Band camp!

I have told you before about the wonders of "band camp." To review... for the last 25 years, a group of us, mostly musicians, have headed to the woods of either Maine or New Hampshire to hang out and rock out for a long weekend. Conveniently, we have bass, guitar and drums covered, and we rotate the vocals around because none of us sing well enough to claim the role of lead singer to the exclusion of everyone else. But for our 25th year -- to a NH cabin -- a few things have changed.

Beer -- or at least the mass consumption of it -- has given way, thanks to the combined effects of paleo eating and a bit of age, to the more primal-friendly (no gluten) whisky (single malt) or whiskey (bourbon). And thanks to a new member of the tribe, the vocals have gotten better to a degree that we have mostly handed them off to the newcomer so the rest of us can hunker down and rock. And, again thanks to the paleo/primal angle, the pre-trip planning includes making sure we have enough crockpots along to keep us on a steady diet of carnivorous goodness.

This year's playlist of covers has things on it that we never would have attempted in prior years: things with "real" vocals like the Hoodoo Gurus, Big Dipper, Screaming Trees and Face to Face, along with some shouters like Fugazi and Mudhoney (although a credible case could be made that Mark Arm is "singing" a lot more than he is shouting). But, fear not... we will still get 61-year-old Willie all liquored up for at least one bluesy belter; we have our eyes on Joe Cocker's amped-up take on "The Letter" this time around for that trip into late-night good times. Last year's combo of "Voodoo Chile (Slight Return" (Hendrix) and "I Am Right" (Dictators) was a Willie vocal take for the record books.

With any luck, during the day we will get in some quality hikes through the snow (if there is any), maybe even a stomp on a frozen lake (if it's really frozen), or, better yet, a game or two of frozen-pond whiffle ball. With more luck, the power will stay on the whole time, as will the hot water and the heat. Hey, we used to do this trip in November in a (fucking) cold cabin in Maine with no heat except a fireplace and not a drop of running water. We grew out of that.

Or maybe we have gotten soft. I prefer to think of it as "improved and even more awesome." Every minute we are not spending crouched behind a tree taking a dump in the woods or continually restocking the woodpile, we have to become the best cover band you never will hear. Yeah, this weekend rules. Bring on the whisky, the meat and the punk rock.

A political thought for the moment

So here we are, political junkies. It turns out that Rick Santorum won Iowa, Mitt Romney won New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich won South Carolina. And now it looks like Gingrich may either win Florida or at least keep it close enough that the race will continue for a very long time.

A few things seem really obvious:

1. Republicans don't really want Mitt Romney to be their nominee.
2. Newt Gingrich is just the non-Romney of the moment, not The Guy Republicans Really Want.
3. Neither Rick Santorum nor Ron Paul are going to win the nomination.

How about this crazy possibility, hmmm? Tonight, the GOP response to the president's State of the Union speech will be delivered by Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. You know...he who would be so effing far ahead right now if he had only decided to run that this thing wouldn't even be close? But he didn't run. Imagine if he delivers what is, from a GOP perspective, a killer response to the SOTU that makes the current crop of candidates look like morons.

Slowly but surely over the next week or so, folks at establishment GOP places like the National Review start making noise about drafting Mitch Daniels as a candidate. The groundswell is then huge, to a degree that Daniels gives in and gets on enough remaining state ballots and wins enough delegates that there is not a first-ballot nominee at the convention.

Second ballot: the GOP nominee is Mitch Daniels.

If this happens, I want some sort of award for political acuity. And, of course, if it doesn't, I still want credit for calling the Santorum Iowa win.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Never stop learning

So far -- and I have a feeling this will continue for a while -- paleo/primal eating has been a never-ending series of dietary tweaks. Just when I think I have things totally dialed-in, I read some (or often many) smart things written by smart people that make me consider a change, sometimes a big one, sometimes just a small adjustment.

Lately, overall, thanks to a new membership in the Weston A. Price Foundation, I have things tightened up to a degree that, at home, grassfed ghee or butter is in most of our meals, *all* the beef and lamb are grassfed, seed/vegetable oils (except coconut and non-heated olive oil) are avoided and fish-oil capsules and Vitamin D have given way to those Green Pasture fermented-cod-liver-oil/butter-oil blend capsules that I previously raved about. In fact, despite a profound and longstanding habit of using the stuff pre-workout, I have even resolved to make this my last container of Muscle Milk 100% whey protein because it has soy lecithin in it. A further resolution is to go to a local farm to buy raw-milk cheese. We are really good about eating grassfed cheese, like Kerrygold Dubliner, but the non-pasteurized/raw-milk grassfed stuff is a great source of K2, so we are going to try that out. Oh, and last post I told you about the homemade liver pate. So what else is there?

Well, most recently, there's the kombucha. I had never even heard of the stuff as of just a few weeks ago, but then my wife read up on it, and then I did the same and learned that, a lot like raw fermented sauerkraut, kombucha -- a fermented tea beverage that is a bit of an acquired taste -- is great for maintaining a crazy healthy digestive tract because it is full of live (good for you) bacteria. You may recall that many of the inflammation issues associated with the standard American diet begin with poor/diminished gut flora. Kombucha fights all that and reestablishes a healthy gut. I am happily drinking a pint of it (commercially available at our local Whole Foods) every day for the month of January, and already, eight days in, a bit of GERD brought on by the festive holidays has completely subsided. I am pretty well hooked. I feel effing great.

And I guess that's the *real* point of this little ramble -- that we keep making changes and I keep feeling better. Yeah, our food bills are up, but the fact that we feel so damn good is the payoff. I will do a full-blown homage to the Weston A. Price Foundation in another post, but let's just say that I am amazed at how much I have learned about paleo/primal eating just since I joined WAP last month. This paleo/primal journey really is a never-ending lesson about the value of great food.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Paleo beef-liver pate (now with bacon!)-- the way to get yer liver on

Liver is one of those "super foods" that you really ought to be eating. Its nutrient-dense quality delivers a punch that few other foods can match.

But it tastes like liver. Yeah, I know.

But just how grossed out are you? I know a lot of people, myself included, who like liverwurst just fine, but actual liver is still a bit, er, livery. If you are one of those folks, the solution may be to make some beef-liver pate. It's like liverwurst without the casing. So, maybe you want to give this a whirl... and, by the way, this recipe is not a burst of originality from me. It is an amalgam of a few that I found in my Google travels. And now, as of 1/16/12, it is modified a bit at the very bottom of this post to incorporate bacon, if you like (and you do).

Paleo beef-liver pate

--1 lb. grassfed beef liver. No, not just "organic." Grassfed. This is the effing liver we are talking about here. It processes all the nastiness of the world. You want your liver-donating cow to have dined solely on grass, not grain-based feed that cows are not supposed to eat. You wouldn't want to eat your alcoholic friend Bob's liver, so why would you eat the liver of a cow that has been poisoning itself on grain? Get grassfed.
--some rosemary
--some thyme
--a shot or two of some bodacious Scotch whisky. And for the love of all that is good and right, please tell me you are using a single-malt. Bonus paleo-drummer points for using one from Islay or Skye.
--at least a 1/2 cup of grassfed butter (Kerrygold is great).
-- some garlic
--a small/medium onion

Fry up the liver and onions in a pan in a little bit of the butter. Make sure the onions are caramelized and the liver fully cooked. Then add the garlic, rosemary, thyme and whisky to the pan. No, I don't know how much garlic, rosemary or thyme to use. Just use some until it feels right. (Hint: everything will feel much closer to right if you pour a little of the whisky for yourself, or, for that matter, for me).

Keep on frying/cooking with the lid off the pan to get rid of a little of the liquid. Maybe 5 minutes or so after you added the garlic, etc. I don't know. I am not a cook.

Put contents of pan (that's everything you've cooked so far) plus the rest of the butter (softened in microwave if you like... it's easier that way) into a food processor and process that baby until it is creamy beautiful. Add more butter to the processing if it seems too dry.

You can store it in the fridge for a week or the freezer for a month. If you drizzle a little melted butter on it before refrigerating or freezing, it comes out extra-awesome. My liver was a hair less than a pound, so I split it into three containers. Most recommendations that I read say that 1/4 pound of liver a week is a good level of intake, so three or four little containers will get you through about a month. Put one in the fridge and freeze the rest.

Here's a pic of the finished product because Kate (vs. Food) tells me I need more pics on here. Note Philly Cowshare package to prove authenticity of grassfed liver. Yes, it looks like little containers of mushy poop. No, it does not taste that way. Enjoy.

The vaunted "bacon modification":

Instead of cooking everything in a bit of the butter, fry up two slices of bacon for every 1/4 pound of liver. Put them aside and then cook the whole shebang in (some of? all of? your call) the bacon fat instead of butter. Do everything else as in the main recipe. Then crumble the cooked bacon and mix it in with the finished product once you have made the pate. Ooh la la. I suppose you could add the actual bacon *before* the food processor, but then you would not have crunchy bits in the pate, and that would be wrong.

"The Fat Trap," the New York Times and the cheap copout that it invites

I wonder if you've seen it yet. It's called "The Fat Trap," and it ran in the New York Times on December 28, 2011.

And it has made me very angry.

I first learned about it from a (non-paleo/primal) friend who asked me, "Did you see that New York Times article? Basically it says that because of changes in hormonal signaling, and other chemical reactions, fat people who lose weight are almost predestined to put it back on. You'd have to live a life of misery to keep it off. I think what it really means is that we should all just quit trying."

My mind exploded. First, I was heartened by the fact that a dietary-focused article was, apparently, discussing the role of hormones, like cortisol, insulin and leptin, in weight and body-composition management. So, a small part of the mental explosion was fueled by a positive thought of: "Hey, did the mainstream media just finally get off the epic failure of calories-in/calories-out, and start focusing on cortisol, insulin and leptin regulation as a big key to health? That has amazing possibilities."

But, obviously, based on my friend's ultimate takeaway from the article -- that it's all futile anyway unless you want to be over-exercised, miserable and hungry forever -- somewhere the wheels came off the cart. Could it just be that my friend reached the wrong conclusion?

Sadly, no.

I went and read the article. And while my pal's doom-and-gloom/eff-it-all conclusion is a bit, shall we say, dramatic, I see how she reached it.

The article begins with a statement from an Aussie weight-loss doctor who claims to find it "very strange" that overweight people whom he put on a 550-calorie-a-day diet of "two special shakes called Optifast and two cups of low-starch vegetables" first lost "an average of 30 pounds" in eight weeks, and then, within a year, almost always gained much of it back. The patients feel hungry much of the time, and are "more ... preoccupied with food than before they lost the weight."

550 calories a day? To steal a (paraphrased) line from strength coach Greg Everett, "I just wiped more than 550 calories off my chin after breakfast. You can't live on that."

I am not a doctor. I have a B.S. in Biology that I never use because I am a lawyer (and, just to review, we don't talk about that here, ever). Everything I know about nutrition I have learned from reading smart things written by smart people like Mark Sisson, Robb Wolf, Richard Nikoley and Liz Wolfe, to name but a very very smart few. But even I know that if the way you lose weight is to starve yourself -- and let's be clear: 550 calories per day is starving yourself -- when you stop starving yourself your body is going to react like, duh, you've been starving yourself. It is going to freak out.

The amazing, and frustrating, thing about this article is that it briefly seems to express an understanding that weight loss and gain is related to leptin and insulin regulation -- rather impressively noting that some people, the metabolically deranged (my term, not the writer's), seem to turn everything they eat into more body fat -- and then all that progress gets trashed in a nearly instantaneous reversion into calories-in/calories-out thinking, with a nod to "low-fat is good/high-fat is bad" nonsense as well.

Yes, insulin resistance and leptin resistance -- brought on, most often, by years of eating processed foods, particularly grains -- is bad and will absolutely trash your metabolism and your body's ability to deal with the food you consume. That much the article got right. But the "solution" -- a low-fat, drastically-low-calorie regimen, causing massive weight loss, followed by a slow return to more calories, but still with a low-fat focus -- is nonsense; it's potentially dangerous nonsense at that because it does nothing to reverse insulin/leptin-regulation issues. All that "diet" does is starve a metabolically-deranged person, and then start feeding him or her again, while the person is still metabolically deranged.

And this routine surprised someone -- a doctor, no less -- when it caused hungry, grumpy, starving patients who couldn't manage their weight?

It's madness.

So what is the solution? The simple solution is to read either or both of Gary Taubes' book "Why We Get Fat" or Robb Wolf's "The Paleo Solution." Both of those books will teach you that calories-in/calories-out is garbage. What matters is hormone regulation and there are three components to weight loss/management that targets hormone regulation: sleep, nutrition and exercise.

In. That. Order.

I repeat: sleep first, then nutrition, then exercise.

Again, that article got one thing right: it's all about hormone regulation, particularly cortisol, insulin and leptin. You cannot get those issues together if you are not getting a good night of sleep in a dark room. Once you do that, stop eating grains. Stop eating seed oils, like canola, cottonseed, etc. Stop eating soy. Stop eating things in boxes and bags. They are all processed. Eat only animal protein, good fat (avocado, coconut oil, even olive oil if you don't overheat it), vegetables and a little fruit.

The changes are amazing. Most of all, they are sustainable. You can eat to satiety (that's fullness, kids). The good fat will make, and keep, you full. You will get your metabolic derangement in order. Once your hormone regulation is in order, you will lose weight if that's what you need to do because your body is now properly regulating cortisol, insulin and leptin and so it isn't turning everything you eat into body fat. It also is avoiding the insulin spikes and crashes of the metabolically deranged. (You know, the ones that cause the "crazy hungry" feeling so common to the standard low-fat/high-carb diet? I know them well.... They ruined my life for years). And when you lose that excess weight, if you just keep eating this way, you will keep it off. Why, because you have gotten those hormones under control.

Throw some weight-training in, and maybe even a little of what you call "cardio," and you will accelerate the whole process, and feel even better. But exercise is not the grail here. Sleep and proper nutrition are far more important.

The thing that makes me angry about the NYT article isn't that it made mistakes. Hell, it seems like all the mainstream nutrition writing falls back on nonsensical calories-in/calories-out thinking, when, in fact, how your body handles those calories is all about proper insulin, leptin and cortisol management. No, my anger -- or maybe "frustration" is a better word -- stems from the fact that unlike all the completely wrongheaded nutrition info out there, this article came tantalizingly close to the answer. And then threw it all away, likely causing the casual reader to toss up his or her hands and think that it's all a lost cause, anyway, so eff this and pass the cookies.

And, really, it is so simple. Note: not "easy," but simple. It just takes time and a commitment to a lifestyle change -- a really delicious, satisfying change at that-- not a crash "diet" that never fixes the underlying metabolic derangement. Rather, how about a new way of eating that has you eating real food and feeling full and satisfied, with barely a need to snack?

This article makes weight management seem impossible and painful and, in the end, not worth the effort. Yet, when done with the correct focus, it is simple and well worth it. You *will* have to change your life and your habits. You will *not* have to go on a crash "diet."

Don't give up. Go paleo.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Your dog is not your child

Bart: Hey Homer, are there dogs in heaven?
Homer: Yeah! Of course there are.
Bart: Are there dogs in hell?
Homer: I guess so.
Bart: Tell me one dog that's in hell.
Homer: Um, Hitler's dog?

-- The Simpsons (from memory, not the script)

We just spent the holidays with my wife's family, like we usually do, and, once again, my in-laws' dog did a fine job of wrecking things.

But it's not the dog's fault.

See, you may own just one dog, and you may think of it as your baby, or your child or whatever, but it's a dog, and dogs need training. Because when you don't train the dog, the dog takes over. If the dog is a German shepherd or a pit bull, and it starts running the show, you are going to notice really fast, and probably do something about it. That "something" is either going to be getting rid of the dog, or training it and you. If you don't, someone is going to get hurt.

But if the dog is a ten-pound Bichon/somethingelsereallyfuckingsmall mix, and you are my in-laws, you are going to do nothing. And it turns into mess.

This dog is in charge of the house. She thinks my in-laws are subordinate to her, the pack leader, and she guards them. She even guards them from each other. On Christmas day, my mother-in-law bent down to peck my father-in-law on the cheek as a thanks for a present. But Little Mussolini was on his lap and took a snarling leap at her face, missing by inches and growling at her until she backed off. Her reaction, "Oh, Maggie [Mussolini's actual name], it's OK."

Really?

We were sitting across the room with our three dogs, all of whom had looks on their faces that seemed to say, "Hey! Dogs can't do that!" and my wife said to her mom, "You know mom, this wouldn't be cute if she were a big dog." Her mom, totally missing the point, replied, "Oh, we would never have a big dog!"

I repeat: really?

And, before any of you dog haters start, it's not that LM is a "bad" dog. She just needs, like all dogs, some discipline and guidance. She is a pack animal -- again like all dogs -- and a pack animal is either a leader or a follower. No canine should be "leading" a pack of humans. When LM is away from her owners, but still in the same house -- like when they go off to church on Christmas and leave us at their home with LM and our dogs -- you should see LM immediately get in line. Zen quietude envelopes the home. There is no snarling, growling or any bad behavior at all. When our puppy approaches LM, instead of acting like Linda Blair's stunt double in The Exorcist, LM acts like a dog -- sniffing butts, wagging tails, the whole nine yards. Or if she really just doesn't want to be bothered by the annoying puppy, she walks away.

But the moment her owners return, LM is right back to battling Hitler's dog for that número uno spot in Simpsons canine hell.

It will never change, and, in the end, I am just bitching like a a crabby motherfucker who had much of his Christmas holiday interrupted by a miserable dog's endless kvetching and snarling. But, if you are reading this, do all of us a favor that my in-laws will not: train your dog. He/she doesn't have to be perfect, but your dog has to know its place in the pack.

And that's not in the front.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Inexplicable

If you had a disease that negatively affects your life in a significant way and someone told you that you could beat that disease and get off your meds simply by eating animal protein, vegetables and fruits and not eating grains, legumes or dairy, would you do it?

Better yet, would you at least *try* it?

I wonder.

I just had a conversation with two people recently about paleo eating. Both eat a standard American diet (SAD), full of grains, seed oils, processed foods, "low-fat" foods, etc. One has hypothyroidism, possibly Hashimoto's disease, and is having a tough time with her weight management and a host of other issues as a result. The other has an autoimmune disorder that sends him to the hospital for platelet transfusions every so often when his body, as a result of the disorder, destroys his supply of platelets. He also has pretty serious eczema, which is almost always an autoimmune-related condition.

When my wife and I suggested how paleo eating, particularly under an autoimmune protocol, might improve both of their conditions, you would have thought we suggested eating dirt and giving up indoor plumbing. We even were sure to present the whole deal as a 30-day-trial sort of idea -- you know, go on a strict 30 days of eating right and see how you feel. But I doubt, from their collective reaction, that they are going to give it more than a moment's consideration.

What the hell?

I mean....Really? You are *that* attached to pizza and beer because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy when you eat it that even the prospect of beating a disease that ruining your life isn't worth giving up the crap diet and just eating meat, veggies and fruit? This isn't eating weird food, or raw food or anything unusual. It's just giving up the bad stuff. There is a world of delicious, fat-filled, wonderful food you can still eat that is waiting for you.

Better yet, you can beat a disease that is making you feel horrible and, in one instance, sending you to the hospital on a regular basis.

Even better, it's a *30-day trial* fergodsakes. At the end of 30 days, if you don't feel better, you can go back to that SAD you love so much, and you will have lost nothing in the attempt.

Really, I just don't understand.... I have a world of respect for nutritionists who deal with this nonsense on a regular basis. It is hard to imagine how they don't just say, "Look, I don't actually give a shit. Do it, or don't. If you want to feel better, stop eating the following foods and eat these ones instead. If you don't, keep on digging a grave with a fork. It's your call. But for godsakes, stop pretending that the absence of pizza in your life is a crisis."


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Iowa

I haven't blabbed on about politics in a while, but don't let that fool you into thinking that I haven't been following the sideshow like the hardcore junkie that I am.

I can't help but be obsessed/fascinated with the fact that most of the GOP primary/caucus field seems to hate Mitt Romney. The man has been out there campaigning for six years now, and he can't top 25%. And in Iowa, he is somewhere lower than that. His penchant for taking both sides of almost any issue has not served him well.

So, my going theory for a while now has been that the GOP nominee will likely be Anybody But Romney, despite the fact that Romney (and Jon Hunstman) easily have the best chance of any of the current crop of candidates to appeal to independent voters in the general election.

This theory means that when Rick Perry got into the race, I just kind of assumed that the GOP would jump for him, but then he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag and, somewhere along the line, the bulk of that party thought, quite reasonably, that President Obama would make him look like a dope in a debate, and they ran elsewhere. But I never really believed that Bachmann, Cain or Gingrich could emerge as the new Not Romney. Bachmann can't stop saying stupid things -- like the HPV vaccine nonsense -- and Cain was never *really* running to win; it was all just a low-tech book tour for him. And I don't think Gingrich was on much more than a book tour either, a fact which has played out in recent weeks when his Iowa numbers have risen briefly only to tumble because he has neither the money nor the organization to seal the deal there.

I still think there is some ultra-remote chance of Jon Huntsman gaining a foothold in New Hampshire. Although where would he go from there, you have to wonder, but I am going to lay off the NH prediction for now. Let's wait to see what happens in Iowa, and, really, Huntsman is not even competing there at all -- an acknowledgment of his from the outset that he couldn't hope to win in such a socially conservative state. Huntsman is not even on the radar in Iowa.

So.... what will Iowa do? From here, it looks to me like Ron Paul is going to win there, or at least do very very well. The only hitch in that prediction is whether he can get his supporters to caucus for him, but if they do you can be damn sure they are not going to compromise once the "caucusing" gets going and end up throwing their support to someone else. The Paulistas are a loyal lot. Getting them to show up at a caucus -- this is no five-minute exercise in "voting"; it is a night of work -- is the only potential problem. But if his folks show up, Ron Paul will do very well in Iowa.

Where I think the candidate-switching, caucus-style, is going to occur is among the social conservatives. Right now, their votes are spread out among Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum. When the chips are down, and none of them are pulling enough caucus support to get over the hump into credibility, alliances will change and re-shape. Given Bachmann's status as yesterday's news, Perry's inability to speak more than a few coherent sentences in a row under pressure, and Gingrich's plummeting numbers overall, I think Iowa may shock everyone and give big numbers to Rick Santorum. Big enough to beat Romney? Yeah. Big enough to beat Paul? That seems a little less clear. It depends on just how much horse-trading goes on when caucus night arrives. But, in the end, I see Paul and Santorum as the top two in Iowa, in one order or the other, with Romney struggling in third place.

And yes, I know that my thoughts on Santorum are somewhat biased. You may recall that a long time ago, I pegged him as the Repub that Dems ought to fear the most, not necessarily as the most electable, but as reasonably electable while simultaneously so far out to lunch on the crazy train of social conservatism that the prospect of his election as president ought to scare you. My only caveat at the time was his seemingly uncontrollable urge to turn *every* issue into a diatribe against abortion and/or gay marriage. If he couldn't get that nonsense under control and stress the economy over the bedroom issues, then his "electability" rating for the general election would plunge.

Put differently, Rick Santorum scares the crap out of me -- I have told you before that social conservatives freak me out -- and part of my long-ago post about him was driven by that fear. But, for whatever reason -- perhaps linked to that penchant he has for bringing up abortion and gay marriage at every turn -- he has been labeled "unelectable" in the press and has never caught on with the nationwide GOP. And, up until recently, despite making a second home out of Iowa, he has not caught on much there either. But that Iowa situation has been changing rapidly. Santorum has recently picked up social-conservative endorsements and, pretty obviously, that primary electorate is in a huge state of flux lately. The only thing they seem to be sure of is that they don't want Mitt Romney. Some of them like Ron Paul a lot, but then there is a whole block of social-conservative moralizing retrobots, eager to re-instill the "morals" of 1952 in us, whether we want it or not. It's *those* people I fear the most and who just may, on caucus night, band together, like they have in the past for Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson, and vote for the biggest moralizer of their bunch as their Not Romney of the evening-- Rick Santorum.

And now that I have said that, it puts me in a real spot when it comes to whom to root for on Iowa caucus night. Now that Gary Johnson has skipped town to run for the Libertarian Party nomination, the only one of these folks I genuinely respect is Huntsman. He has the gravitas, the smarts and the experience to be a good president, even if I disagree with him on some things (e.g., abortion rights). I would like to see him get the nomination. It would make for a fascinating/adult race with him running against the president. That is an unlikely scenario, and its only chance is if Huntsman does very well in NH. "Doing really well in NH" for Huntsman requires the winner of the Iowa caucuses to be: (a) not Mitt Romney (indeed, the worse Romney does in Iowa, the better for Huntsman's chances in NH), and (b) someone who can't carry that victory to NH and do anything with it. The "a" part of that scenario will take care of itself, I believe, and the "b" issue is well-served if Rick Santorum wins Iowa, because if there is a political candidate out there without a prayer of winning the NH primary, it is Rick Santorum. NH Republicans are famously pro-gun/pro-choice libertarians, and Santorum's moralizing-bedroom-monitor schtick simply does not sell there (file under: why I love NH).

But... gross.... That means I am not only predicting Rick Santorum to come in first or second in Iowa, but actually rooting for him to win there? Ugh. If that all comes true, you'll find me: (a) briefly spiking the football and shaking my moneymaker over my accurate prediction, and then (b) shuddering in fear. Because, really, no one in that field scares me like Rick Santorum.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Keep on moving

The recent death of Christopher Hitchens, whose writing and intellect I enjoyed very much over the years, brought up a predictable line of discussion on the interwebs that focused on two questions: (1) was he going to have a deathbed conversion from a lifetime of atheism** to belief in a higher power? and (2) depending on the answer to the first question, was he, ultimately, in some sort of afterlife where he regretted (or reveled in) his lack of faith (or newfound faith)?

Neither of those questions hold much interest for me. The first seems rather insulting -- as if to think he would change the very core of who he was at the last moment out of convenience or fear. Indeed, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, Hitchens specifically rejected the notion of a deathbed conversion, going so far as to say that the only possibility of such an event would be if his medication caused him to lose his mind. And the second question, obviously, presumes an afterlife -- an idea for which which I am not onboard, not out of any sort of militancy; I just can't wrap my brain around it, and I can't "believe" in something that simply does not compute for me.

But, despite all that, the second question got me wondering nonetheless, just in a different direction: about how belief or non-belief in an afterlife affects one's ability to "move on" when grieving the death of a loved one. Being a "here and now" sort of guy, as well as a libertarian-ish sort, I don't care whether you believe in an afterlife (or a god, for that matter, but we are focused on the afterlife question, which doesn't hinge necessarily on belief in a deity). That is your gig. Rather, I am curious how that belief, or lack thereof, affects your life in the here and now. Does it get you to a better psychic dimension in terms of coping with, and overcoming grief, or does it simply prolong the suffering?

I think the reflexive response that most believers in an afterlife would have is that it gives them great comfort to know that their dead friend/relative is "in a better place" rather than simply "gone." But I wonder. "Gone" is stark, but it is also: (a) absolutely factual in terms of your ability to interact with that person in *this* lifetime, and (2) because of its starkness, the first step toward "moving on" in the here and now. The believer treats the dead loved one not as "gone," but as living in a place where he or she cannot interact with the living and, so, one's thoughts about the deceased are not merely confined to happy memories, but rather necessarily extend to suppositions and mental machinations regarding just where the person is ("heaven" or otherwise) and what the person is currently doing. As a result, there is not merely the loss of death to deal with, but the ongoing separation of the living from those "living" in the afterlife. You haven't just lost your son/daughter/wife/husband/friend. You've lost them and they are living somewhere else where you can't see them in this life. And imagine the even greater, more awful, complications in the case of suicide; some religions do not believe in a happy afterlife for those poor souls. What then for practitioners of such a faith who have lost a loved one to suicide, and now have to cope with thoughts of so much more than just the loss in the here and now?

Ouch. What a burden. It's not one I care to bear. In fact, it seems unduly painful. When a friend of mine died a few years back, it hurt, but I can't imagine how I would have moved past that moment if I thought he were taken away to be elsewhere where I and his other friends could not see him. It would be as if he'd been shipped off to North Korea.

Instead, yeah, I miss my friend, but I have, for lack of a better term, "compartmentalized" his death. He was "then"; he is not "now." None of my "now" thoughts include him. Sure, I think about good times we had. I even occasionally think how much he might have enjoyed something-- a band, an album, whatever-- from the present, but I never think about how or what he is doing right now. He isn't doing anything. He's dead.

Harsh? Yeah. But I have moved on. I suspect I wouldn't have done so very well if I believed in an afterlife.

And I am not claiming to have all the answers on this question. I am just offering a point of view that you may not have considered. Like I said, I don't care where you are at on this issue. You might, for instance, say that it gives you great comfort and even a thrill to envision the reunion you will have in the afterlife with your dead loved one. My only answer to that is that it has little to do with the here and now, which is my concern. It strikes me as a horrible shame to spend one's days focused more on the ethereal, unknowable aspects of the future than on the issues of the present day. Life is wonderful; live it.

I keep returning to this theme, but it's a short time we have on the planet. Do your best. And that may not be possible if you get hung up too long on anything that, ultimately, you need to get past.




**A short digression: I am not an enormous fan of the word "atheist" as a label because it describes a person based on what he or she does *not* believe in -- a very odd notion, if you ask me -- but it is such common parlance at this point that I have used it here. Any "atheists" that I know believe so fervently in so many things (often so many *different* things, depending on the person, but, almost always, in science and reason) that it seems like an insult to label them in the negative based upon what they do *not* believe in, as if their core is a black hole of non-belief in anything.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What's in a name?

This time, I didn't just change the name of the blog; I changed the URL. Sure, the old blogspot URL works too, so if that one strikes your fancy, blows up your skirt or otherwise suits you better, go right ahead and use it. It'll still get you here. But it is officially "The Paleo Drummer" from here on out.

This blog-name thing all started back in the days when this was called "More Spiel," an homage to the Minutemen, just about my favorite punk-rock band ever. But, somewhere along the line, things took a turn away from the musical and more toward the food/exercise/life angle. So, being the patient sort, I gave myself about 30 seconds to come up with a new name (NOW!), and I chose: "Hit Drums. Bang Rocks. Eat Meat," which I kind-of liked. It had the drummer and the caveman thing in there, at least.

But my wife asked a reasonable question: "How do the rocks come into it?" I had a limited number of reasonable answers to that. ("Limited" = none). So for about two hours the other day, the name was shortened to: "Hit Drums. Eat Meat." It was mercifully concise.

But eventually -- meaning two hours later -- I started to lust after my very own real/honest-to-bejeezus URL, y'know, one without the "blogspot" in there. Like a real website; y'know, like on the internets.

And, truth be told, not only does "Hit Drums. Bang Rocks. Eat Meat" look unwieldy and long when compressed into a single run-on one-word URL, but, more disturbing, whether you use that one or even the compressed/one-word version of merely "Hit Drums. Eat Meat," the resulting URL appears to have the word/phrase "seatmeat" in it.

I don't know what "seatmeat" is, but I am positive that it has nothing to do with this blog.

So that was right out.

Some other guy was already calling himself the Primal Drummer, so that was out too, even though my way of eating is technically more "primal" (i.e., includes some grassfed dairy) than strict "paleo." Plus, "primal drummer" sounds like someone you would meet at a drum circle.

You would never meet me at a drum circle.

So... "The Paleo Drummer" it is. I like it. It is short, to the point and still has the drums in there along with the food/caveman reference.

And, really, now that I have changed the URL, you and I are pretty much stuck with it. So get used to it, and look at the positive side: no seatmeat.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad