Athletes training with pot – why not?

Good Day World!

Imagine the following training session using marijuana for athletes:

“Okay class, are you ready to get high?

Toke up! That’s it! Big deep breaths. Exhale. Inhale.”

Sound too crazy to be true?  

Robin Williams once joked, "the only way it's (marijuana) a performance-enhancing drug is if there's a big f---ing  Hershey bar at the end of the run," right?

Believe it or not, marijuana is actually helping some people perform better at certain sports. There are people that say training while high has helped them unlock new performance gains.

In November, Men's Journal interviewed elite triathlete Clifford Drusinsky, a Colorado gym owner who also leads training sessions fueled by marijuana edibles.

"Marijuana relaxes me and allows me to go into a controlled, meditational place," Drusinsky told Men's Journal. "When I get high, I train smarter and focus on form."

Outside Magazine correspondent Gordy Megroz wrote in the February issue of that magazine that while he has never been much of a pot smoker, he heard enough close friends — especially skiers — say that getting high helped their performance that he decided to give it a shot.

In the World Anti-Doping Association's current ban on competing while stoned, the organization cites studies that show marijuana can decrease anxiety and increase airflow to the lungs by acting as a bronchodilator, something that decreases resistance in the airways. (source)

There isn't much research available yet on how pot affects performance. As long as marijuana is considered a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement Agency, it's incredibly difficult for researchers to study its effects.

Meanwhile it should be interesting hearing some more stories about athletes training with pot. Who would have thought?

Time for me to walk on down the road…

How Fat, Big Boobs, and Propriety gave us The Stethoscope

Good Day World!

Before there were X-Rays, MRI’s, Sonograms
and Cat Scans, doctors had no way of knowing what was happening inside a human body.

All they had to go on was the external signs such as skin pigmentation, urine, feces and all that fun stuff. Gross, I know.

Another method doctors used to learn what was happening inside a patient’s body was placing their ear directly in contact with the body.

With their ear they were able to listen to the Heart, lungs and abdominal areas.

Doctors desperately needed a better way of diagnosing diseases.

A very young French doctor named Rene Laennec was one of the first doctors to perform autopsies. This is one way to see what’s happened in the body, but a bit late to be of any help.

Dissecting his former patients taught Laennec a great deal about diagnosis and causes of diseases, known as pathology.

From crime TV shows and movies we’re familiar with the term“pathologist report”.

In the 1800′s Dr Laennec studied dead bodies inside and out. Desperately seeking answers. He specialized with the lungs, liver, skin and a bit of the heart.

He was very passionate about pathology. His dedication paid off with one of the greatest medical discoveries ever, up to that time.

Rene was a multi-talented man. He played music (the flute), he was skilled with woodwork, and on the side, he did some doctoring. A lot of doctoring.

His musical skill helped discover his invention (His knowledge of acoustics:the science of sound). His woodworking helped him create it, as you’ll see in a minute.

He once observed some kids playing with a long stick which they put up against their ears and then tapped with a pin to hear the sound vibrate through the stick. Acoustics.

He took note.

Once upon time a chunky young female patient went to see Dr Laennec, apparently with heart issues. The good doctor felt a bit awkward putting his ear against the girl’s well endowed chest. Well, I’ll let the doctor tell you in his own words:

“In 1816, I was consulted by a young woman laboring under general symptoms of diseased heart, and in whose case percussion and the application of the hand were of little avail on account of the great degree of fatness. The other method just mentioned [the application of the ear to the chest] being rendered inadmissible by the age and sex of the patient, I happened to recollect a simple and well-known fact in acoustics, and fancied, at the same time, that it might be turned to some use on the present occasion.”

The ear-to-body method was ineffective with obese people.

The doctor found an ingenious solution.

He rolled up several pieces of paper to form a tube-like device.

It was kind of like the cardboard roll that paper towels are wrapped around and remains when the paper towels are finished.

He placed one end to the girl’s chest and the other to his ear and thus the Stethoscope was born. The year… 1816.

Dr Rene experimented with different materials before deciding to use wood.

With his woodworking skills he managed to create the first stethoscope, himself.

By 1819 the stethoscope was made available to all doctors.

The stethoscope became the most crucial instrument in the diagnosis of diseases. It was all the rage by 1850′s.

Technology moved slowly in those days, it wasn’t until the 1890′s when new materials like rubber was used.

Ironically, the thing that doctors rail against (obesity), is the very thing that lead to a great medical discovery. (Post written by: H. L. Ortiz, Guest Blogger)

Time for me to walk on down the road….

 

Loving Libraries and Why We’ll Always Need Them

Good Day World!

Today’s subject is libraries.

Growing up, I lurked about in those silent repositories of age-old wisdom for countless hours. My respect for libraries grew with each passing year. I will always have a soft spot for them.

Libraries are evolving with the times, but they still face numerous challenges.

New technologies are changing the services that libraries provide, for example, online reference, instruction, document delivery, user-initiated library loan, direct borrowing and self-checkout.

At least one librarian sees the shift to user-initiated services as analogous to fast food, a cheapening or devaluing of what libraries provide, hence the phrase "the McDonaldization of libraries."

I don’t see it that way however. Libraries will always represent knowledge, regardless of how it’s presented. We need libraries. Libraries are free. But all Americans don’t have access to them. The following article is an example of that:

Libraries, Literacy, and the Poor

A depressing opinion article in the New York Times highlighted a study showing low access to books among poor children in Philadelphia, as well as a nonprofit organization called First Book that tries to put new books in poor children’s hands.

The study shows that there aren’t many books for sale near poor children in Philadelphia, and that if there were a lot of families couldn’t afford them. It also demonstrates that even when there are school and public libraries around, they have many fewer books than such libraries in Philadelphia’s wealthier parts of town.

In other words, a lot of time and expense went into proving that poor kids don’t have as much of anything as rich kids. This kind of thing might be truly surprising to tenured professors at big research universities, but not to anyone else. (Full story here)

For those that love reading and collecting literature, a library can be a magical place of the imagination. It's a great place to find volumes on almost every imaginable topic. Library patrons may have a variety of reasons for visiting the library.

All of the great civilizations in the world have gathered information about their history. Without those repositories of knowledge we would have never known about the achievements of Rome, Greece, Persia, and the rest.

Related:

X-Rays Help Decipher Secrets in 2,000-Year-Old Papyrus Scrolls

Hundreds of ancient papyrus scrolls that were buried nearly 2,000 years ago after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius could finally be read, thanks to a new technique.

There will always be a need for libraries. I’ve heard the argument that libraries are no longer necessary thanks to technology like the internet. It’s a weak argument coming from drones with other agendas.

Time for me to walk on down the road…

A brief reflection: Have you ever dodged death or seen it up close?

Good Day World!

Have you ever faced death?

Has your life ever been on the line? Have you watched loved ones die? Strangers die? Heard someone’s last breath, and saw life flee from their eyes?

Without a doubt, one of the most misunderstood and feared aspects of life is death.

In our Western culture, we generally do not think of death until the time comes for someone close...or our time is near.

--------------------------------------------

"...death is essentially the shedding of the body."

What remains, forever, is the soul.

Thus, "...death can be looked at as a great opportunity...the ultimate healing...the start of a [life] someplace else." - Stephen Knapp

-------------------------------------------

I’ve looked into the grim face of death and survived several times while fighting in Vietnam. Even before I went into the Army, death showed itself to me. While mountain climbing in high school I was confronted with death’s finality.

Two friends and I found ourselves in a bad position while climbing. One of them fell to his death. I nearly did, but was able to break my fall. Those moments when I was rolling down the mountain – loose shale offering no grip – I saw death.

My whole life didn’t pass in front of me however. I simply thought I was going to die and was having a hard time accepting it.

I stepped on a landmine in Vietnam, but it didn’t go off. Turned out to be an anti-tank mine and I wasn’t heavy enough to depress the detonator!

I didn’t know that for several gut-wrenching minutes as my squad leader carefully probed around my foot with a knife, trying to determine my options. I was so afraid that I pissed myself.

Again, there was no instant replay of my life flashing before my eyes. Just an immense sadness that I was going to die. By the time it was determined I wouldn’t set off the mine I felt like I had died, and then came back to life.

My joy at being alive was indescribable. The lesson I learned was priceless. You never know when you time is up so you better make the most of it.

I don’t fear death.

Those days are long gone. Nor, do I embrace death. I know it’s just the final act in this drama we call life.

What lies beyond is a mystery that won’t be solved until our time comes. Meanwhile, we should live life to the fullest. Love more, and hate less.

Time for me to walk on down the road…

 

 

94 year-old Jazz Ballad Keeps New Generations Grooving

Good Day World!

My taste in music is eclectic, but if I had to pick a favorite style/type, jazz would get the nod.

Like all good music, jazz tells a story and stands the test of time. 

The following jazz standard is an excellent example of the genre:

"Right or Wrong" is a jazz ballad from 1921.

It was composed by Arthur Sizemore and Paul Biese, with words by Haven Gillespie. The piece, described by the original sheet music as "a beautiful fox-trot ballad," deals with a universal theme.

The lyrics tell of the loss of a paramour.

The title comes from a refrain in the chorus:

Right or wrong, I'll always love you.

Tho' you're gone, I can't forget.

Right or wrong, I'll keep on dreaming,

Tho' I wake with that same old regret.

All along I knew I'd lose you,

Still I pray'd that you'd be true.

In your heart, please just remember,

Right or wrong, I'm still in love with you.

The biggest hit for "Right or Wrong" came in 1984, when George Strait recorded the old Bob Wills song for his best-selling album of the same name (See Right or Wrong).

The single from that album (MCA 52337) reached #1, staying on the charts for 12 weeks.

"Right or Wrong" was recorded by many early jazz and swing orchestras, including; Mike Markel and His Orchestra (OKeh 4478, 1921), Original Dixie Jazz Band(Oriole 445, 1925), Peggy English (Brunswick 3949, 1928), Tampa Red (Bluebird 6832, 1936), and Mildred Bailey and Her Orchestra (Vocalion 3758, 1937).

The recording with the longest lasting influence would be the one by the black-faced Emmett Miller and the Georgia Crackers (OKeh 41280, 1929).

Miller's version was picked up by an early Bob Wills and became a standard Western swing dance tune. Both Wills (Vocalion 03451, 1936) and Milton Brown(Decca 5342, 1936) made early recordings.

Western swing versions generally do not include any of the verses, only repetitions of the chorus. The song also appears on Leon Redbone's 1990 album Sugar. (Source-Wikipedia)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

There’s no such thing as free will

Good Day World!

Let’s launch into a heavy subject today.

Free will.

The column you’re about to read will make you rethink a lot of things, but first and foremost, it’ll make you wonder if you really have the ability to make choices in your life:

“Perhaps you've chosen to read this essay after scanning other articles on this website. Or, if you're in a hotel, maybe you've decided what to order for breakfast, or what clothes you'll wear today.

You haven't.

You may feel like you've made choices, but in reality your decision to read this piece, and whether to have eggs or pancakes, was determined long before you were aware of it — perhaps even before you woke up today.

And your "will" had no part in that decision. So it is with all of our other choices: not one of them results from a free and conscious decision on our part.

There is no freedom of choice, no free will. And those New Year's resolutions you made? You had no choice about making them, and you'll have no choice about whether you keep them.

The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion.

The issue of whether we have of free will is not an arcane academic debate about philosophy, but a critical question whose answer affects us in many ways: how we assign moral responsibility, how we punish criminals, how we feel about our religion, and, most important, how we see ourselves — as autonomous or automatons.

What is free will?

But before I explain this, let me define what I mean by "free will." I mean it simply as the way most people think of it: When faced with two or more alternatives, it's your ability to freely and consciously choose one, either on the spot or after some deliberation.

A practical test of free will would be this: If you were put in the same position twice — if the tape of your life could be rewound to the exact moment when you made a decision, with every circumstance leading up to that moment the same and all the molecules in the universe aligned in the same way — you could have chosen differently.

Now there's no way to rewind the tape of our lives to see if we can really make different choices in completely identical circumstances. But two lines of evidence suggest that such free will is an illusion.

The first is simple: we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe.

Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain — the organ that does the "choosing." And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an environment including the other people we deal with.

Memories, for example, are nothing more than structural and chemical changes in your brain cells. Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down to molecules and physics.

True "free will," then, would require us to somehow step outside of our brain's structure and modify how it works. Science hasn't shown any way we can do this because "we" are simply constructs of our brain.

We can't impose a nebulous "will" on the inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself and change its program.

There's not much downside to abandoning the notion of free will. It's impossible, anyway, to act as though we don't have it: you'll pretend to choose your New Year's resolutions, and the laws of physics will determine whether you keep them.

And there are two upsides. The first is realizing the great wonder and mystery of our evolved brains, and contemplating the notion that things like consciousness, free choice, and even the idea of "me" are but convincing illusions fashioned by natural selection.

Further, by losing free will we gain empathy, for we realize that in the end all of us, whether Bernie Madoffs or Nelson Mandelas, are victims of circumstance — of the genes we're bequeathed and the environments we encounter.

With that under our belts, we can go about building a kinder world.” (Read full article here)

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.

Time for me to walk on down the road…

This Day in History: Civil Rights Milestones, Birthdays, Historical Events

                                   Good Day World!

Now, and then, I think it’s fun to post what happened in history on a certain day. Today’s offerings are:

CIVIL RIGHTS MILESTONES

Robert Clifton Weaver was sworn in as the first African American cabinet member in U.S. history, becoming President Lyndon B. Johnson's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development on January 18, 1966 .

First US Congressional standing committee headed by Negro,W. Dawson, on January 18, 1949.

FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS

Daniel Webster American orator and politician) was born on January 18th, 1782.

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" he stated in the U.S. Senate in 1830 in response to Southern Senators who contended that individual states had the right to refuse to obey Congress.

Peter Roget, thesaurus fame/inventor (slide rule, pocket chessboard) was born on January 18, 1779.

Cary Grant [Archibald Alexander Leach], actor (Movies: Arsenic & Old Lace, North by Northwest) was born on January 18, 1904

Danny Kaye,comedian/actor (Danny Kaye Show) was born on January 18, 1913

HISTORICAL EVENTS

1919 - WW I Peace Congress opens in Versailles, France

1943 - US rations bread & metal - banning pre-sliced bread reduce bakery demand for metal parts

1951 - 1st use of lie detector in Netherlands

1962 - US begins spraying foliage (Agent Orange) in Vietnam to reveal Viet Cong guerrillas

1964 - Plans for World Trade Center announced (NYC)

1980 - Pink Floyd's "Wall" hits #1

2000 - The Tagish Lake meteorite impacts the Earth.

2008 - The United Nations announce George Clooney as a UN messenger of peace

2014 - 20th Screen Actors Guild Awards: Mathew McConaughey and Cate Blanchett win

Time for me to walk on down the road…

You know it’s the end days when…

                                          Good Day World!

Just how bad are things in our world today? Are we facing the end of civilization as we know it?

Since the discovery of deep time and the age of the Earth, scientific discourse about the end times has centered on the ultimate fate of the universe.

Theories have included the Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Bounce, and Big Freeze.

Now it’s time to look for the signs (wink! wink!) that the end times are drawing near. The following list is loaded with random signs:

YOU KNOW IT’S THE END DAYS WHEN…

… Mitt Romney announces he’s decided to run for president a third time 

… Haiti gets $13 billion in aide from around the world after a terrible earthquake 5 years ago and the inhabitants still live in crude tent cities.

…a man is charged with killing his neighbors over a parking space

…despite being indicted on a corruption charge, Texas Gov. Rick Perry considers presidential bid.

…the US and Cuba are talking about normalizing relations between each other

…US gasoline Pump Prices continue to fall

Time for me to walk on down the road…

What was humanity’s first conversation about?

Good Day World!

Have you ever wondered what the first conversations among humans were about?

"You're doing it wrong," or a series of grunts to that effect, may have been among the first words used in human conversation, according to scientists studying the development of ancient tools.

In a recent study published by Nature Communications, researchers suggest that language co-evolved with toolmaking.

I believe there were other subjects that rated higher than toolmaking. Think about it.

Can’t you imagine men and women exchanging words of affection long before chipping away at rocks became trendy? They might have even had “pet names.”

“Come here, my little sabre-tooth…”

“Oh Zorg! What a sweet-talker.”

Seems reasonable to me. How about arguments? I bet there was some really nasty name-calling going on long before mankind worried about doing something peaceful, like making tools.

“Oog is ugliest in jungle!” Followed up with a few well-placed rocks for emphasis.

What about basic functions? Don’t you think there were already long conversations about what to use for toilet paper, who to invite for dinner, and if meat should be cooked?

Seriously, the researchers who came up with the conclusion that mankind’s first rap sessions were about making tools, were just guessing.

Some would call it an educated guess (because the authors all have degrees), but until they can produce a recording proving differently, I’ll put my money on “pet names.”

Time for me to walk on down the road…  

 

Romney Redue #3 for the Presidency: Why Mitt is Out of Touch with Reality

                                        Good Day World!

Someone ought to tell Mitt Romney that the third time is not always the charm.

After suffering a crushing defeat in his last effort, you’d think he would have got the idea; America doesn’t want him for president. But Romney apparently didn’t get the message, and is preparing for a third campaign.

Why? His supporters paint a picture of him being deeply concerned about the direction our country is heading in and he wants to save us (minus the 47% that doesn’t matter) from destruction.

Really? I see a man who is power-mad and is willing to spend every dime of his vast fortune (including the hidden accounts overseas) to rule the country. What does he have to offer? 

What does he plan to do if elected? I doubt if he even knows.

Quick; when was the last time you heard Romney’s vision/message for America? If you said his last effort at campaigning you’re wrong.

He never had a message.

The reason Romney is in the position he is -- nationally known, a massive fundraising network -- is because of his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

If Romney thinks either his Republican opponents or, potentially Hillary Clinton in a general election, are going to just let the whole "47 percent" thing drop, he’s in for a surprise.

Or, that the car elevator, "severely conservative" and the picture of him with money coming out of his suit jacket are going to disappear?

Um, they won't.

Most people see him as an out-of-touch plutocrat, especially after the last election. Obama’s team effectively painted that picture, and no matter what Romney says or does as a candidate it’s there for all to see.

“The assumption that he can pluck the good things from his past candidacies while wiping away -- "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"-style -- all the bad stuff from voters' minds is a deeply flawed reading of how politics works.” (source)

In spite of that, Romney will probably run one more time. He can’t help himself. He sees himself as a savior...for the wealthy, and the country.

Time for me to walk on down the road… 

Related articles:

• 17 Republicans who might run in 2016
• Jeb-mentum vs. Mitt-mania: Why Bush/Romney fight is already on (+video)
• Is Romney running again?

Clinton vs Bush in 2016? Oh, Hell no!

Good Day World!

I’m against family dynasties monopolizing politics.

A few select families have ruled America for decades.The Clinton, Bush and Kennedy clans turned running for president into a family business.

Here’s why I’m against the idea:

“Five of the last seven elections included a member of one or both of the Clinton or Bush families as presidential nominees.

If the 2008 Democratic primaries had turned out a little differently, either a Bush or a Clinton would probably have been president without interruption since 1989.

If the worst happens and both dynasties take their parties’ nominations in 2016, the Obama presidency could end up being the only break that Americans have had in this cycle until 2024.

That is ridiculous, and it is significantly different from the role previous dynasties have had in our politics. It tells us a number of things about our political culture, and none of them is good.

The first thing is tells us is that a politician’s dynastic connections now matter far more than his or her qualifications.

If Jeb Bush weren’t the son and brother of former presidents, no one would seriously be talking him up as a plausible presidential candidate for an election ten years after he left elected office.

If Hillary Clinton weren’t the wife of a former president, it is extremely doubtful that an unremarkable former senator and former Secretary of State would ever have been considered a prohibitive favorite for the nomination.

For that matter, if not for their famous names and connections it is an open question whether either of them would have won statewide election in the first place.

The harmful effects of this are more apparent on the Democratic side, where Clinton faces at best token opposition to a nomination that will be handed over to her as long she wants to have it.

Even so, it is also quite harmful to the GOP, since the last thing the GOP needs is to relitigate and to defend George W. Bush’s disastrous tenure.

If the party made the mistake of nominating Bush’s brother, that is inevitably what it would have to do. On top of that, nominating Bush would represent a decision to shunt aside an entire class of new political talent that has appeared in the last decade.

Dynastic ties make it much easier for bad and mediocre candidates to compete for and even win nominations. That in turn produces worse general election choices and outcomes.

Dynastic ties also allow inexperienced and unqualified members of the family to ascend to higher office because of a misplaced faith in the influence of other members of the dynasty’s retinue.

Judged on his own merits, George W. Bush had no business being the presidential nominee, but because he was surrounded by his father’s allies and former officials it was assumed that the son would be so well-advised that his ignorance and inexperience would not matter.” Condensed article by DANIEL LARISON

Time for me to walk on down the road…