said,
1) i currently eat a daily amount of blueberries, raspberries and strawberries that, together, seems to be maximizing anthocyanidin intake. elderberries have more, but they're poisonous (they appear to be metabolized by your body as cyanide. see the connection?). there's not any good reason for me to cut any of that out of my fruit bowl, right now. there are no dietary requirements, but i couldn't imagine getting more than i already do. they don't seem to be harmful...
2) the only significant sources of flavon-3-ol seems to be chocolate, which i get in my coffee, and apples, which i drink in the form of juice. i'm otherwise not likely to consume any of these things. and, again - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries & cherries (all in my diet) are a minimal source. but, these chemicals are also said to build muscle, and i may even want to avoid them. thankfully, we apparently basically can't absorb them at all.
3) the highest source of flavonols appears to be kale, which i'm probably going to be integrating, anyways. blueberries & broccoli round it out. again - these are poorly absorbed antioxidants.
4) usable flavones only appear to be available in spices. salad, maybe.
5) flavanones only appear to be available in citrus fruits. should i get some lemon in my salad? sounds yummy.
6) about the only way to get isoflavones is via soy, which is a key part of my diet. i could maybe put some bacon bits in the salad. they're cheap, but the omega-6 is a little daunting. we'll see how i feel about that, and how it adds up. isoflavones are, of course, also estrogenic.
so, if i did nothing, i'd be getting tons of flavonoids, as it is.
and, i think berries are still a good gamble in trying to get your cancer risk down.
what i'm going to do is to go ahead and list them (except the flavon-3-ols, which it would appear i don't want much of, anyway) and try to figure out how much i'm getting, without really thinking about it too much further.
but, i am going to read through this pile of articles i've got in my tabs, too, and i'll let you know if anything interesting comes up.
so, here's the list - and we'll see how much of each one i'm getting, whether it really matters, or not:
anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin
flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide
flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin
flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin
isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin
i can't find any actual science telling me what they're supposed to do; we can barely absorb them, we don't seem to need them for anything, and while eating berries seems to be correlated with healthiness, it's not clear if the flavonoids have anything to do with it. there's lots of other reasons why strawberries are good for you.
so, while these chemicals are antioxidants, your body doesn't seem to use them that way and claims that blueberries or red wine or chocolate help you fight off cancer or prevent dementia would consequently appear to be largely pseudo-science, at this point. that doesn't mean they're not good for you, though; and, it doesn't even mean that the science underlying the premise that the flavonoids is unsound. what it means is that you're not getting substantive levels of these chemicals from any of these foods in a way that you can actually absorb and use. the only ambiguity is that it's not totally clear if the glycoside metabolites may have some fleeting benefit that we don't currently understand, before we piss them out (despite it appearing to be unlikely). but, your body doesn't accept the flavonoids the way it accepts the carotenoids, either, so there's less of a reason to think there's an evolutionary process at work. one thing i'll want to see is what foods have a higher aglycone:glycoside ratio, and if i find something i may want to try it, but it's not clear to me how widely studied this is, and it seems like the assumption is that you get the two of them together in some unclear mix, where the glycoside almost always dominates (due to the poor stability of the aglycones).
that said,
1) i currently eat a daily amount of blueberries, raspberries and strawberries that, together, seems to be maximizing anthocyanidin intake. elderberries have more, but they're poisonous (they appear to be metabolized by your body as cyanide. see the connection?). there's not any good reason for me to cut any of that out of my fruit bowl, right now. there are no dietary requirements, but i couldn't imagine getting more than i already do. they don't seem to be harmful...
2) the only significant sources of flavon-3-ol seems to be chocolate, which i get in my coffee, and apples, which i drink in the form of juice. i'm otherwise not likely to consume any of these things. and, again - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries & cherries (all in my diet) are a minimal source. but, these chemicals are also said to build muscle, and i may even want to avoid them. thankfully, we apparently basically can't absorb them at all.
3) the highest source of flavonols appears to be kale, which i'm probably going to be integrating, anyways. blueberries & broccoli round it out. again - these are poorly absorbed antioxidants.
4) usable flavones only appear to be available in spices. salad, maybe.
5) flavanones only appear to be available in citrus fruits. should i get some lemon in my salad? sounds yummy.
6) about the only way to get isoflavones is via soy, which is a key part of my diet. i could maybe put some bacon bits in the salad. they're cheap, but the omega-6 is a little daunting. we'll see how i feel about that, and how it adds up. isoflavones are, of course, also estrogenic.
so, if i did nothing, i'd be getting tons of flavonoids, as it is.
and, i think berries are still a good gamble in trying to get your cancer risk down.
what i'm going to do is to go ahead and list them (except the flavon-3-ols, which it would appear i don't want much of, anyway) and try to figure out how much i'm getting, without really thinking about it too much further.
but, i am going to read through this pile of articles i've got in my tabs, too, and i'll let you know if anything interesting comes up.
so, here's the list - and we'll see how much of each one i'm getting, whether it really matters, or not:
anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin
flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide
flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin
flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin
isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin
just to put this down, clearly.
what do i think about "herbal medicine"?
well, what does the science say? herbal medicine that works is called medicine. herbal medicine that doesn't work is called a placebo. and, herbal medicine that hasn't been tested is unknown.
so, i don't want to make broad comments about it; if people have been using some root for some reason for centuries, there may very well be good reasons for it. fine. but, show me the study.
and, that's really the right answer.
show me the study!
sure, it might work - i won't write it off, a priori. there's no reason to. but,
show me the study!
what do i think about "herbal medicine"?
well, what does the science say? herbal medicine that works is called medicine. herbal medicine that doesn't work is called a placebo. and, herbal medicine that hasn't been tested is unknown.
so, i don't want to make broad comments about it; if people have been using some root for some reason for centuries, there may very well be good reasons for it. fine. but, show me the study.
and, that's really the right answer.
show me the study!
sure, it might work - i won't write it off, a priori. there's no reason to. but,
show me the study!
so, i had a little talk with my landlord, who decided he wanted to get a rent increase in before they froze it. status: denied.
well, let's deal with the smoke, first, huh?
i may be his sole source of income right now - well, except his pay check with the police, of course.
he hasn't raised rent since i moved in in oct, 2018. i know this place was previously occupied, because there cans of paint from the previous tenant - and because he told me as much. this region, like so many others, went through a wave of italian immigration, so this place seems to have been built with a kitchen in the basement. that's really what i inherited, although the landlord explained that this section was separated out to house an elderly relative, at one point. likely story.
so, i'm paying what i signed up for; he could have raised the rent by the legal amount, pegged to cpi, which was 2.2%, at any time since october, 2019.
i wondered why he didn't...but he didn't...
the legalities are that they announce a maximum rent increase in june, based on the cpi of the previous year and that comes into effect in january of the next year until the end of the calendar date. further, you need to give 90 days notice. that means that the 2.2% (a very high number, relative to recent years) kicked in on january 1st and expires on dec 31st. as today is sept 11, and he requires 90 days notice, he'd have to date the increase to jan 1, 2021.
but, that's past the end of the calendar date, unfortunately.
denied.
the weirdness stems from the fact that they didn't announce a rent increase number this year, due to "instability".
instability, huh? i guess that's newspeak for deflation.
the cpi last year was 2.2% - an unusually high number. but, the cpi this year is -0.3%.
so, dougy is bringing in a rent freeze - it's for the people!
right. it's deflation, guys.
now, i suppose that they could revamp the legislation between now and then, which would probably not be in anybody's interests. but, if they don't, the fact that they didn't announce it doesn't change the reality of deflation in front of us.
and, are we going to have inflation over the next year? two years?
the rent freeze could last a long time - not because of an order by doug ford, but because we may be in for several years of deflation.
well, let's deal with the smoke, first, huh?
i may be his sole source of income right now - well, except his pay check with the police, of course.
he hasn't raised rent since i moved in in oct, 2018. i know this place was previously occupied, because there cans of paint from the previous tenant - and because he told me as much. this region, like so many others, went through a wave of italian immigration, so this place seems to have been built with a kitchen in the basement. that's really what i inherited, although the landlord explained that this section was separated out to house an elderly relative, at one point. likely story.
so, i'm paying what i signed up for; he could have raised the rent by the legal amount, pegged to cpi, which was 2.2%, at any time since october, 2019.
i wondered why he didn't...but he didn't...
the legalities are that they announce a maximum rent increase in june, based on the cpi of the previous year and that comes into effect in january of the next year until the end of the calendar date. further, you need to give 90 days notice. that means that the 2.2% (a very high number, relative to recent years) kicked in on january 1st and expires on dec 31st. as today is sept 11, and he requires 90 days notice, he'd have to date the increase to jan 1, 2021.
but, that's past the end of the calendar date, unfortunately.
denied.
the weirdness stems from the fact that they didn't announce a rent increase number this year, due to "instability".
instability, huh? i guess that's newspeak for deflation.
the cpi last year was 2.2% - an unusually high number. but, the cpi this year is -0.3%.
so, dougy is bringing in a rent freeze - it's for the people!
right. it's deflation, guys.
now, i suppose that they could revamp the legislation between now and then, which would probably not be in anybody's interests. but, if they don't, the fact that they didn't announce it doesn't change the reality of deflation in front of us.
and, are we going to have inflation over the next year? two years?
the rent freeze could last a long time - not because of an order by doug ford, but because we may be in for several years of deflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)