Comments (12)

By Katie Kish, July 14, 2008 4:45 am

1/2 of America’s land…80% of it’s fresh water… 17% of fossil fules go to what? Producing food. The most energy intensive product? Meat, yo. The higher up you go from plant to beast, the worse it gets. Cows eat seven times more grain than Americans do – … seven times MORE people could eat, if the cows weren’t eating it…. and its all for those $50 steaks.

HOW MUCH ENERGY (IN CALORIES) IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A SINGLE CALORIE OF MEAT?
(from the September 2003 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)
Lamb: 57 calories (~ 29 if pasture fed only)
Beef: 40 calories (~20 if pasture fed only)
Pigs: 14 calories
Turkeys: 10 calories
Broiler chickens: 4 calories

…So I don’t really eat a lot of meat.

I got telling someone about this today. …Then I started to rant a little bit, and my rant veered a little bit more than usual into the actual production of all processed foods. … Anything that’s been processed, sugar filled, packaged and shipped is just as bad for the environment as the aforementioned meat products. … So really, if I’m going to get all “environmental” not only do I need to not eat meat, but I need to eat local… unpackaged… organic food. … wtf.

I have issues with the organic food chains though. I think it’s all a disgusting scam to get hippies to spend too much money on something that helps so little that it doesn’t even matter. So we won’t be doing that. And local foods? Really the only time you can get “local” food in Guelph is Saturday morning. So if I don’t stock up, I’ve got issues. And if it’s a bad weekend at the farmer’s market, or if I …ya know, go to Toronto like I do every weekend, then I don’t get any. So there’s issues with that too.

So how do people eat, and ruin the environment less? …Americans and Canadians eat something like 3800 calories a day. What do people actually need? If I remember correctly something like 2000 – 2600 depending on your body type and gender. Which brings me to my real issue.

Beer.

I like it. A lot. but it’s processed, and full of calories. To brew a single liter of beer takes:

around 8 litres of water, huge amounts of mains power and gas, vast stores of barley and, mostly, the importation of packaging materials like glass bottles and labels from overseas

eek!

What’s my solution? I’ll continue to not eat meat, that’s fine. I can handle that. …I’ll try not to buy too much of the packaged and processed crap, but I can’t promise anything too drastic changing there. I’ll even cut back on like cheese or something. As for beer? I’ll stick with steam whistle! Local and delicious and environmentally aware. Although it will be hard to steer away from strongbow. so. stupidly. delicious. >< mmm.

But you know, this only furthers my argument that we should stop serving so much alcohol in bars. It would be better for the environment. And we could turn all the bars into the new one that is fuled by people dancing. …And just sell XTC. Then they’ll dance more! And won’t drink beer! And won’t eat meat because they won’t want to eat anything! Then, not only will everyone stop eating meat so that we can stop doing horribley embarassing things to cows (like collecting all their farts on their backs) but everyone in the world will be SO happy. And we’ll all love each other and listen to techno.

And then everyone would sparkle and shine various colors like this:

Comments (14)

By Katie Kish, February 6, 2008 4:56 pm

“Stewie, your head is so smooth. How the… how…how are you doin’ that?”

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=QHG8cjI5B-w[/youtube]

More times than I can count the topic of drugs has come up around my dining room table, either just in passing or because my brother wants to get a rise out of my stepdad. … Every time the topic comes up my stepdad (Paul) goes off about how “fucking stupid” (yeah, ministers say fucking!) pot is, how he has never tried it and so on and so forth…

My brother then tries to explain to him that it’s completely fine. And of course because Paul is like 90 (or like 65…) he tells Andrew to STFU because he is just immature and doesn’t realize the true dangers in the drug. He also goes off about how cigarettes wouldn’t be legal if they were being legalized at the same time as pot, not before. But the funny thing is – he never mentions alcohol – which is is apparently a firm believer in.

It’s not that I mean he’s an alcoholic, because by no means is he… but him and my mom have a bottle of wine with dinner, and he drinks a couple glasses of scotch. He doesn’t get drunk and stumble around the house or anything – it’s tasteful. Sort of like when Andrew or I take a few responsible tokes of a joint and go about our daily lives… or do it to just wind down from a busy day.

But pot is the bad guy! … I thought it was, right? … Last March alcohol was rated as “worse” than ecstasy on a new UK rating scale. In fact both tobacco and alcohol were put as worse than XTC, LSD and of course marijuana.

They asked a group of 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate the drugs in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs. The team also extended the analysis to another group of 16 experts spanning several fields including chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services.

The results?

Cocaine and heroin are the worst. Alcohol was rated at number 5, and tobacco at number 9 just after speed. Pot 11th, LSD 14th and XTC 18th. (The type of pot measured was skunk – so stronger than what people would have been smoking in the 60′s.)

The position of ecstasy near the bottom of the list was defended by Prof Nutt, who said that apart from some tragic isolated cases ecstasy is relatively safe. Despite about a third of young people having tried the drug and around half a million users every weekend, it causes fewer than 10 deaths a year. One person a day is killed by acute alcohol poisoning and thousands more from chronic use.

What the hell? So we can all go out to a bar and legally drink and smoke two drugs that kill millions upon millions of people ever single year – but we can’t pop a pill that kills less than 10 people a year?? And that is cheaper than a night of drinker?? And that doesn’t have the horrible hang over affect?? And that just makes you flat out happy?? And that doesn’t cause whiskey dick?? And that just makes sex better?? …………. What the hell. Fo shizzle.

I dont know why, but it was really hard to find a working version of this clip of Peter Griffin on ecstasy. But it’s hilarious. Just remember – just because you feel like you’re an amazing dancer on E, doesn’t mean you are…

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=J4H8ihMJhow[/youtube]

Comments (8)

By Katie Kish, January 27, 2008 11:13 pm

 Larry Moran and David Colquhoun at Center For Inquiry – Ontario reception

David Colquhoun is by far the most modest and underrated man I have ever met. His talk on Saturday night at the University of Toronto (put on by the University of Toronto Secular Alliance) was really quite interesting. Also the reception before hand at the Center for Inquiry was great too. It was nice to see and talk to everyone again after having been engrossed by other far less important things back here in Guelph. (It was especially great to talk to Amanda Peet who always has a new toy to show off – this time it was an unlocked iPhone… I was a little jealous.)

Although homeopathy isn’t my particular area of interest when it comes to debunking, questioning and researching I am still captivated when other people speak about it. Colquhoun not only showed us all a break down of just how much “200C” really is (basically – nothing) he also showed us an enormous list of Universities offering courses and degrees in homeopathy as a science.

This is particularly frightening. I don’t mind homeopathy being available to people – if you’re prepared to spend a ton of money on a placebo that’s fine, you’re an idiot and that’s not my fault. But when it enters academia it is all kinds of scary. Colquhoun spoke about the complete lack of research and case studies that have been done surrounding homeopathy. The problem, it seems, is that those who support it don’t want to do the research because they know what the outcome will be – that it’s all bunk. But those who know that it’s all bunk and is poisoning our scientific community don’t want to put the millions of dollars into researching it because that money can be used for a much better cause.

The only part of the talk that I was discomforted with was when a member of the audience was “boo”ed for trying to start discussion – for disagreeing. … Grrr. I’d assume that the people who did this were not members of CFI or the UTSA since both groups highly encourage discussion and participation from all angles –  not just the speakers, or our own point of views. Luckily Colquhoun encouraged the debate and all was at ease.

For more on the talk check out The Sandwalk and The Unexamined Life. Also take a glance at the National Post article, it’s really good.

“People now seem to think universities will be better if they’re organized like Wal-Mart. The result is a removal of power over the management of science from the people who are involved in science. I think as soon as science is managed by non-scientists it becomes corrupt. They impose a kind of ubercompetitive regime on people, which actually encourages dishonesty.

“Scientists are not perfect, but they know something about science and consequently the best way to get good results is to leave it to scientists, not MBAs.”

Comments (1)

By Katie Kish, January 10, 2008 1:33 am

if you had to think about that question, you make me sad.

I’ve written a lot about religion in the past – mostly condemning stupid Christian behavior or declaring my atheism for whatever reason or another. In the past little while I’ve started to question my tone toward religion, christianity and my own beliefs. Although this statement has nothing to do with the following post – I just want it known that I am not “against” religion or christianity like I once was, and in no way do I know what to label myself. … Having said that, I think one think I never wrote about was how much I hated people who won’t let their children have medication.

I’ve just read a book called God Grew Tired of Us, and in the last chapter they look at the abuse that religion puts on children – mentally. The one thing it doesn’t really touch on is how religion can hurt children physically, and that is through Christan Science.

First of all – … why do they get their own science??? Okay, okay. Besides the point. But really – Why do they get their own science?!!!!?!?!?!? … Sorry.

Christian Science in a flash:

• Crazy lady, Mary Barker Eddy, writes a book called Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures in 1875
• Other crazy people think the book is pretty neat.
• Essentially – everything on earth is spiritual, not material… (‘kay, thanks Buddha.) what you see, feel, hear, touch, smell, breath… etc is actually all an illusion, or an “error”
• Praying enhances spiritualization and heals emotionally, physically and mentally
• In 1866 crazy lady is healed from an injury after reading a passage in the bible and thus concludes that reading the bible and praisin’ the looord jesus! (amen!) heals.
• … No more medicine, yo.
• Oh, and you can heal homos too.

Mary’s “Scientific” Statement of Being:

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.
All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.
Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual. (S&H 468)

So why do I care? I’M not a christian scientist, and neither is my mom… or anyone in my family. In point of fact I’ve never even MET a christian scientist. So why the heck should I care?

Wikipedia knows everything!

There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion. Although these exemptions take different forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for suspected or alleged abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of religious practice.

Uh huh. Your kid is sick. You try to pray! it out of him. He dies… Whaaa? Did you pray SO HARD that his spirituality just became to BIG for this error of a materialistic world that we live in?? How far do we let freedom of religion go?

I am completely and totally supportive of letting people be religious. I am support being able to go to whatever sort of religious gathering you want, praying in public places… I even think it’s fantastic that high schools accommodate for those that need to leave classes to pray. I don’t think religion should be in government, on money or in anything that involves all people. … I REALLY don’t think we should be allowing parents to deny their children health care because they are praying the cancer out of them…

Have children actually died because of this? Yes. A lot of them. There are a few more recent cases found here. In fact:

A landmark study published in the journal Pediatrics uncovered more than 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period – a tally that one of the study’s authors later said represented only “the tip of the iceberg” of a surprisingly pervasive problem.

Which means:

Assessing whether forms of religion-related child abuse pose a greater risk to children than more widely publicized threats, such as ritual satanic abuse, a wide-ranging study funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that “there are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.”

… The problem is that fighting this will bring screams like “But the first amendment says!!!” … vs. … “Children need rights, to protect them from stupid people.” That’s just not a political battle that many people are willing to fight.

Despite parents have control over their children’s life – just like we would take the children away if the parents punched them in the face, so should we if they refuse to let an i.v into their arm. Children shouldn’t suffer because of religion.

Comments (1)

By Katie Kish, May 11, 2007 10:55 pm

Fat on the inside.

Some parents actually raise their children to believe that it’s whats on the inside that really counts, not the outside. That doesn’t stick with too many people and then we see people killing themselves to have an ideal outside body. Well now some doctors are saying that the fat that surrounds internal vital organs such as the liver or heart could be just as dangerous as the fat that everyone is always obsessing about.

“Being thin doesn’t automatically mean you’re not fat,” said Dr. Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging at Imperial College, London. Since 1994, Bell and his team have scanned nearly 800 people with MRI machines to create “fat maps” showing where people store fat.

According to the data, people who maintain their weight through diet rather than exercise are likely to have major deposits of internal fat, even if they are otherwise slim. “The whole concept of being fat needs to be redefined,” said Bell, whose research is funded by Britain’s Medical Research Council.

The doctors are worried that without a better definition of “fat” that people who appear to be thin may automatically assume that they’re also healthy. This also means that the diseases that over weight people are at risk of contracting, such as diabetes, are just as much a risk to people who may have this internal fat. In an experiment 45% people with “normal” BMIs, 20 – 25, had an excessive level of internal fat. The percentage grew to 60% with men alone.

Relating the news to what Bell calls “TOFIs” — people who are “thin outside, fat inside” — is rarely uneventful. “The thinner people are, the bigger the surprise,” he said, adding the researchers even found TOFIs among people who are professional models.According to Bell, people who are fat on the inside are essentially on the threshold of being obese. They eat too many fatty, sugary foods — and exercise too little to work it off — but they are not eating enough to actually be fat. Scientists believe we naturally accumulate fat around the belly first, but at some point, the body may start storing it elsewhere.

That’s scary – what does the regular American Diet consist of? Fatty and sugary foods. Now you have something like 30% of the population being obese, and even higher number being “over weight” and now 60% of the men who were thought to be “healthy” are actually internally obese.
The impacts of this internal fat aren’t fully known but it is thought that they will disrupt regular body communications. The fat could send mistaken chemical signals to organs such as the liver and pancreas leading to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes or heart disease.

Experts have long known that fat, active people can be healthier than their skinny, inactive counterparts. “Normal-weight persons who are sedentary and unfit are at much higher risk for mortality than obese persons who are active and fit,” said Dr. Steven Blair, an obesity expert at the University of South Carolina.

For example, despite their ripples of fat, super-sized Sumo wrestlers probably have a better metabolic profile than some of their slim, sedentary spectators, Bell said. That’s because the wrestlers’ fat is primarily stored under the skin, not streaking throughout their vital organs and muscles.

The article does say that the BMI is an accurate indicator of body and personal health, but I think the previous two paragraphs really show how misleading the BMI can be. A person with a BMI of 32 may be able to run a track 3 times as faster than a person with a BMI of 23. This sort of research really promotes that unhealthy dieting and eating crappy food just because you have “a high metabolism” isn’t what people should be doing.

Young women especially should know that just because they look good on the outside doesn’t mean they’re saving their insides. Everything on the inside of the body – and I don’t mean your wonderful personality, I mean your vital organs – are so much more important and in need of your attention then of outside body.

(cross posted at appletree)