Down the Memory Hole
Politics
| May 30, 2008
| Tim
Sometimes, I remember things I'm probably supposed to have forgotten.
For example, what happened to the charges against Tom Delay -- who was (I was told) deeply corrupt and clearly guilty. If he was truly corrupt, why did Ronnie Earl apparently drop all interest in prosecution the minute Delay stepped down? Was he no longer interested in prosecuting a criminal? Or had he achieved his real goal?
And what of Cindy Sheehan? How did her run for Congress go? Her supporters cared deeply about her well-being -- where are they now? And what will she do with that lovely piece of land she bought in Crawford, Texas? Perhaps Bush will be nice enough to have her over (again) after he steps down.
Then there was Jena. It was supposed to be the rekindling of the civil rights marches of the early 1960s. It was supposed to be Selma II. Even the left has noticed.
Eight months after 40,000 people converged on Jena, Louisiana, justice still awaits the six young men whose cases inspired one of the biggest civil rights marches in recent history.
If you read the Wikipedia summary of events, it seems to boil down to little more than a few unconnected events: some stupid (presumably white) kids hung nooses from a tree, and months later some black kids (the leader of whom apparently had a criminal record) beat up a white kid. The charge is that the prosecution was racially motivated strikes me as unlikely, given that the prosecutor himself was black. The CS Monitor, known for its even-handedness, concurs. Worth a read.
As with the Duke Lacrosse case, the truth about Jena will eventually be known. But the town of Jena isn't expecting any apologies from the media. They will probably never admit their error and have already moved on to the next "big" story. Meanwhile in Jena, residents are getting back to their regular routines, where friends are friends regardless of race. Just as it has been all along.
And let's not forget Afghanistan. Today, Bush's critics say they're in favor of "the real war" (meaning Afghanistan) and that we're being "distracted" by the fight in Iraq (which is partially against al Qaeda). But I remember a time when many dire voices insisted we had no business going into Afghanistan -- a suggested that since the Soviets next door couldn't win there the Americans couldn't either. Guess that wasn't right.
And on a lighter note, I see that Susan Sarandon is vowing to leave the the US if McCain wins the election. How many times have we heard such threats since 2000? Sadly, they never keep their word.
Sometimes, I wish they would publish reports on things that are no longer in the news. We hear the inaccurate, sensational accounts on the front page, but never hear the follow-up. Seems to me there might be a market for the non-news stories: mark all events with a one-year-follow up alarm, and then write about the final results a year later. Hindsight might be 20/20, but we have a news cycle which is positively allergic to it.
Any long-lost stories that come to your mind?
Hi Tim,
Of course the environmental calamity with our ozone layer has dropped from sight in our daily news cycles. A quick looksie on Google reveals ozone depletion is *still* a threat, but for some reason, it doesn't get the headlines anymore. See here for a top ten list:
http://m-cause.com/top-10-environmental-issues-whatever-happened-to-the-ozone-layer-issue/
Another global threat we don't here too much about anymore is AIDS & HIV.
The cynical side of me basically tells me that you are exactly correct in your descriptions about our news cycles.
This is off topic, but I'd thought I'd ask this question: How does one balance idealism with cynicism? Or is that a silly question because it's like trying to control how tall someone grows in their lifetime? Is it mentally healthy to be cynical and optimistic? I believe I am optimistic in general, but I can have a nasty streak of cynical ideas about *stuff*. =)
I like to believe that there's more 'black/white' then 'gray' in this life, but we tend to slip into gray when we don't want to face truth. Is the mix of idealism and cynicism one of these gray areas in life?
Whoops - that's a little more than one question. Sorry. =(
Don
You know Don, that's an extremely interesting question! Interestingly enough, in real life, I generally tend to be a very positive and content person. Most would probably say they perceive me as being upbeat and happy.
I suspect that this forum serves, in part, as an outlet for my cynicism. (I'm currently working on a new project for this site which will, I suspect, offset some of that.) There's nothing wrong with having low expectations (in fact, it saves one from considerable disappointment!) but when it degrades into complaining or an unfriendly demeanor, I think that's the point where one crosses the line. And to that extent, I believe that's why the bible talks about not complaining or grumbling: I believe that actions re-enforce mental states, so when we practice discontent, we experience more discontent.
Strangely, I've noticed that in Christianity that it's possible to healthfully balance quite a lot of cynicism against quite a lot of optimism. On the cynical side, the Judeo/Christian view is man is basically flawed, that we're basically selfish, and we shouldn't expect a whole lot of goodness from humans. We're free to point out the flaws in others and feel sympathy, not hatred, because we know we have equivalent flaws in ourselves.
But on the optimistic side, the response is that all is not lost, that this life is not all there is, and that even this material world will eventually get straightened out -- after much cataclysm. So you can have an extremely low view of humans -- and even expect things to go further downhill -- and yet not utterly despair. (Though even Jesus, God, and the prophets in the bible frequently express quite a bit of exasperation!)
In contrast, a recurring theme I noticed while reading literature of those who lived under Communist regimes is: the (secular) author often seem to speak of the need to find something good in humanity to believe in -- as if they would lose their mind utterly otherwise. Even in George Orwell's novels, the situation ends in despair: the pigs have taken over the farm; the brainwashing is effective; Big Brother is truly loved.
Here in the US, we have a man running for office on little more than his status as a minority (and I agree: it would be nice to have a black president -- but I'd rather have a good one than a bad one!) and the repetition of the word "Hope".
And that seems to be working: Clearly, a lot of people feel -- despite living in one of the most opulent countries on earth, and possessing historically unheard-of levels of wealth -- a hunger to hope for something paradise-like and utopian. They have everything materially, but yet they're willing to close their eyes to any negative indicators to establish a leader who promises them "Hope".
(We've seen this formula before!)
In view of the powerful response to such simple rhetoric, Obama is clearly addressing a real need. But instead of pointing them towards his own purported savior, he is offering himself, here and now. Can you imagine Paul the Apostle or the Pope or Billy Graham holding himself forth as the source or object of people's hope? But Obama doesn't challenge anyone's beliefs or point towards heaven -- except if we define "heaven" as arriving on January 21, 2009 if he wins. ;-)
I figured I'd look up with happened to George Ryan , especially since I lived in Illinois back when the whole license-for-bribes thing was going on.
Turns out he entered Federal prison late last year for a 6.5 year prison term.
link
(While wikipedia's politically related pages have their flaws, I love the fact that it's not as chronologically narrow in focus as most news reports. )
It is still too early at this point, but I'd like to see a retrospective on the Vitamin D3 hype in three or four years. There's a reasonable critique that supplementation with D3 doesn't offer the benefits claimed and that a massive number of scientists have confused the correlation of low levels of 25 D3 (caused by chronic infection) with vitamin D deficiency.
While we're talking about vitamins and nutrition, I suppose I should trot out the Vitamin C myth (hey, it was Linus Pauling who came up with that idea -- as well as C being used to stave off cancer -- who's gonna argue with "the father of molecular biology"?) as well as the "drink lots of water" myth.
In fact, there's probably a long, long list of medical myths (my father was told to avoid fats and eat grains to lose weight!) out there. Makes you wonder how you can trust much of what we "know" today.
Actually, I'd like to respond to my own question:
Makes you wonder how you can trust much of what we "know" today.
My understanding is that much of the aforementioned was not well-tested. People came up with theories by thinking (see the water myth) and then spread them as if they were accomplished facts.
Hi Tim,
The Vitamin C and colds thing is a bit of a toss up. It was shown pretty clearly to be helpful if a person is physically stressed by cold or other problems, as the article mentions (probably it helps with collagen repair, closing small cuts in dry mucous membranes, rather than working as an antioxidant.) For some reason, this is always presented as 'debunking' a 'myth'. Granted, it is of very little help against colds once they've started and a lot of people take it for that purpose.
I would guess that a person who has a cold who supplemented would at least better avoid infection from a second pathogen, since they would be stressed with irritated mucous membranes. But at the moment I can't find any studies that address this.
Regarding ascorbate and cancer, I'm curious why you say that's a myth. At best, the jury is still out. And there seems to be some good evidence that ascorbate can be used to fight cancer (though a nice 10-year longitudinal study of high-dose oral supplementation seems lacking, so far as I can see.)
Although, a couple of controlled clinical studies conducted at The Mayo Clinic did not support a significant benefit for terminal cancer patients after 10 grams of once-a-day oral vitamin C, other clinical trials have demonstrated that ascorbate may indeed be effective against tumors when administered intravenously.link
Ascorbate (vitamin C) induces cell death through the apoptosis-inducing factor in human breast cancer cells.
Although ascorbate (Vitamin C) has been shown to inhibit cell growth and induce cell death in variety of cancer cells, results reported in other studies are inconsistent with this conclusion. It was previously reported that ascorbate induces apoptosis in human breast cancer cells. However, the molecular mechanism for this is not clear. In this study, we demonstrate that ascorbate induces cell death through the apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) in the human breast cancer cell lines, SK-BR3 and Hs578T, but not in a normal breast cell line, Hs578.link
A pilot clinical study of continuous intravenous ascorbate in terminal cancer patients.
Case studies suggest that vitamin C, given intravenously at doses of 10-100 grams/day can improve patient well being and in some cases, reduce tumor size. While ascorbate is generally considered safe, clinical data on high intravenous doses is limited. Twenty-four late stage terminal cancer patients were given continuous infusions of 150 to 710 mg/kg/day for up to eight weeks.
...The majority of patients were vitamin C deficient prior to treatment...
These data suggest that intravenous vitamin C therapy for cancer is relatively safe, provided the patient does not have a history of kidney stone formation.link
Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Human pharmacokinetics data indicate that i.v. ascorbic acid (ascorbate) in pharmacologic concentrations could have an unanticipated role in cancer treatment. Our goals here were to test whether ascorbate killed cancer cells selectively, and if so, to determine mechanisms, using clinically relevant conditions....These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment.link
Ascorbate concentrations sufficient to kill tumor cells can be safely achieved in solid tumors in vivo, suggesting a possible role for high dose intravenous ascorbate in treating cancer.link
Sodium ascorbate (vitamin C) induces apoptosis in melanoma cells via the down-regulation of transferrin receptor dependent iron uptake.
Sodium ascorbate (vitamin C) has a reputation for inconsistent effects upon malignant tumor cells, which vary from growth stimulation to apoptosis induction. Melanoma cells were found to be more susceptible to vitamin C toxicity than any other tumor cells.
This study demonstrates the specific mechanism of sodium ascorbate-induced apoptosis and these findings support future clinical trial of sodium ascorbate in the prevention of human melanoma relapse.link
I'm not sure what this study would indicate that supplementation still exhibited "similar" effects after those with cardiovascular problems or cancer were removed. Presumably, it indicates a preventative effect.
RESULTS: We found strong inverse trends for blood ascorbate concentrations with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality, which were only marginally reduced after adjustment for confounders or supplement use. Those in the lowest fifth ( 66 micromol/L) had a mortality risk nearly half that (hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.84). Similar results were found after the exclusion of those subjects with cardiovascular disease or cancer at baselinelink
Inhibition of human breast carcinoma cell proliferation by ascorbate and copper.
These results show that a combination of AA and CS inhibits human breast carcinoma cell proliferation in vitro. This cell proliferation inhibitory effect is directly proportional to the AA concentration with the exception of the 500 mg/dL AA dose.link
Our findings show that increased ascorbate free radical formation in plasma after short-term supplementation with vitamins C and E can decrease the number of micronuclei in blood lymphocytes and thus DNA damage in smokers.link
(the below is included since irratation of any kind can increase cancer risk.)
An increase in dietary vitamin C of 60 mg daily (about one orange) was associated with a decrease in fibrinogen concentrations of 0.15 g/l, equivalent (according to prospective studies) to a decline of approximately 10% in risk of ischaemic heart disease. CONCLUSION--High intake of vitamin C has been suggested as being protective both for respiratory infection and for cardiovascular disease. These findings support the hypothesis that vitamin C may protect against cardiovascular disease through an effect on haemostatic factors at least partly through the response to infection; this may have implications both for our understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms in respiratory and cardiovascular disease and for the prevention of such conditions.link
In addition vitamin C supplementation was shown to inhibit skin, nose, tracheal, lung, and kidney carcinogenesis, to either not influence or enhance skin, mammary gland, and colon carcinogenesis, and to enhance urinary bladder carcinogenesis, when given as sodium ascorbate, but not when given as ascorbic acid.link
Proposed mechanisms of action for ascorbic acid (ascorbate, vitamin C) in the prevention and treatment of cancer include enhancement of the immune system, stimulation of collagen formation necessary for "walling off" tumors, inhibition of hyaluronidase which keeps the ground substance around the tumor intact and prevents metastasis, prevention of oncogenic viruses, correction of an ascorbate deficiency often seen in cancer patients, expedition of wound healing after cancer surgery, enhancement of the effect of certain chemotherapy drugs, reduction of the toxicity of other chemotherapeutic agents such as Adriamycin, prevention of free radical damage, and neutralization of carcinogenic substances. Scottish as well as Japanese studies have pointed to the potential benefit of high dose vitamin C for the treatment of "terminal" cancer. Mayo Clinic studies, however, have contradicted the Scottish and Japanese findings, resulting in accusations of methodological flaws from both sides. Numerous epidemiological studies have pointed to the importance of dietary and supplemental ascorbate in the prevention of various types of cancer including bladder, breast, cervical, colorectal, esophageal, lung, pancreatic, prostate, salivary gland, stomach, leukemia, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.link
Some quick explanatory notes. The sodium in sodium ascorbate is carcinogenic, however that seems to be the strongly preferred form for intravenous administration.
Ascorbate can exacerbate heavy metal toxicity.
Long term high dose studies would be interesting since I'm not sure if very high doses of ascorbate (to bowel tolerance) would (temporarily and reversably) inactivate immunoglobulin G. If this is true, then that mechanism wouldn't be reproduced by most dietary supplementation but a few people do regularly supplement to bowel tolerance.
I've heard it suggested that the mechanism which Pauling put forward for ascorbate protecting against cardiovascular disease has been proven false. I haven't had the chance to look into it myself. Possibly other mechanisms for a cardiovascular protective effect exist.
A few quick notes; literature cites that discuss 'megadosing' but don't give dosages are unreliable. There's minimal justification for the RDA. The article you cited says 60 mg/ day IIRC the current RDA is around 80mg, so 500mg is looked at as a 'megadose. Since other mammals make about 20-70 grams of ascorbate per day (humans can't due to a genetic mutation) and get considerably more than 80mg/day in their ancestral environment it's worth questioning how the RDA got set so very low.
Current USRDA is 90 mg/day in adult males, 75 mg/day in adult females.
link
Ah, I see what you're saying. I just read the article. Pauling's original claims were much stronger and that's what's been debunked.
as well as the "drink lots of water" myth.
I agree with the part where the linked article says drinking caffeinated beverages dehydrates you is a myth.
But the "8 glasses of water a day" recommendation seems like an unsourced oversimplification rather than an outright myth.
How do we calculate the healthy range for intake?
What standard do we use?
The recommendation that we take in as much as we lose is tautological, kind of like saying a man's feet should be long enough to reach the floor. If I drink 12 glasses of water a day I won't inflate like a water balloon, I'll excrete more. And the same works in the other direction; if I drink less, my body will conserve water. So this doesn't really answer how to calculate ideal intake.
Back in High School, I tried drinking water + creatine. My recovery from workouts improved. Later, I found I could get the same benefits from the water without the creatine mix. Does that mean that I was 'dehydrated' before? Or do I have to show some other pathological symptoms before I'm considered dehydrated?
One thing I have found; if I drink more water I need to make sure I replace various other nutrients or I'll get flushed out.
People are looking for a simple answer to a complex problem. I've heard one suggestion that a person's urine should be a light yellow to transparent, and not dark yellow (unless a person is taking large amounts of B vitamins, in which case it will be yellow, regardless of water intake). Strong yellow color indicates a body trying to conserve water. Not to be gross, but if we're really looking for a one size fits all standard urine quality seems to be the standard which is least dependent on things like how much a person sweats or a person's weight.
prev. comment was mine. Sorry for lack of attribution
Swedish wiretap bill seems to be barely making it to the news the first time around. Google threatened not to place any servers in Sweden if it passes.
link
p.s. Quick comment for anyone who reads my above posting. I should have mentioned; humans seem to have partially compensated for loss of ascorbate production by raising uric acid levels. For a variety of reasons I won't go into here, the average healthy human can't absorb more than about 8 grams in divided doses, roughly, each day. Pauling was probably a little sick to be able and willing to take 12g a day. Also, that much would have an analgesic effect.
Ideal for a healthy human is probably about 500 mg - 2 g/day up to 12 g or so if someone is sick with certain illnesses, injured, drunk or poisoned etc.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Journalist as Activist: George Monbiot |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Reactions to Father Pfleger »
|
Hi Tim,
Of course the environmental calamity with our ozone layer has dropped from sight in our daily news cycles. A quick looksie on Google reveals ozone depletion is *still* a threat, but for some reason, it doesn't get the headlines anymore. See here for a top ten list:
http://m-cause.com/top-10-environmental-issues-whatever-happened-to-the-ozone-layer-issue/
Another global threat we don't here too much about anymore is AIDS & HIV.
The cynical side of me basically tells me that you are exactly correct in your descriptions about our news cycles.
This is off topic, but I'd thought I'd ask this question: How does one balance idealism with cynicism? Or is that a silly question because it's like trying to control how tall someone grows in their lifetime? Is it mentally healthy to be cynical and optimistic? I believe I am optimistic in general, but I can have a nasty streak of cynical ideas about *stuff*. =)
I like to believe that there's more 'black/white' then 'gray' in this life, but we tend to slip into gray when we don't want to face truth. Is the mix of idealism and cynicism one of these gray areas in life?
Whoops - that's a little more than one question. Sorry. =(
Don
Posted by: don on May 31, 2008 12:01 PM