Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernardo de La Paz
Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
August 25, 2018
White House staffers have found that if they keep him in the dark and feed him BS, he will tweet but will be less dangerous.
WH staff Mushroom Theory of tRump management.
White House staffers have found that if they keep him in the dark and feed him BS, he will tweet but will be less dangerous.
August 24, 2018
Depends on person & diet & type of drink. Study is balancing heart disease against cancer.
There seems to be evidence that moderate alcohol guards against heart disease but worsens cancer risk.
Some people are more prone to one risk than the other and should consider that.
Further, inflammation is a risk factor for both illnesses and the rest of the diet is very important.
Drinking alcohol on top of a redneck high animal fat / high red meat / high fructose / high processed food diet is probably a very bad idea because that diet is high in inflammation.
Drinking alcohol in moderation as part of a Mediterranean diet may be a net win to the extent that it include anti-inflammatories and anti-oxidants. It is better the more highly colored the fruit & veg and the less the food has been processed with additives and nutrition removed.
It is probably better to drink beer than wine and wine than liquor, since that is a progression of higher and higher processing.
I am not a nutritionist, nor do I pretend to be one. Do your own reading. I have done so.
Numerous peer-reviewed studies found evidence that people who have a drink or two a day are less likely to have heart disease than people who abstain or drink excessively.
But the new study, while noting the lower risks of heart disease from moderate drinking, as well as a dip in the diabetes rate in women, found that many other health risks offset and overwhelm the health benefits. That includes the risk of breast cancer, larynx cancer, stroke, cirrhosis, tuberculosis, interpersonal violence, self-harm and transportation accidents.
“Current and emerging scientific evidence does not suggest that there are overall health benefits from moderate drinking,” said Robert Brewer, who directs the alcohol program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was not involved in the new research. He pointed out that alcohol studies have long been dogged by “confounders” — factors that create a misleading impression of cause and effect.
“People who report drinking in moderation tend to be very different from people who don’t drink at all. They tend to be a healthier population, they tend to exercise more, they tend to be more affluent, they tend to have more access to health care,” Brewer said.
But the new study, while noting the lower risks of heart disease from moderate drinking, as well as a dip in the diabetes rate in women, found that many other health risks offset and overwhelm the health benefits. That includes the risk of breast cancer, larynx cancer, stroke, cirrhosis, tuberculosis, interpersonal violence, self-harm and transportation accidents.
“Current and emerging scientific evidence does not suggest that there are overall health benefits from moderate drinking,” said Robert Brewer, who directs the alcohol program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was not involved in the new research. He pointed out that alcohol studies have long been dogged by “confounders” — factors that create a misleading impression of cause and effect.
“People who report drinking in moderation tend to be very different from people who don’t drink at all. They tend to be a healthier population, they tend to exercise more, they tend to be more affluent, they tend to have more access to health care,” Brewer said.
August 24, 2018
... that a product might have bits and pieces from all four by time final assembly is finished.
Canadian steel is used for parts made in the US put into cars built in Canada and sold in the US.
Similarly,
US steel is used for parts made in Canada put into cars built in the US and sold in Canada.
Tariffs on any one part will disrupt and maybe even interrupt the chain. They can only increase prices and cost jobs everywhere.
Modern economies like USA, Canada, Mexico & China are so interwoven that
... that a product might have bits and pieces from all four by time final assembly is finished.
Canadian steel is used for parts made in the US put into cars built in Canada and sold in the US.
Similarly,
US steel is used for parts made in Canada put into cars built in the US and sold in Canada.
Tariffs on any one part will disrupt and maybe even interrupt the chain. They can only increase prices and cost jobs everywhere.
August 23, 2018
If you tried now, it wouldn't even get out of committee, because RubleCons. And then you'd be done. Any RubleCon Senator allies or leaners would shy away and be even less ready to help.
The American public has no stomach for repeated impeachments.
By all means make ENABLING and ACCOUNTABILITY issues and character issues in the election. But "impeachment" per se must bide it's time until the (one) shot (metaphorical) can be fired with full force and find its mark square on and be effective.
Yes, in theory, but in practice you only get one shot at the king (metaphoricaly). It would fail now
If you tried now, it wouldn't even get out of committee, because RubleCons. And then you'd be done. Any RubleCon Senator allies or leaners would shy away and be even less ready to help.
The American public has no stomach for repeated impeachments.
By all means make ENABLING and ACCOUNTABILITY issues and character issues in the election. But "impeachment" per se must bide it's time until the (one) shot (metaphorical) can be fired with full force and find its mark square on and be effective.
August 23, 2018
I've been watching this for several years and it is still not clear but I am leaning slightly in favor of things like MCT Medium Chain Triglyceride Coconut Oil.
Not simply HDL v LDL; there are several kinds of LDL including VLDL. There are plasma lipoprotein particles classified as HDL, LDL, IDL, VLDL and ULDL, and the LDL come in at least two different sizes.
The key seems to be inflammation rather than cholesterol. So eating lots of anti-inflammatories (Omega-3, fruits, berries , vegetables, and anti-oxidants) and reducing inflammatories like sugar and omega-6. The more colorful the food (outside of meat) the better, it seems generally but not always of course.
A Doctor Explains Why Saturated Fat In Coconut Oil Isn't A Problem
By Mark Hyman, M.D. Functional Medicine Doctor
excerpt
I have a link from 2009 by the same doctor, so it is not something new, but there is increasingly research supporting him.
Heart disease is not caused by high cholesterol so taking statins is 'waste of time', research finds
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141486827
At least two types of LDL
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-sheridan/ldl-cholesterol-size-does_b_8372366.html
An unclear contentious area of health research, but "pure poison" reflects older research
I've been watching this for several years and it is still not clear but I am leaning slightly in favor of things like MCT Medium Chain Triglyceride Coconut Oil.
Not simply HDL v LDL; there are several kinds of LDL including VLDL. There are plasma lipoprotein particles classified as HDL, LDL, IDL, VLDL and ULDL, and the LDL come in at least two different sizes.
The key seems to be inflammation rather than cholesterol. So eating lots of anti-inflammatories (Omega-3, fruits, berries , vegetables, and anti-oxidants) and reducing inflammatories like sugar and omega-6. The more colorful the food (outside of meat) the better, it seems generally but not always of course.
A Doctor Explains Why Saturated Fat In Coconut Oil Isn't A Problem
By Mark Hyman, M.D. Functional Medicine Doctor
excerpt
Studies show saturated fat raises LDL, yet it also raises HDL ("good" cholesterol). On the other hand, sugar lowers HDL. Ultimately, the ratio of total cholesterol to LDL cholesterol better predicts heart attacks than LDL on its own. Coconut oil can contain up to 40 percent saturated fat, yet interestingly, countries with the highest intakes of coconut oil have the lowest rates of heart disease.
While some research shows coconut oil contains higher amounts of saturated fat and does increase total cholesterol, those amounts do not increase our heart attack or stroke risk. In fact, one study among lean, heart-disease- and stroke-free Pacific Islanders who consumed up to 63 percent of their calories from coconut fat found total cholesterol rose but so did their "good" HDL.
While some research shows coconut oil contains higher amounts of saturated fat and does increase total cholesterol, those amounts do not increase our heart attack or stroke risk. In fact, one study among lean, heart-disease- and stroke-free Pacific Islanders who consumed up to 63 percent of their calories from coconut fat found total cholesterol rose but so did their "good" HDL.
I have a link from 2009 by the same doctor, so it is not something new, but there is increasingly research supporting him.
Heart disease is not caused by high cholesterol so taking statins is 'waste of time', research finds
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141486827
At least two types of LDL
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-sheridan/ldl-cholesterol-size-does_b_8372366.html
August 16, 2018
Everytime somebody says something good or does something good, there is always a naysayer who pops up and says "What about this awful thing that happened? They are forever tainted and I won't listen and they can do no good. Cover my ears. La-la-la-la-la"
Such what-about-ism is the suffocation and strangulation of important messages that need to be heard, such as the OP editorial.
Purism leads to powerlessness. The perfect is the enemy of the good. What-about-ism suffocation.
Everytime somebody says something good or does something good, there is always a naysayer who pops up and says "What about this awful thing that happened? They are forever tainted and I won't listen and they can do no good. Cover my ears. La-la-la-la-la"
Such what-about-ism is the suffocation and strangulation of important messages that need to be heard, such as the OP editorial.
August 1, 2018
1) Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russians via WikiLeaks, Guccifer, Stone, Carter Page, possibly Manafort, etc., including a public call from a rally podium.
2) Trump offered quid pro quo (sanctions relief, better relations).
3) Trump family and Trump campaign chief met with Russian agents in June 2016, at Trump Tower, yards away from Trump who was also in the Tower at the time and may have been listening in on speaker phone.
4) Clinton did not seek info from the Russians. Her campaign (or DNC maybe?) got a law firm to do research. The firm contracted with a research company (Fusion GPS). That company hired a company in the UK (Steele). Steele asked his contacts in Russia and Russian influenced areas. They were not Russian agents and were four steps or more removed from Hillary.
The two actions are not equivalent, of course. But here is how to refute attempts like that
1) Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russians via WikiLeaks, Guccifer, Stone, Carter Page, possibly Manafort, etc., including a public call from a rally podium.
2) Trump offered quid pro quo (sanctions relief, better relations).
3) Trump family and Trump campaign chief met with Russian agents in June 2016, at Trump Tower, yards away from Trump who was also in the Tower at the time and may have been listening in on speaker phone.
4) Clinton did not seek info from the Russians. Her campaign (or DNC maybe?) got a law firm to do research. The firm contracted with a research company (Fusion GPS). That company hired a company in the UK (Steele). Steele asked his contacts in Russia and Russian influenced areas. They were not Russian agents and were four steps or more removed from Hillary.
July 29, 2018
Not scared. As we say, a big tent. But some districts need different candidates than others to win.
Fight the label and candidate battles in the primaries.
Unite for the election behind whoever is the Democratic candidate and their platform. If you don't like a piece of it, don't mention it until after the election. Present a unified front against all opposition in order to win the election.
Push the policies you desire after the election. Shape policy then. Promote members from within then.
It is much easier to push a Democratic elected politician toward your desired policies than a Republican elected politician. Period.
(note: This post and my previous one do not mention one or another position on the spectra, nor labels either.)
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 48,982
