Dear Ed Open Thread

mmghosh's picture

I think Edward Snowden is extremely brave to have done what he did.


But he should have made his way to Latin America, not Russia.  This is why.

Dear Ed!

Yesterday I learnt you have managed at last to get temporary asylum in Russia. I congratulate you in the name of all worldwide progressive public opinion. Now at last you are safe. Here, in Russia, no one will ever think of persecuting you for exposing the workings of the secret services, phone tapping or reading private correspondence without permission of a court. For in our country, thank God, we have the rule of law – Russia’s secret services, since back in 2008, have had the full legal right to listen to telephone conversations and to read e-mail.


Secondly, my old friend, you should understand straight away that Russia is a country full of spirituality. It’s possible that in your American school you were taught that Russian wealth comes from oil and timber. Well, that is all in the past. All the oil was stolen by Mikhail Khodorkovsky back in 2004, and recently Aleksei Navalny has made off with all the timber. So our main sources of wealth nowadays are spiritual – Orthodoxy, autocracy and the spirit of the Russian people.

Orthodoxy is a very liberal religion. You can drink alcohol, eat pork, drive your BMW roadster with a diplomatic numberplate at top speed while you’re on the booze - just like Abbot Timofei. In general, you can do anything you like. The main thing is, don’t dance. You just mustn’t dance. You’ll end up in jail. But you’re not a dancer, so it doesn’t matter to you? Autocracy, well, this is the traditional kind of Russian form of democracy, with a great deal of spirituality. You’ll like it. Every few years we elect Vladimir Putin.Vladimir Putin caught almost the biggest catfish in the world. And the very biggest catfish in the world was caught by Lukashenko. That is all you need to know about politics in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. If, that is, you don’t want to go back to your little hotel room somewhere in Krasnokamensk. As for the Spirit of the Russian People, you can get to know this through the songs of Stas Mikhailov. But my advice to you personally would be not to bother.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Apple still innovating


Who says they aren't doing anything new

Police forces around the world have had the problem that when their officers get a bit carried away and start pepper spraying tied captives there is someone on hand filming the event on their mobile phones.

While six police lay into prone grannies on the floor with long batons, the pictures can be on the net in seconds, meaning supervisors have to answer embarrassing questions.

But they may not need to fear scrutiny much longer - Apple has patented a piece of technology which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, whenever they like.

All the coppers have to do is decide that a public gathering or venue is deemed "sensitive", and needs to be "protected from externalities" and Apple will switch off all its gear.





Looks easy to defeat though. Just an IR filter on top of the lens. Done.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I don't want to stick at home now

brutusettu's picture

If only catchy wasn't busy, then he would see that the WSJ is reporting that a group from a small label and in his favorite genre of music just signed with Sony




h/t me




Christian-Only anti-abortion organizations?

brutusettu's picture

An anti-abortion activist eager to volunteer at a Washington, D.C., crisis pregnancy center was turned away for being an atheist. Sarah Terzo said the clinic's staff was initially welcoming, but rejected her help after learning of her atheism, saying they didn't have "non-Christians working here." Terzo says nine other anti-abortion organizations would not let atheists volunteer either.

Brut, if this happened at one or two organizations


I could accept the story at face value.  To have it happen at nine agencies suggest there's something more that's left unsaid.  Religious organizations in general simply aren't that uniform about anything.  I could speculate wildly, perhaps all nine clinics were all part of the same organization, with that standard rule.  Perhaps the volunteer was simply over the top with her disbelief, nothing wrong with that in general but it is inconsistent with a religiously affiliated organization, regardless of their cause.  I dunno, but I'm not confident that the article has provided the detail required to advance the point it's attempting to make.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I Am Reminded Of The Frederick Forsythe Novel. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . ."The Odessa Files," where a German infiltrator of the notorious ex-Nazi support organization succeeded where better trained Jews with equally good fake resumes failed, because the Odessa would always check to see if the purported former Nazi had been circumcised (which the German had not been). The false logic involved is the same, more or less--political polls would suggest that an atheist/agnostic is very unlikely to be legitimately pro choice (and therefore rather likely to be a would-be infiltrator rather than a legitimate supporter), but there are a lot of religious pro-choicers out there, too, even if the percentage is lower.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I'm neither agnotic nor atheist but my pro-life


position isn't really informed by my religion.  I don't want to get into my position, the point is that I arrived at it without any religious motivation.  Regardless of what polls would suggest I wouldn't find it hard to believe that an atheist could be pro-life.  Having said that, I am familiar enough with Christian organizations to know that there are some that wouldn't want an atheist to throw water on them if they were on fire.  But what the article is pushing is pro-life = religious bigot and the author simply doesn't back that up.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Was the article


just those three sentences,  or do the rest of you have the secret codes to see more?




The article was that short, but I won't let that stop me


from leaping to conclusions.  Actually, it was that short that one had to leap to a conclusion but there was only one conclusion to leap to.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

as a side note: I googled her name before I posted

brutusettu's picture

she seems dedicated to exposing every single late very late term abortion story she comes across.  And the Hitler loved dogs, dogs are bad teh racist "underpinnings of the abortion movement".



I'm wagering on when someone said "God bless you" after a sneeze, she replied she was atheist.  Or she's as gun-ho about atheism as she is doing a poor job relaying statistics to her readers.

I googled her too. She seems more concerned


about not being allowed on another's bandwagon than she is with the goal.  Fair enough I guess, but I don't entirely get it.  I'm a big second amendment supporter, I'm not a Comanche, I wouldn't have a second thought about being denied a position in 'Comanche's for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms'. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

But Of Course

M Scott Eiland's picture

Why *wouldn't* Mother Nature want to cheer the latest 100 meter World Championship by the greatest sprinter of all time?

 photo lightningbolt_zpsa3e62d81.jpg

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

What can one say?



Other than wow?


Did you see that Bolt and Mo Farrah have agreed to a race for charity. Hope it can be set up. Should be interesting, Bolt would easily win anything under 400m while Farrah would win just as easily over 800m so they have to pick a distance that makes things interesting.

A Quick book Recommendation! Ulysses Grant in War and Peace


...I have lost sleep over this book, staying up way too late to see what happens next...and I know this period of US history more than most...but maybe not on a personal level, to see the interactions between Grant, Sherman, Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as US War Secretary, etc, together in the 1840's and the 1850's is strikingly fascinating.


It helps that H.W. Brands is a wonderfully fluid and a master at the small telling detail in history. The book gives me chills it is so good!


It is in paperback now and the review from everyone are is a big book with lots of original have to like this kind of stuff....or be teaching yourself how to write history properly.


Best Wishes, Traveller


Edit: I'll give you a quote from a contemporary family friend, Louisa Boggs, I found telling:


"He was a Northern man married to a Southern, slave owing family. Colonel Dent openly despised him. All the family said, 'poor Julia,' when the spoke of Mrs. Grant..."


Great stuff. Especially for former or current military will be surprised.



While on the topic of the Civil War

brutusettu's picture

Speech of E. S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861


I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.

If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!

i.e. if slavery is abolished, white southerners will commit genocide in the millions.


Alabama's solution to the abolition question.  Star and Bars y'all.


h/t lgm

E. S. Dargan


Naturally, didn't fight in the war, sitting it out in the Confederate House of Representatives. So he managed to avoid bloodying his hands then, too. 


Mississipi's Declaration of Causes for leaving the union was not as bloody-minded, but pretty out front about its reason for leaving: 


"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."


They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864


M Scott Eiland's picture

The South did have other grievances besides the looming elimination of slavery by popular supermajority should enough free states enter the Union (or the harrying of it in the meantime by a Republican dominated Presidency and Congress), but it's pretty clear what the main one was, and that the toxic effects of the great political figures of the South having to come up with intellectual/philosophical justifications for its existence was all too evident by early 1861. One could be excused for wishing--for all of its usefulness--that the cotton gin had not been invented until 1893 rather than 1793, allowing slavery to die a "natural" death in the US before war broke out.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You guys are focusing on the Southern POV


and neglecting the North. In the words of Lincoln, and I quote "We gotta find something for all these Irish to do."
Five years later Johnson had the exact same problem and had them invade Canada.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I Must Note that Lincoln Was Fully Willing to be Very....


....accomondating on the issue of slavery in the deep South.


He had no desire to unsettle their "peculiar institution," at all.


But, with the House being controlled via population by the North, the admission of any new free states and thereby unsettling the deadlock in the Senate was what unnerved, unhinged and ultimately drove Southern's to make the disastrous choice to secede from the Union.


There was no need for this at all at the time.


Just sayin`



This Is Not Juan Uribe's Happy Face

M Scott Eiland's picture

 photo 1005675_10152108512163508_1650341416_n_zpsda1c226d.jpg

Uribe caught by hidden ball trick as Dodgers win 5-0, teammates have a great deal of fun at his expense.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).


M Scott Eiland's picture

Jack Clark seems to have messed with the wrong "El Hombre."

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That Didn't Take Long

M Scott Eiland's picture

"Hit the road, Jack."

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

full transcript maybe full of non-denial denials from Mihlfield?

brutusettu's picture

At least twice in the first week of a program that made its debut Aug. 1, Clark said that former Pujols trainer Chris Mihlfeld told him in 2000 that he “shot him up’’ with steroids. Both were working in the Los Angeles Dodgers’ organization at the time. Clark also has made other steroids allegations about Pujols, attributing them to comments Mihlfeld had made to him more than a decade ago.



Meanwhile, and ESPN’s T.J. Quinn reported Friday that they had received an email from Mihlfeld in which he denied ever telling Clark that he provided steroids for Pujols.

“I haven’t even talked to Jack Clark in close to 10 years. His statements are simply not true,” Mihlfeld was quoted as writing. “I have known Albert Pujols since he was 18 years old and he would never use illegal drugs in any way. I would bet my life on it and probably drop dead on the spot if I found out he has.

“As before once again both Albert and myself have been accused of doing something we didn’t do. I never said those things to Jack Clark or anyone else because they never happened. That’s all I need to say.”

But Clark isn’t backing down, and he appeared on Doug Gottlieb’s CBS Radio show Friday after the story began to draw national attention.

“I know for a fact that Chris Mihlfield told me that,” Clark said and added that Mihlfeld told him he could inject him the same way he did to Pujols, who at the time was not known to Clark.




link found in the SBNation link above

Clark jumped in before Slaten finished his thought and said,  "I know for a fact he was. The trainer that worked with him, threw him batting practice from Kansas City, that worked him out every day, basically told me that’s what he did." Clark then talked about a conversation he had about a dozen years ago with Mihlfeld, who has worked as a conditioner with several major-league organizations. (Both men were with the Dodgers then, and Pujols was early in his career.) Mihlfeld "had told me what he was doing with ‘Poolie’ — threw him batting practice, worked him out, shot him up, all that stuff," Clark said on the air.



Or maybe Clark is silly to believe all those wonderful injections Mihlfield allegedly gave were steroids and Mihfield would never inject Pujols with steroids while telling Pujols it was something else (as to make the "Pujols would never "use" steroids claim "true")?


Multiple Answers

M Scott Eiland's picture

--Clark's employer was justified in firing him for making a potentially litigation inducing accusation on their airwaves based (assuming Clark is telling the exact truth as he knows it) solely on a source who he hadn't spoken to in over a decade, meaning that he hadn't confirmed that said source would back his story once told;


--Pujols' swift promise to file legal action is how an innocent person who wanted to seriously respond to the accusations and actually considered them false and defamatory would react;


--if Pujols is lying and Clark can afford to hire an attorney who does diligent discovery, he will likely regret it: bad stuff has a way of coming out in that process, and Pujols has often been accused of lying about his age--if there's a "real birth certificate" out there showing that he's older than he's always claimed, expect it to come out.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I haven't got much either way in terms of Clark's credibility

brutusettu's picture

but for double hyphen two Lance "The Vindictive Fraudulent Legal Action Filer" Armstrong.


Filing litigation is the exactly the kind of thing the Lance Armstrong's of the world would do.


M Scott Eiland's picture

But civil discovery can be a nasty business--if you know you're guilty, putting yourself through that when you might be found out *and* have other crap found out about you is not the brightest move in the world, as otherwise very smart and successful people have been finding out for a long time now, even before civil discovery became as powerful as it is now.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Back when judges could write well


You mean ' write good ' right?



In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Our spec for formal technical reports


says they have to be written in the third person or first person plural,  and the second person is not allowed.   We knew students wouldn't get that, so in the lecture they are told that "I" is only for current, and they cannot use the word "you".  


So,  some guy turned in a 15 page report written entirely in the second person, but with "you" replaced with "u".

I have a certain respect for the foolhardy


You have to give it to the guy who does something like that.  He'll change the world.  Not necessarily for the better, but he'll change it.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I cannot stand...


...people who write "u" or "ur", even on chat or SMS messages.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

MA, I question the wisdom of sharing a pet peeve


It's like saying "The chink in my armor is right here."  But for solidarity's sake I'll share mine.  I hate '2' used in lieu of 'to' or 'too'.  An immediate second is anyone who writes "lolz".  I simply can't help but view folks who do either as potential fertilizer.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I thought this bit was particularly good:


It’s in America that exposing what the government was up to was fraught with unpleasantnesses. In our free country there’s nothing of the sort. Just the opposite: people are encouraged to expose the machinations of the US government in every way, and are able to make excellent careers out of it.

This puts the last piece of the puzzle in place for me.


I understood how sugar consumed led to insulin rise which promotes fat storage, but I thought that sugar was just an energy giving food. limit your fat intake in combination with sugar and exercise to burn sugar calories and brush your teeth and all is ok.


The following is a 90 minute lecture from a certain Dr Lustig of California University who researches and treats obesity



Now, it is 90 minutes. I think it's one of the best 90 minutes I've spent in a long time. He walks us through the biochemisty of consuming fructose (ie table sugar and HFCS) and compares it with the other carbohydrates alcohol and glucose (the product of eating most carbs such as bread, pasta etc).


He conclusively makes that case that fructose is a toxin of the same strength as alcohol. 


Glucose is metabolised by every cell in the body and so a small quantity is dealt with by the liver. In the liver glucose is converted to glycogen which is stored in the liver. The liver is designed to store glycogen and it is more or less impossible to damage your liver by overloading on glucose. Glycogen is burned by the body in exercise.


Alcohol, after some breakdown in the stomach and gut is only metabolised by the brain and the liver. The effects on the CNS are well understood as are the effects on the liver. Alcoholics have fatty cirhosic livers because the liver doesn't convert alcohol to glycogen  but to fat.


Fructose is only metabolised by the liver. The reactions it undergoes and the end product are the same as for alcohol. Dosing yourself with fructose at the same level as an alcoholic doses himself with alcohol will give you exactly the same liver disease as that alcoholic. It also gives you the same heart disease problems for exactly the same metabolic reasons as the liver tries to clear itself of the fat generated by metabolising the sugar.


There are a whole list of secondary effects regarding insulin production, insulin resistance, colestorol generation, interference with the 3 hunger/full hormones which are also at work. 


The basic message is that not all calories are equal. The calories in a bowl of pasta are metabolised differently than those in a snickers bar. The sugar in the snickers bar is metabolised in the body and has the seame effects on the body as the chronic toxin alcohol. 


I would really encourage you to watch the 90 minutes of video. It is fascinating and the good Dr is a relatively good public speaker. His experience is both in research and on the front lines running a clinic for obese children.


The first emotion for me was wonder. Wonder that we live in a world where we have discovered the very basic chemical mechanisms by which the body regulates its energy balance and wonder at the complex beauty of the system itself.


I also changed the way I think in 2 ways:


1. My attitude to sugar is now completely changed. I consider the contents of our fridge as relatively healthy but after seeing this I will maek some changes. I will now rank all sources of sugar as the same and view as something to be dosed as with alcohol. I never allowed soft drinks into the house but we always had lenty of fresh, organic apple juice. That will now go. 


2. Regulation of sugar aseems inevitable to me. It might take years, as it did with tobacco, but I think it is inevitable. Bloomberg is not a crank. He is right and he is on the cutting edge of this. The greatest health imperative facing your nation is reduction of sugar in your foods. I haev been to your supermarkets and seen how ubiquitous it is. We are not far behind you.

One of the loops this closed for me was a Supersized One.


In Supersize Me, where our documentary maker goes on a diet of breakfast lunch and dinner at MacDonalds for a month.


Half way through his doctor is getting very concerned about the state of his liver. I had assumed there was a bit of hyperbole going on here. Our protagonist wanted to make a dramatic movie and, witha vegan girlfriend, I assumed he had it in for the golden arches.


Well, now I'm not so sure. The lecture above gives a clear pathway from sugar consumption (and a 5000 calorie a day diet of McD must add up to a lot of sugar) to liver damage.

National Geographic's August cover story was on the sugar too

brutusettu's picture

article is here



As a result, fat makes up a smaller portion of the American diet than it did 20 years ago. Yet the portion of America that is obese has only grown larger. The primary reason, says Johnson, along with other experts, is sugar, and in particular fructose. 


... an injection of sugar into the bloodstream stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain that respond to heroin and cocaine. All tasty foods do this to some extent—that’s why they’re tasty!—but sugar has a sharply pronounced effect. In this sense it is literally an addictive drug.


Sugar is Poison...Nyoos Principal Point....


....from the National Geographic Article:


“It has nothing to do with its calories,” says endocrinologist Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco. “Sugar is a poison by itself when consumed at high doses.”

Johnson summed up the conventional wisdom this way: Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.”


I have cut back seriously on my sugar intake....though I still from time to time gorge myself on Chocolate covered raisins...damn Costo for selling 3.3 pound jars of the stuff!


Like eeyn I eat tons and tons of fresh fruit....enough that it scares me sometimes.


But what the hell, it is better than a snickers bar! (though not better than a Cadbury Dark Chocolate raisin and nut bar)


Best Wishes, Traveller

Genesis makes more sense


now that it's clear why He didn't want them to eat the apple.


You're good at keeping a straight face so I'm not sure how serious you are on that last paragraph.  Tobacco is just one type of leaf out of hundreds of plants we consume routinely and if that particular form of enjoyment is banned there are many others; but fruit and sugar are a large fraction of what people eat and always have eaten.  There is a reason people call their significant others "Sweetie" rather than "Starchie" or "Fiberie" or "Sourie".  I have 17 different plants just in my yard that produce fruit;  no way you are going to comprehensively regulate how much fructose goes in my mouth.


As far a Bloomberg being a crank - our disagreement is not about chemistry.

I am perfectly serious on number 2.


I look at it this way. If you disagree with any of these points then you will disagree with my conclusion, but you're not allowed to disagree with point 2 without first investing the 90 minutes:


1. There is a health crisis in America related to obesity and heart disease.

2. This crisis is primarily caused by increased fructose consumption.

3. This health crisis is serious enough that action will be taken to blunt it, as was done in the 70s to reduce fat consumption.


Of course you are right, people have always eaten fruit and sugar. In the 1700s people were consuming 20 lbs or so of the stuff annually and to do so they typically had to consume a lot of fibre with it by eating an actual piece of fruit. Now people are consuming on average 150lbs annually with most of that coming in low or no-fibre foods and drinks. 


Of course I don't think fructose can be regulated like a class A drug (thank goodness) but it's use in industrial food production (which is where most people get their food from) could be, as could serving sizes for sweet drinks. 

You should watch the video.

mmghosh's picture

Its not just about fructose.  Fructose taken in whole fruit is OK, because of the other components of fruit that work against excessive fructose absorption.  And because its not as concentrated as HFCS.


It was horrifying to learn that HFCS was/is used in infant formula.  Are formula makers mad?  I checked this up to see if it was true.  It is.  As the man says, its like feeding 'em vodka.  "Similac Sensitive Formula for Fussiness and Gas" indeed.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Too bad, we prefer juice


Last season our various citrus trees produced 300-400 lbs of fruit,  probably close to 200 lbs of that was Ruby Red grapefruit.   Normally we give away a lot to friends but due to circumstances we no longer have any,  so Mrs. Eeyn and I were forced to consume all of it.   Since a lot of it stayed on the tree late in the season they got sweeter than oranges.  I had four or five tall (12 oz) glasses of grapefruit juice every day for maybe eight weeks.  Only gained 10 lbs or so, negligible really given the starting weight.


This year there was a drought and we'll be lucky to get 50 lbs total.


Infant formula article:  The linked article doesn't give any numbers.  Clearly the optimum amount of sugars in infant formula isn't zero,  since natural milk has some.  If the author had used the space available to give some quantitative comparisons or to tell us how fructose compares to lactose,  instead of gasping over the fact that some brands are made by corporations that are subsidiaries of other corporations,  maybe I'd see the point.

Natural milk has a lot of sugar.


in the form of lactose. I know lactose, like sucrose, is a disacharide made up of glucose and galactose (as opposed to fructose for sucrose) and that galactose is metabolised mostly in the liver and i think the main difference between it and fructose is that it ends up as glucose rather than fat, but I'd love to know more. 


As for your juice consumption, it sounds fantastic. I adore sweet pink grapefruit. I would rather pour half of it back onto the ground than gain 10 lbs though. 


But realy, take the 90 minutes to watch the video. If nothing else it is a fantastic add for American academia. It shows what an incredible asset and force for public good a strong academic institution can be.

Mrs Cuddly is going to be thrilled with you


when I tell her you said the reason she calls me "A$$hole" is because of her tastes in food.  Seriously, thanks, somebody needs to take the heat off of me.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Crank, Tool, P***--Po-Tay-Toe, Po-Tah-Toe, Totalitarian :-P

M Scott Eiland's picture


. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I do have a great deal of respect


for Nyoos Junkey.    This respect led me to select the 44 oz Coke when picking up lunch at Stripes,  rather than the 64 oz I was seriously considering.   However, as a result I'm still thirsty (it's 101 today) so I might get another 44 oz later on the way home.

If you selected a beverage


with a little less salt and caffeine you might be a little less thirsty.


But i understand. I get a coke craving about twice a year and there is no point fighting it.

Fascinating! But you can make your own orange juice.

mmghosh's picture

Explained here.

For industrially-produced orange juice, after the oranges are squeezed, the juice is stored in giant holding tanks and the oxygen is removed from them, which allows the liquid to keep for up to a year without spoiling.  It also makes the juice completely flavorless. So the industry uses “flavor packs” to re-flavor the juice.  (You know you are buying a heavily processed juice if the "Best Before" date is 60 or more days in the future, because real fresh-squeezed orange juice will only last for a few days.)


While oranges and fresh squeezed orange juice can be a good source of vitamins and other nutrients, it's also very high in fructose. In fact, one eight-ounce glass of orange juice has about eight full teaspoons of sugar and at least 50 percent of that sugar is fructose. That's almost as much as a can of soda, which contains approximately 10 teaspoons of sugar.

So one eight-ounce glass of orange juice will wallop your system with 25 grams of fructose, which is more than you should have the entire day. Since fructose is loaded into just about every processed food, it would be very difficult to avoid exceeding your daily fructose limit of 25 grams per day.


When the sugar is combined in its natural form in the whole fruit it causes far less of a problem, as the fiber tends to slow its absorption and prevents over consumption. But once you remove the fiber, you end up with a different product. Additionally, a lot of the antioxidants are also lost in the process—especially if it has been pasteurized, which most store bought juices are.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Gentlemen, You Need Some Chill Images....


...and for Snowden who I continue to hope that he does well; people may carp and complain but Mr. Snowden was trapped in Russia though no choice of his own, and would leave immediately but for the continuing criminal actions of the United States Government....aided and abetted by many and most cowardly Western nations.


Well, we get the future we ask for, God help us and if he doesn't, I do have some fun for you below. Enjoy!


Comments are beneath the pictures:


A Quiet Sparkling of Gentle Water


Harbor Sea Wall, Caesarea, Israel


The Balcony (hint, Disney Hall, Downtown Los Angeles)


Emerald is the Color of my True Love's Eyes


Three Balls in the Air Doth Magicians Make


Surfer Girl


Butcher's Block


White No. 1


See, even if God forsakes you, Traveller provides a smile.


Best Wishes, T