Bike Newbie

Can We Trust the Moon?

One of Earth’s quasi-satellites, Kamo’oalewa, is a big chunk of rock about 50 meters (165 feet) long. It circles the Sun in an orbit very similar to ours on Earth, but doesn’t actually orbit us, unlike the Moon. Scientists studying Kamo’oalewa discovered that it has a chemical/mineral makeup very similar to the Moon’s, so much so that they hypothesize it was actually ejected from the Moon relatively recently.

Which leads me to ask, what is the Moon doing ejecting big rocks out into space? Was it attempting a mission to Earth? Was it doing what many Earth youngsters do on a mountain hike and rolling a rock to see how far it would go and where it would end up?

The scientists doing the study believe the ejection of Kamo’oalewa to be the outcome of a meteor impacting the lunar surface. While that does make scientific and logical sense, I just feel like that’s a little too easy of an explanation. If the many science fiction movies and shows I watch have taught me anything, it’s that every big crash or collision in the galaxy is probably the doing of a power-hungry warlord or similar malevolent force. And that force is either originating on Earth, or focused on conquering Earth, most likely both. Either way, it’s not a good sign for most of us Earthlings. Moon men go home! Leave us alone!

Seriously, though, as cool as it is to think that someday soon there will be a starship base operating on the Moon, I hope that we focus on using our gained knowledge to benefit life on Earth rather than to hurry and abandon it for Mars or elsewhere.

Here endeth the lesson on whether we can trust the Moon.

Good Fats and Bad Fats

If you’re an adult over the age of 35, and/or you care at all about your health, you already know that there are bad fats (saturated fats like those found in red meats and dairy) and good fats (unsaturated fats like those found in nuts, non-tropical vegetable oils, many seeds, and fish). The basic rule for avoiding heart disease and stroke has been to limit all fats but especially avoid the bad fats.

A new study has been released (I believe from Japan, but don’t quote me on that) that doesn’t radically change this rule but does change it. Here’s how: the study found that (1) people who ate a lot of bad fats had more incidence of heart disease and stroke (duh), (2) people who ate very little of any kind of fat had a lesser incidence of heart disease and stroke (again, duh), and (3) people who ate a LOT of good fats and avoided bad fats had the least incidence by a wide margin of heart disease and stroke (there’s the surprising part). Folks might also find surprising that the amount of dairy fats (milk, cheese, ice cream, butter) that were consumed did not have a statistically observable effect on the risk of heart disease and stroke.

It’s important to remember this is one study out of hundreds or maybe thousands on a similar topic, and that the more studies there are the more the results may be pooled and compared. But still…if true, this new study challenges one of the core “truths” I was brought up to believe, namely that fat is fat, and as such is bad, period.

Another thing to remember is consumption of fat (and apparently which kind of fat) is important if your criteria are reducing the risk of dying from heart disease or stroke before the age of about 75. If you don’t mind dying before 75, or if the preferred cause of your ultimate demise is heart attack or stroke (or a car wreck or other violent end) over something like cancer, dementia, organ failure, or failure to fight off an infection, then consumption of fat may be lower on your list of things to worry about.

Finally, if the latter of the two types of people above describes you more than the former, and you need something to worry about, here is a partial list of things you may find worthwhile: global climate change, politically-driven violence, any violence really, disease from lack of exercise, injuries from too much exercise, pandemics, buildup of toxics in your body, stress caused by worrying, lack of sleep, too much sleep, road rage (either coming from you or directed at you), chronic and debilitating debt, the graying of America, and the decline of the nation’s/world’s infrastructure. And, there is also diet, albeit lower on the list. Enjoy!

Here endeth the lesson on good fats and bad fats.

Star Wars Character Fails

This is not a SW blog, and I make a conscious effort not to write about the Star Wars Universe here. But it has been on my mind lately and I thought I’d share a few musings here…not that I expect SW or anything coming from the Disney Metaverse to be close to perfect. You won’t see me rant about Jar Jar Binks, about the prequels generally (I’m one of the rare breed who actually like Episodes I-III), or about how The Last Jedi didn’t advance any of the storylines one bit. No, I have a whole new and probably more ridiculous group of rants to share! Spoiler Alerts if you haven’t yet seen the 9 SW Saga films, or Rogue One, or Solo…but if that’s the case, why would you care about spoilers?

First. The characters who did NOT get enough attention/screen time:

Darth Maul–he has like 3 lines in The Phantom Menace, kills Qui-Gon, and gets cut in half by Obi-Wan. Why would they not spend more time on this bad guy who arguably looks scarier than Darth Vader? Yes, I know they did a lot with Maul in the animated series The Clone Wars…but that just underscores my point because he got relegated to a cartoon.

The Tusken Raiders (aka Sandpeople) generally–they are portrayed as primitive, unspeaking brutes in A New Hope and Revenge of the Sith, but we learn in the series The Mandalorian that they are not only fair, communicative, and living harmoniously with the deserts of Tattooine, but they are also the original inhabitants of the desert getting encroached on by off-planet settlers…if you detect parallels with Native American history, you are getting it. I would have liked SW to explore and reveal more about Tusken culture.

Lando Calrissian–Yes, he gets a fair amount of screen time in The Empire Strikes Back, and some in Return of the Jedi, but I was really looking forward to seeing more of young Lando in Solo than they actually presented. To me, Lando is more interesting than Han Solo because Lando consciously chooses to abandon his good life to help the Rebellion…he isn’t a low-life with nothing to lose fleeing creditors like Solo, so the choice to put everything on the line to try and help this struggling movement his old acquaintance bumbled into, must have been an emotional and difficult choice for him. But we never see any of this.

Second. Plot elements the Star Wars saga MISSED OUT on (apparently there has to be a gigantic superweapon in every single movie, no exceptions):

Infighting and dissent among Rebellion/Resistance fighters–we get a little bit of this in The Last Jedi, where Leia is out of commission so there is a bit of a leadership void and an ensuing conflict. But it isn’t much and it isn’t very satisfying in how it works out. In real life, this is probably one of the biggest problems in running an insurgency; everyone thinks they should be the boss and when they aren’t made the boss they break away to form a splinter rebellion (where naturally they are the boss). Also, we saw coming from a light-year away the whole “broadcast an emergency message to people who previously didn’t care but now somehow care and will miraculously appear to save us at the end” plot device…it’s ham-handed and overused and I was sad to see it in The Rise of Skywalker.

The changing of the ancient Jedi Order with the times–the ways of the Jedi are powerful, time-tested, and infallible…except that the whole thing was pretty much taken out in a day and a half by one scheming Sith Lord (Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine) and his weak-willed accomplice (Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker). On top of this, both the prequels (Ep. I-III) and the sequels (Ep. VII-IX) contain a lot of dialogue stating more or less outright that the Jedi Order has gotten soft, short-sighted, and arrogant in its old age. So, especially in the sequels where you are left with Luke Skywalker, Ben Solo, and Rey as the only individuals with Jedi-like abilities, wouldn’t this be a great time to start with something new, maybe based on the old Jedi but not as celibate/hermitlike/creepy? But no, they have to stick with preserving the old ways no matter how disturbingly ineffective and outdated they are, and no matter how much they exclude Leia.

Speaking of which–Leia’s backstory and ongoing legacy–I was very glad to see General Leia as the leader of the Resistance in the sequels. I was glad her style of leadership, which was compassionate as well as fierce, was glorified in these films. I wasn’t so glad, though, to see her all but cut out of the Jedi half of the storyline. Aside from the confusing and disappointing flashback where she (someone well known for never quitting even when the odds are against her) gives up completely on Jedi training after one failure during an exercise with Luke, Leia is all but excluded from the Force Club, her only real role being the mother of Ben Solo. I would have liked to see a Leia with developed Jedi abilities…they wouldn’t necessarily have to be combat abilities…the old Jedi Mind Trick comes to mind. Don’t get me wrong; I think Leia emerges as a hero and a legend regardless. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to think she has the same parentage as Luke (not to mention 1,000x more thinking and people skills) but is still sort of regarded as less-than-Luke because she doesn’t swing a lightsaber around.

Here endeth the lesson on Star Wars Character Fails.

Change and Aging

The law of entropy says that the universe is in a state of constant change, with energy (heat) dissipating away from hot areas and toward cooler ones. One type of change, and most definitely the major type of change in our lives, is aging. Everyone seems to want to know how to stop the aging process, but so far nobody knows (despite what all the ads directed at my browsers & inbox say).

Some say you can stop aging by taking up yoga, eating like an herbivorous bird, and giving up alcohol/caffeine/sugar/salt. Others say no, the secret is enjoying the good things in life. Unfortunately everyone who says anything other than the truth, that all things grow older until they die, is lying.

But the question I have is, if we know that growing older and dying is universal, why do we loathe it so much, and why are we so desperate to stop the process or even just slow it infinitesimally? The answer has something to do with self-image and expectations. We form self-images when we are quite young, sometime in elementary school. Since we are growing and changing so quickly at that point, and our conception of time is that it crawls like a snail, we either don’t notice or don’t mind that our self-images have to adjust almost constantly.

In adulthood, we arrive at a more or less set self-image. The changes happening in our bodies are usually not very apparent between the ages of 20 and 50. So we trick ourselves into thinking this is the self that could and should always be, and we develop expectations that nothing will change, in contradiction of one of the most basic laws of the universe. And when we start to visually experience some of the symptoms of change (wrinkles, sagging, gray hair, love handles, etc.) we are disappointed and depressed because our expectations have not been met. What foolishness to think we are somehow immune from the basic laws that govern the stars, the moon, the mountains, and literally everything!

The solution to all this is much easier said than done. Expect change, and change will not disappoint you. Accept aging, and aging should not depress you.

Here endeth the lesson on change and aging.

Rationalization

Have you ever done something you weren’t particularly proud of, or failed to do something you would have been proud to do, and then offered explanations for not only (1) why things happened that way but also (2) how your transgression or failure was justified or how it’s not such a big deal after all? Sure, we all have done this, and it’s called rationalization.

Humans have a few basic needs, and one of these needs is esteem. To be functional and happy we need esteem from our fellow humans and from ourself. When we do something bad (or fail to do something good), this produces cognitive dissonance, because we need to believe we are worthy of esteem, yet our actions/omissions are not worthy of esteem. So, to make our actions/omissions line up with our beliefs, we rationalize them as a defense mechanism. Any behavior can be rationalized, by any person. Often the victim in an abusive relationship will rationalize the abuser’s behavior, because the truth of the abuse (the abuser’s wrongdoing) is too hard to confront: “S/he has just been under a lot of stress lately”, or “I had that coming; my mouth gets me into trouble sometimes.”

An important point is that rationalizing is not the same as lying, denials, or covering up behavior. Instead, rationalization, while accepting the fact that the behavior happened, paints the behavior in a light that is socially and morally justified or otherwise acceptable. Another important point is that rationalizations are often true and perfectly adequate reasons behind our behavior. Not to rationalize rationalization, though!

Two major types of rationalization are called “sour grapes” and “sweet lemons”. The sour grapes method is named after Aesop’s fable where the fox, trying repeatedly in vain to reach some juicy grapes on a vine, finally gives up and explains his quitting by saying “those grapes were probably sour anyway.” The sweet lemons method is the same as sour grapes but in reverse: when a bad event befalls someone, they rationalize it by saying “it’s actually better this way”, or “everything happens for a reason”, or “this has been a great opportunity to learn a lesson”. Again, not to rationalize rationalization, but these are often perfectly valid and acceptable.

So when is rationalization not perfectly valid or acceptable? The answer depends on whom you ask. My answer is that, if you find yourself or someone else rationalizing the same behavior repeatedly in a pattern (or rationalizing the pattern itself), it could be a sign of problem behavior. For example, rationalizing one occurrence (“I drank/ate too much last night, but it was my birthday after all”) may not signal a problem, but rationalizing a lot of pattern occurrences (“I drink/eat when I’m stressed out to take the edge off”) may, and rationalizing the same kind of occurrence multiple times in a year/month/week may also.

Finally, if we discover a habit of rationalizing bad behavior, how does one go about breaking that habit? One way is to ask oneself, “Is this really the person I want to be? Is transgressing, and then rationalizing, a behavior of my best self?” Another way is to, whenever tempted to formulate a rationalization, formulate an apology instead. If tempted to rationalize another’s behavior, ask them for an apology instead…you may not get one but you will put that person on notice that you don’t find their behavior justifiable or excusable. And the real answer to all of this is to seek and get help.

Here endeth the lesson on rationalization.

Desert Phenomenology

In the movie Dune, we see the desert planet Arrakkis as a dry, inhospitable place where only the well-prepared, well-equipped and crafty can survive for longer than a moment. We also see the Fremen whose civilization has developed to live in harmony with the desert despite its harshness. This may appear to be fantasy or sci-fi storytelling, but it is actually closely based on Earth.

Deserts make up as much as one-third of the total area of Earth’s dry land. These are places where the total volume of moisture lost through evapotranspiration exceeds the amount gained through precipitation. Yet amazingly, these are not wastelands devoid of life…when in balance deserts support thriving ecosystems with a wide diversity of well-adapted species.

Humans, along with many other species, have adapted to life in and near the desert. In many ways deserts have shaped and formed some of the great human civilizations. If not for the desiccating air in Egypt, which preserves dead tissues much longer than they would last in humid regions, its ancient culture based on preparing for the afterlife would never have developed as it did, with its great tombs and preservation rituals. The Bedouin have a rich and long-lived culture based on the delicate balance of life in the desert, and can be easily seen as the basis for the Fremen in Dune.

Although desertification is a major problem due largely to human factors, we must act to protect and preserve the deserts Earth has always had. Deserts, while being rough and rugged, are the most delicate and fragile of the planet’s ecosystems because of the marginal moisture balances that are key to supporting life. While it’s easy to fall in love with non-arid forests and fields, we must learn to love our deserts and their ways if we aim to survive.

Here endeth the lesson on desert phenomenology.

Blessings in Disguise

Many of us maintain a positive outlook on life by trying to picture bad events in the best light possible, as “blessings in disguise.” I actually do this myself, and have found it helpful…since any given event can be viewed in a positive or negative light, why not go for the glass-is-half-full approach and appreciate rather than hate? The origins of the phrase “blessing in disguise,” however, reveal a slightly different angle to this philosophy.

The term was first coined in 1847 by James Hervey in the hymn “Since the Downward Tracts of Time.” The full lyrics of the hymn expound on religious dogma that, at least in my opinion, contrasts with the whole “view the glass as half full” approach to life. The hymn explains that, since all events good or bad are carefully ordained by God as elemental parts of His plan, we should accept all events with gratitude as blessings even if they are not particularly pleasant to us.

This post may brand me as a heretic, but forgive me for not subscribing to the Hervey system of logic/belief. A coldly calculated murder is just as distressing as an accidental killing, if not more so. I’m not going to be thankful for a bad event just because it was planned and intended, even if the planner/intender happens to be the ultimate higher power in the universe. I wouldn’t take comfort in the fact that I had terminal cancer because God consciously willed me to get a fatal disease. I find it easier and healthier to see that bad events are in the nature of the universe, and there is often a silver lining to them, even if not readily apparent. Some may see this as splitting hairs or wordsmithing, but to me there is an important distinction between Hervey’s view and my own.

Here endeth the lesson on blessings in disguise.

Life Acts or Life’s Work?

When it comes to how we judge a famous person, should we focus on their actions in private life, or should we more or less confine our judgment to the work they produced to become famous in the first place? The question may be easy in some of the more sensationalized cases of modern times. But what about cases that are more in the gray areas, or cases that are so long ago there are no living witnesses?

It is probably not a stretch to say there are few people who still appreciate the standup comedy of Bill Cosby (especially at the time of posting). His private actions, which he does not deny, were perverse, irreparably harmful, and self-serving. The same would go for R Kelly. But what about Michael Jackson? Although never convicted of a crime, all of the tort claims against him were settled out of court, and although the settlement amounts were not disclosed it is not hard to imagine they were outrageously expensive. This would tend to prove something other than Mr. Jackson’s innocence, yet many of us are hesitant to damn him, pointing to his extensive discography and charity work.

The question becomes even more difficult when examining a public figure from years past. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, is revered by many today as the whimsical, fantastic, creative author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and other works. But did you know that during his life he was an upper class arch-conservative and an ordained deacon in the Anglican Church? Did you know that his frequent outings with the children of the Liddell family were the cause of concern and inevitable “break” between the two families (this included little Alice Liddell; despite Dodgson’s constant denials that his works were based on any real-life children, the acrostic that concludes Through the Looking-glass spells out her full name)? Finally, did you know he often sketched and painted pictures of nude pre-pubescent girls, and that about 8 years’ worth of his diaries (coinciding with his Liddell family associations) have gone missing since his death?

Now, none of this constitutes conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and many people over the years have preached against applying modern standards to the Victorian England life of Dodgson. However, when you view all these facts in their totality, it becomes hard to defend him without looking like a stalwart ‘Lewis Carroll’ apologist. And there are many apologists…it seems as if the further back in time the public figure lived, the more apologists there are. Standards of behavior do change over time, sure, but some basic moral principles have in fact not changed much in many centuries. So why are we so quick to judge some and so slow to judge others? I don’t have a good answer, other than to say the question is worth examining.

Here endeth the lesson on life acts versus life’s work.

Well, I’m one-third of the way thru the Neurocycle method of changing my outlook and so far I can report that the results are encouraging but not dramatic or altogether surprising. Still, I believe it is really good for me to get into a daily habit of “mentally writing” as one of the first things I do while waking up…it tends to shape my attitude for the day, focus my mind, and give me something to look forward to. On to the topic for today!

The Microbiome

When we think about what all exists within the boundary of our skin, we tend to picture it and refer to it as one living organism: “me”. But the truth is every one of us “individuals” is actually made up of millions or billions of individual organisms, almost all of them being microscopic in size. We are not so much creatures as we are landscapes or ecosystems.

Humans are finding out more all the time, but one area of recent research is the microbiome that exists within our gut. This ecosystem of bacteria is influenced by our genetics, what we eat and how we do things, and in turn has a massive influence on our health. A wide variety of our traits, from our moods to how we metabolize fats to allergies to immune system strength, have all been shown to be directly linked to the gut microbiome. Specifically, studies have found that it is generally better to have as diverse a collection of bacteria in our guts as possible.

You may be thinking, “That’s great, but how do I make my microbiome more diverse?” The bad news is that some of the controlling factors (like genetics) are outside of our control. The good news is many of them are within our control, such as diet and exercise. Eating foods with active cultures in them (yogurt, kimchi, and sauerkraut are examples) can boost your microbiome. Most fruits and vegetables have high doses of natural sugars and fiber that bacteria love. And unsurprisingly regular exercise has been a common habit of people found to have diverse microbiomes in their guts. Also unsurprising is that a diet heavy in processed foods and a sedentary lifestyle are common in people found to have limited microbiomes.

In conclusion, if you treat your body’s universe well, you are more likely to be rewarded by it. Here endeth the lesson on the microbiome.

Jamie Farr

If you’re old, or just a big fan of the TV show MASH (both of which apply to me), you know Jamie Farr as the wisecracking, cross-dressing Corporal Klinger. But if not for a lot of persistence on his part, kindness on others’, and a keen sense of timing, Mr. Farr would have gone pretty much unnoticed.

Jameel Farah (Farr’s birth name) was the Lebanese-American son of immigrants in Toledo, OH. He loved acting and writing comedy, and when he was in the Army he served by entertaining the troops with a USO traveling show, which is where he met the famous comedian Red Skelton. (Incidentally, Jamie Farr, Mike Farrell, and Alan Alda are the three MASH cast members who actually served in the Korean War.) He had a lot of fun and learned a lot too, but shortly after he transitioned from regular Army to active reserves, it looked like his career in show business was over. His father, who owned and ran a grocery store, passed away and Jameel needed to go back home to help out his aging mother. When Red Skelton heard about this, he gave Jameel a full-time writing job for his comedy show, and sent him cash to make sure his mother was taken care of. This act of kindness is what Jamie Farr credits his career for, since it enabled him to keep writing rather than be a grocer for the rest of his life.

Jameel persisted in his dream and went on to get a number of small Hollywood gigs, mostly writing and appearing in bit parts on movies and TV shows, and changed his name to Jamie Farr. As people my age and older know, having a name reflecting any kind of ethnicity (other than Northern/Western European) was a death sentence for a show biz career at the time. He got a one-episode job appearing on the new TV show MASH as a cross-dressing corporal…the joke was that he was trying to convince the Army that he was “crazy” by dressing in women’s clothing so that he could get a Section 8 discharge but the Army wasn’t going for it. He made such a splash in that one-episode role that the studio decided to keep him on the show as Corporal Klinger for a few more episodes, which over the years turned into many seasons plus a role on the sequel series AfterMASH. His character evolved from being a talking sight gag to being one of the MASH unit’s most trusted, reliable and caring members.

Jamie Farr is now 87 and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He still writes and makes appearances, and has a podcast. Here endeth the lesson on Jamie Farr.