It's funny how so many people are ready to jump on laissez-faire, the free market, or capitalism as the cause of the financial crisis. Exactly when did we have this glorious economic period, anyway? There are regulations too numerous to mention, and of which people are obviously unaware, to believe "deregulation" was the cause of the crisis. If nothing else, the mere existence of the Federal Reserve should disabuse anyone of that notion.
Laissez-faire no more caused the current crisis than it did the Great Depression of the 1930's. Anyone who thinks Herbert Hoover sat on his hands and did nothing when the Crash occurred needs to read some more history. Hoover did quite a bit in trying to deal with the crash. And Hoover himself was no big fan of laissez-faire, and says so in his book The Challenge to Liberty. When Franklin Roosevelt took office, he did the same basic things that Hoover did, only on a larger scale. Unfortunately, since they were both unwilling to admit how much the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, had to do with the problem, their actions were useless at best, and most likely helped to prolong the Depression, instead of ending it.
The Fed made possible the Roaring 20s, the biggest boom this country had ever seen, but it was unsustainable, created by the Fed's loose money and easy credit policies. Austrian Economics describes this problem as part of their theory on business cycles. The bust we know as the Great Depression necessarily had to follow so that the market could correct the malinvestment created by the Fed's policies.
These same policies have cursed us over the decades since then, giving us continual (although gradual) inflation that has degraded the value of our money and earnings, and created other boom and bust cycles, though not as big as the one of the 20s and 30s.
The dot com bubble of the 90's was one such boom/bust period, and now the housing bubble of the 2000's is just the latest boom and bust that we are experiencing as the financial crisis.
Without understanding the causes of the financial crisis, especially the Fed's part in it, neither Obama nor McCain will be able to fix the problem, any more than Hoover or FDR were able to fix the Depression.
Why do people want to blame laissez-faire, free market capitalism? I can most charitably conclude that it stems from a misunderstanding of laissez-faire. The essential argument they make is that the Fed and the federal regulators allowed the banks and Wall Street too much unregulated freedom to operate, and didn't properly constrain them when they made bad decisions. And yet, even if that were true, they were still protected from the consequences of their bad decisions, as government regulation was still in place to back them up or bail them out.
This freedom without responsibility is license, made possible by government regulations, not the lack of regulation. In a laissez-faire, free market capitalist economy, freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. Businesses would be free to make decisions, but would suffer the consequences of bad decisions, usually in the form of losses. The losses would tell them to change their policies, or else risk going out of business and letting other businesses take over their assets. They would not be able to socialize their losses as government is allowing them to do now.
Technically, I suppose government license, protection, or subsidy should not be considered government "regulation" the way other government rules and regulations are, but nonetheless, it would not be possible without government policies and power. This crisis could not have occurred in a true laissez-faire, free market capitalist economy, and this is true even if we accept the arguments about "deregulation" leading to the crisis. Governments allowing license or freedom without responsibility is no better than governments requiring burdensome regulation (responsibility) without freedom.
10/20/2008
The Melodica - Unusual musical instruments, part 2
The melodica is an interesting musical instrument. A combination wind/keyboard instrument, you select your notes or chords with the keyboard and blow through the mouthpiece to make sound. You generally just hold it up to your mouth, sort of like a trumpet, although they usually come with a long tube you can use so that you can hold it away from you (easier to see the keys you're playing), or set it down on a table to play two-handed instead of with just one hand.
It has a harmonica-type sound, because internally, it has reeds that vibrate from your breath, like a harmonica. With the keyboard, though, you can do more complex things than a harmonica: complex melody lines or unusual chords or clusters.
Since it's a wind instrument, breath is important. It takes more air to play lower notes (thicker reeds?) or chords, so a good lung capacity is helpful--or else plenty of breaks in the music to catch your breath. Since you need to press the keys AND blow air through it, you can do different things with your technique depending upon how you combine the key presses and air blows. Unfortunately, it's hard to do pitch bends. You can kind of fake it with partial key presses, but doing tremolo with your breath is pretty easy.
While the melodica can be fun to play, the reeds frankly give it a cheesy kind of sound. It seems to me that it takes more effort to make it "musical". Still, it never hurts to have another sound you can throw into the mix, or if you need to "fake" a harmonica. I especially like using it as a rhythm instrument with complex chords, but that's just me.
Be sure to check out the link on the title for more information.
It has a harmonica-type sound, because internally, it has reeds that vibrate from your breath, like a harmonica. With the keyboard, though, you can do more complex things than a harmonica: complex melody lines or unusual chords or clusters.
Since it's a wind instrument, breath is important. It takes more air to play lower notes (thicker reeds?) or chords, so a good lung capacity is helpful--or else plenty of breaks in the music to catch your breath. Since you need to press the keys AND blow air through it, you can do different things with your technique depending upon how you combine the key presses and air blows. Unfortunately, it's hard to do pitch bends. You can kind of fake it with partial key presses, but doing tremolo with your breath is pretty easy.
While the melodica can be fun to play, the reeds frankly give it a cheesy kind of sound. It seems to me that it takes more effort to make it "musical". Still, it never hurts to have another sound you can throw into the mix, or if you need to "fake" a harmonica. I especially like using it as a rhythm instrument with complex chords, but that's just me.
Be sure to check out the link on the title for more information.
10/16/2008
An Open Letter to the State of Oklahoma
The general election is getting close, and I thought I should say something about it:
An Open Letter to the State of Oklahoma:
Dear Oklahoma,
Once again, just as in 2004, I am forced to either voter for the lesser of two evils, or abstain from voting. I can vote for Barak Obama of the Democrat party, or for John McCain of the Republican party, but I cannot vote for Libertarian Bob Barr, Independent Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party candidate Charles Baldwin, Independent Alan Keyes, nor any of the other, lesser known candidates. No Oklahoman can. In fact, Oklahoma is the only state that will not have any other presidential candidates on the ballot. Oklahoma doesn't even allow write-ins.
I must say, I find this very frustrating. Why am I and others to be denied a candidate who truly represents our views? Other states have eased their ballot access requirements, so why not Oklahoma? Is Oklahoma really such a restrictive and exclusive state when it comes to politics?
I know that you're very zealous of the Two-Party system, but remember that two is only one more than one. As issues like the Iraq war and the financial crisis should make clear, the two major parties really aren't offering us much in the way of policy differences. If democracy is really about the freedom to choose, then why are you restricting our choices so dramatically? Clearly, having the vote isn't nearly as powerful as being able to select who or what the people are allowed to vote for.
As children, we are raised to believe that we live in a free country, but excessive restrictions and regulations do not constitute freedom, no matter how free one is to complain about them. This is never more obvious than when the restrictions apply to the electoral system. The state constitution promises Oklahomans free and open elections, and every election cycle, you break this promise. The pre-1974 restrictions were tolerable, although they were still restrictions on elections. Since 1974, you've deliberately gone out of your way to make it excessively difficult for third parties to gain ballot access. With tremendous efforts, they have sometimes been able to get on the ballot, but the resources wasted on gaining ballot access ensure that they have little left to spread their message to the voters.
This is nothing but a protection scheme for tired, failed policies that offer nothing new to the voters. Have you not wondered why more and more Oklahomans are registering as Indepedents, instead of staying with the "protected" major parties? Voting in a primary election is no big deal unless you actually care about who the candidate is for a particular party.
I like Oklahoma. I was born and raised here, so it has enormous sentimental value to me. It also has a relatively low cost of living without sacrificing too much in the quality of life. But I fear that your restrictive policies are holding us back, and keeping Oklahomans from being all that they can be. There is no good reason for Oklahoma to be the worst state in the union for ballot access. It is too late for this election cycle--2008 is practically history, now. But it is never too late to make improvements for the future.
An Open Letter to the State of Oklahoma:
Dear Oklahoma,
Once again, just as in 2004, I am forced to either voter for the lesser of two evils, or abstain from voting. I can vote for Barak Obama of the Democrat party, or for John McCain of the Republican party, but I cannot vote for Libertarian Bob Barr, Independent Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party candidate Charles Baldwin, Independent Alan Keyes, nor any of the other, lesser known candidates. No Oklahoman can. In fact, Oklahoma is the only state that will not have any other presidential candidates on the ballot. Oklahoma doesn't even allow write-ins.
I must say, I find this very frustrating. Why am I and others to be denied a candidate who truly represents our views? Other states have eased their ballot access requirements, so why not Oklahoma? Is Oklahoma really such a restrictive and exclusive state when it comes to politics?
I know that you're very zealous of the Two-Party system, but remember that two is only one more than one. As issues like the Iraq war and the financial crisis should make clear, the two major parties really aren't offering us much in the way of policy differences. If democracy is really about the freedom to choose, then why are you restricting our choices so dramatically? Clearly, having the vote isn't nearly as powerful as being able to select who or what the people are allowed to vote for.
As children, we are raised to believe that we live in a free country, but excessive restrictions and regulations do not constitute freedom, no matter how free one is to complain about them. This is never more obvious than when the restrictions apply to the electoral system. The state constitution promises Oklahomans free and open elections, and every election cycle, you break this promise. The pre-1974 restrictions were tolerable, although they were still restrictions on elections. Since 1974, you've deliberately gone out of your way to make it excessively difficult for third parties to gain ballot access. With tremendous efforts, they have sometimes been able to get on the ballot, but the resources wasted on gaining ballot access ensure that they have little left to spread their message to the voters.
This is nothing but a protection scheme for tired, failed policies that offer nothing new to the voters. Have you not wondered why more and more Oklahomans are registering as Indepedents, instead of staying with the "protected" major parties? Voting in a primary election is no big deal unless you actually care about who the candidate is for a particular party.
I like Oklahoma. I was born and raised here, so it has enormous sentimental value to me. It also has a relatively low cost of living without sacrificing too much in the quality of life. But I fear that your restrictive policies are holding us back, and keeping Oklahomans from being all that they can be. There is no good reason for Oklahoma to be the worst state in the union for ballot access. It is too late for this election cycle--2008 is practically history, now. But it is never too late to make improvements for the future.
10/13/2008
Food, Digestion, and human waste products
And now, instead of more grumbling about government's handling of the economy, something completely different. I'll try not to get too scatalogical in today's post. The human body is an incredibly sophisticated, complex organism. Humans are omnivores, capable of eating a wide variety of things for food sources. Anything we eat or drink that the body cannot use passes through the body and is exited as either liquid or solid waste. But what if you could eat only food sources that the body could completely use?
If there was no unnecessary food item in your diet, then you would not need to go to the restroom. Is such a food possible? Is it desirable?
To make it possible, you would need to eat the right kind of food products, the kind your body can effectively and efficiently make use of, and you would need to eat the right amount that your body needs. I suppose if you ate more, your body could save some of it as fat instead of getting rid of it, but that's not especially desirable either.
I don't think there are any 'natural' foods that wouldn't produce waste. Certainly, switching to a low carb diet has changed my own waste. So I imagine that we would need to come up with some kind of processed food to be the "perfect", waste-free food. That would entail knowing exactly what the body needs and doesn't need so that we can avoid what we don't need. I don't think the nutrition experts know enough about the human diet to do that. At least not yet. And it would be complicated by the fact that your body needs different things at different times, so it wouldn't just be a static variable every time.
Of course, even if it's possible, there's the question of how desirable it is. It seems pretty obvious to me that we could save time, water, and toilet paper (and have fewer plumbing problems) if we didn't need to go to the restroom. You'd never again be standing in line or waiting somewhere, squirming in discomfort until you were free. That seems pretty desirable to me.
However, what would happen to your body without passing waste products? Think of fiber, for instance. People are encouraged to eat more fiber so that they will be more "regular", but other than that, I don't think the body has much use for fiber. That's why fiber can be subtracted when calculating "net carbs" in a diet--the fiber doesn't count. Of course, if you don't have anything else to pass, then you'd be doing nothing but eating fiber to pass fiber through your body, which seems pointless.
Nonetheless, your intestines, kidneys, etc. might need some occasional waste to process to keep them functioning properly. I'm not sure medical science knows enough to say for sure (or maybe nobody's asked them such a silly question!).
This is just one of those weird ideas I come up with every now and then. I don't have any answers for it. Maybe you do.
If there was no unnecessary food item in your diet, then you would not need to go to the restroom. Is such a food possible? Is it desirable?
To make it possible, you would need to eat the right kind of food products, the kind your body can effectively and efficiently make use of, and you would need to eat the right amount that your body needs. I suppose if you ate more, your body could save some of it as fat instead of getting rid of it, but that's not especially desirable either.
I don't think there are any 'natural' foods that wouldn't produce waste. Certainly, switching to a low carb diet has changed my own waste. So I imagine that we would need to come up with some kind of processed food to be the "perfect", waste-free food. That would entail knowing exactly what the body needs and doesn't need so that we can avoid what we don't need. I don't think the nutrition experts know enough about the human diet to do that. At least not yet. And it would be complicated by the fact that your body needs different things at different times, so it wouldn't just be a static variable every time.
Of course, even if it's possible, there's the question of how desirable it is. It seems pretty obvious to me that we could save time, water, and toilet paper (and have fewer plumbing problems) if we didn't need to go to the restroom. You'd never again be standing in line or waiting somewhere, squirming in discomfort until you were free. That seems pretty desirable to me.
However, what would happen to your body without passing waste products? Think of fiber, for instance. People are encouraged to eat more fiber so that they will be more "regular", but other than that, I don't think the body has much use for fiber. That's why fiber can be subtracted when calculating "net carbs" in a diet--the fiber doesn't count. Of course, if you don't have anything else to pass, then you'd be doing nothing but eating fiber to pass fiber through your body, which seems pointless.
Nonetheless, your intestines, kidneys, etc. might need some occasional waste to process to keep them functioning properly. I'm not sure medical science knows enough to say for sure (or maybe nobody's asked them such a silly question!).
This is just one of those weird ideas I come up with every now and then. I don't have any answers for it. Maybe you do.
10/03/2008
Our Next President and the Bailout
Both McCain and Obama voted FOR the financial bailout. Hey, one of these guys is going to be our next president! Which financial genius will it be? And where's the REAL opposition candidate? Oh yeah, ballot access laws are designed to keep them off or drain their funds so that they can't really put up a decent campaign.
Our alleged Two-Party system is looking more and more like One-Party every day. When we have no real choice, will Americans finally wake up and admit that the system itself is not merely broken, but fundamentally flawed?
Our alleged Two-Party system is looking more and more like One-Party every day. When we have no real choice, will Americans finally wake up and admit that the system itself is not merely broken, but fundamentally flawed?
9/30/2008
On the Financial Bailout Vote and Certain Responses
This Reuters article on the bailout vote, Conservatives stand firm on opposition to bailout, gives me mixed feelings. Yes, it's good that they opposed the bailout, but the vote was a little too close for comfort. This part especially troubles me:
"Conservatives strongly oppose the rescue plan proposed last week by U.S. President George W. Bush, arguing that it amounts to government intervention in the free market and would misspend taxpayer money to help big banks."
Uh, yes, it would be misspending taxpayer money, but what La-La Land are these conservative politicians living in if they think we currently have a free market? It's good that conservatives are voting against Bush, but it still seems that they don't really understand the problem in the first place, except for Congressman Ron Paul. It was the previous interventions in the free market that got us into this situation. Remember the Federal Reserve? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Subprime mortgages and fancy financial derivatives?
The article also quotes talk show host Neal Boortz as saying "I'm not particularly distressed that the bailout bill did not pass. I want to see this thing (the bill) flesh itself out a little over a period of days."
Um, what? This alleged "libertarian" simply wants a better bailout bill to be passed? How about "No bailout", Mr. Boortz? How about "Let them fail," Mr. Boortz? Are you one of those so-called "vulgar libertarians" I keep hearing about?
Oh well. If nothing else, it makes for good comedy. I suspect we will need it in the days to come.
"Conservatives strongly oppose the rescue plan proposed last week by U.S. President George W. Bush, arguing that it amounts to government intervention in the free market and would misspend taxpayer money to help big banks."
Uh, yes, it would be misspending taxpayer money, but what La-La Land are these conservative politicians living in if they think we currently have a free market? It's good that conservatives are voting against Bush, but it still seems that they don't really understand the problem in the first place, except for Congressman Ron Paul. It was the previous interventions in the free market that got us into this situation. Remember the Federal Reserve? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Subprime mortgages and fancy financial derivatives?
The article also quotes talk show host Neal Boortz as saying "I'm not particularly distressed that the bailout bill did not pass. I want to see this thing (the bill) flesh itself out a little over a period of days."
Um, what? This alleged "libertarian" simply wants a better bailout bill to be passed? How about "No bailout", Mr. Boortz? How about "Let them fail," Mr. Boortz? Are you one of those so-called "vulgar libertarians" I keep hearing about?
Oh well. If nothing else, it makes for good comedy. I suspect we will need it in the days to come.
9/26/2008
Financial Bailout Nonsense
Okay, okay, the big news lately is about the financial bailout package Congress and the President are trying to work out. In my opinion, this is a big mistake. We shouldn't be bailing out businesses for making bad business decisions, but letting them suffer the consequences of their actions. Instead, our government wants to make everybody pay for their mistakes. "They're too big to fail", they say. Nonsense, no company is too big to fail.
More importantly is how we got into this mess. Ultimately, it boils down to the Federal Reserve's policy of inflation and artificially low interest rates. By manipulating the money supply and keeping credit cheap, the markets were led into making business decisions that would not have been considered profitable at the true market interest rate.
The housing boom is a perfect example of this. Subprime mortgages would never have happened if lenders didn't have the support and guarantees of government to back them up. But they did, so they allowed people who really couldn't afford to buy houses to buy them, and put stress on the system when these people learned the hard way that they couldn't afford to buy houses. But why bail out the lenders? Why not bail out the homeowners directly? It still wouldn't be a good idea, but the fact that they don't do it goes to show who will actually benefit from the bailout--not the end consumers, but the financial firms who made the bad decisions.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE's that wouldn't even exist on a true free market. On a free market, businesses that make good business decisions are able to win more consumers (by satisfying them) and earning bigger profits that can be reinvested in the company to improve or expand the company. Businesses that make bad decisions end up losing money (i.e., they are failing to satisfy their customers), which tells them they need to make changes or else go out of business. The assets of businesses that go out of business are purchased by better-run businesses that then put those assets to better use. That's how it's supposed to work.
The bailout will reward businesses for bad decisions, and punish the better-run companies for not making the same bad decisions. The bailout will do that by the same means that got us into this mess in the first place: increasing the money supply and keeping interest rates artificially low. That's not going to fix the problem, merely prolong the problem. The market needs to correct for the bad business decisions, not prolong the bad business decisions.
The financial crisis is the direct result of government intervention in the economy, not capitalism, and the bailout is more government interventionism and will not solve the problem.
Of course, this is all my opinion and assertion. For more extensive information, check out "The Bailout Reader" at the Mises Institute website: http://mises.org/story/3128
More importantly is how we got into this mess. Ultimately, it boils down to the Federal Reserve's policy of inflation and artificially low interest rates. By manipulating the money supply and keeping credit cheap, the markets were led into making business decisions that would not have been considered profitable at the true market interest rate.
The housing boom is a perfect example of this. Subprime mortgages would never have happened if lenders didn't have the support and guarantees of government to back them up. But they did, so they allowed people who really couldn't afford to buy houses to buy them, and put stress on the system when these people learned the hard way that they couldn't afford to buy houses. But why bail out the lenders? Why not bail out the homeowners directly? It still wouldn't be a good idea, but the fact that they don't do it goes to show who will actually benefit from the bailout--not the end consumers, but the financial firms who made the bad decisions.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE's that wouldn't even exist on a true free market. On a free market, businesses that make good business decisions are able to win more consumers (by satisfying them) and earning bigger profits that can be reinvested in the company to improve or expand the company. Businesses that make bad decisions end up losing money (i.e., they are failing to satisfy their customers), which tells them they need to make changes or else go out of business. The assets of businesses that go out of business are purchased by better-run businesses that then put those assets to better use. That's how it's supposed to work.
The bailout will reward businesses for bad decisions, and punish the better-run companies for not making the same bad decisions. The bailout will do that by the same means that got us into this mess in the first place: increasing the money supply and keeping interest rates artificially low. That's not going to fix the problem, merely prolong the problem. The market needs to correct for the bad business decisions, not prolong the bad business decisions.
The financial crisis is the direct result of government intervention in the economy, not capitalism, and the bailout is more government interventionism and will not solve the problem.
Of course, this is all my opinion and assertion. For more extensive information, check out "The Bailout Reader" at the Mises Institute website: http://mises.org/story/3128
9/23/2008
Low Carb Diets
So I looked into the Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets. It makes a certain amount of sense to me, although I'm not sure if it really works. After reading one of the Atkins books, I decided to try a low-carb diet, although I'm not specifically following the Atkins plan. I have lost some weight, and I'm back under 200 pounds, but I've plateaued at 190 pounds. At 5'7", I figure I should be closer to 160 than 190, but I'll settle for feeling good about myself.
What I find interesting about Atkins is the idea that carbohydrates are what make you fat, not fat or just too many calories. That is, the body uses carbs for energy, and any carbs that it doesn't need for energy are turned into fat. While food fat and proteins can be used by the body for energy, the body supposedly doesn't turn the excess into body fat, but simply flushes them from the system as waste products. Thus, if you cut back on carbs so that you eat less of them than you need for energy, then you should lose weight, and the energy requirements not fulfilled by carbs will be made up by protein and fat in your diet.
Is it true? I don't know, but like the cartoon cat said, "Dat sounds logical." I've been doing low-carb for a little over 3 months, now, and while I have lost some weight, I still haven't lost as much as I expected to. It's true that my, ahem, solid waste has increased, so I suspect that my body really is passing excess fat and protein from the body.
And of course, I have other caveats: I'm not counting calories or even carbs, and I weigh myself rather infrequently, so while I've certainly cut out a lot of pasta, bread, potatoes, potato chips, candy, and other sources of carbs, it's still possible I'm getting more carbs than I think I am. And as a desk jockey, I don't really get too much exercise, although I take the Kickbike to work every day, and on weekends I have a friend that likes to go walking. So it's entirely possible I'm not sticking as close to the diet as I ought to be.
If the above explanation for low-carb diets isn't true, then what is true about low-carb diets? One explanation is simply that high carb foods are less calorie-dense, while low-carb foods are more calorie-(and nutrition) dense, and thus, you fill up faster eating the low carb foods. That is, you'll feel full faster by eating steak and broccoli than by eating pasta and potatoes. Maybe so, but it's been hard for me to notice any difference like that in my own personal experience.
Another 'explanation' comes from the Paleo diet, a low-carb variation. Basically, the Paleo diet suggests that early man didn't have easy access to high carb foods, and thus, his body was more adapted to a low-carb diet of meat, eggs, nuts & berries, and the like, and not enough time has passed since the development of agriculture for humans to adapt to a higher-carb diet. Possible, but I tend to be skeptical of evolutionary explanations for modern issues.
However, the Paleo explanation does bring up another interesting angle. The human population started drastically increasing with the development of agriculture. Why? Agricultural farming was a productivity increase--people could start counting on a steady supply of cheap food and had to worry less about when they could eat again (note that another aspect of Paleo dieting is intermittent fasting, as early man couldn't always eat regular meals). With agriculture came the development of "staple" foods, or foods that provided basic sustenance to the population: grains, rice, potatoes, beans.
Thus, the development of agricultural staples, along with the low-carb explanation, helps explain obesity in poor people in modern developed societies. When I was younger, it seemed to me that fat was cheap. I was wrong, but not completely: carbs are cheap, not fat, and poor people who stretch their food budget with excessive carbs may tend to be fatter than normal.
Dr. Atkins also suggested that our modern, high-carb diet is responsible for the increase in Type 2 Diabetes in our society. High carb foods tend to also have a high glycemic index, which, when consumed, tends to increase the production of insulin in the body to deal with them. This tends to put stress on the body and increases the chances of insulin resistance, and insulin levels being all out of whack, and thus, diabetes. Yeah, I'm not being scientific in my explanation, but check out an Atkins site for more detailed info.
Simply put, carbs are cheap, but the body doesn't handle them too well. Thus, a high-carb diet results in poor nutrition, obesity, and diabetes. Several of these links seem to go together, so I think it makes a lot of sense. It certainly makes more sense than the gobbledy-gook the nutritional 'experts' keep feeding us. Does anybody really believe the Food Pyramid is the key to a good, nutritional diet? What's lacking is good, solid proof, either way, so the jury is still out.
Nonetheless, even if you don't want to start a low-carb diet, it probably wouldn't hurt to cut back on the junk food in your diet--we all probably get way too much sugar in our foods, especially in the processed foods. And sugar is a carb. But if the low-carb people are right, we have much more to fear from carbs than from fat.
What I find interesting about Atkins is the idea that carbohydrates are what make you fat, not fat or just too many calories. That is, the body uses carbs for energy, and any carbs that it doesn't need for energy are turned into fat. While food fat and proteins can be used by the body for energy, the body supposedly doesn't turn the excess into body fat, but simply flushes them from the system as waste products. Thus, if you cut back on carbs so that you eat less of them than you need for energy, then you should lose weight, and the energy requirements not fulfilled by carbs will be made up by protein and fat in your diet.
Is it true? I don't know, but like the cartoon cat said, "Dat sounds logical." I've been doing low-carb for a little over 3 months, now, and while I have lost some weight, I still haven't lost as much as I expected to. It's true that my, ahem, solid waste has increased, so I suspect that my body really is passing excess fat and protein from the body.
And of course, I have other caveats: I'm not counting calories or even carbs, and I weigh myself rather infrequently, so while I've certainly cut out a lot of pasta, bread, potatoes, potato chips, candy, and other sources of carbs, it's still possible I'm getting more carbs than I think I am. And as a desk jockey, I don't really get too much exercise, although I take the Kickbike to work every day, and on weekends I have a friend that likes to go walking. So it's entirely possible I'm not sticking as close to the diet as I ought to be.
If the above explanation for low-carb diets isn't true, then what is true about low-carb diets? One explanation is simply that high carb foods are less calorie-dense, while low-carb foods are more calorie-(and nutrition) dense, and thus, you fill up faster eating the low carb foods. That is, you'll feel full faster by eating steak and broccoli than by eating pasta and potatoes. Maybe so, but it's been hard for me to notice any difference like that in my own personal experience.
Another 'explanation' comes from the Paleo diet, a low-carb variation. Basically, the Paleo diet suggests that early man didn't have easy access to high carb foods, and thus, his body was more adapted to a low-carb diet of meat, eggs, nuts & berries, and the like, and not enough time has passed since the development of agriculture for humans to adapt to a higher-carb diet. Possible, but I tend to be skeptical of evolutionary explanations for modern issues.
However, the Paleo explanation does bring up another interesting angle. The human population started drastically increasing with the development of agriculture. Why? Agricultural farming was a productivity increase--people could start counting on a steady supply of cheap food and had to worry less about when they could eat again (note that another aspect of Paleo dieting is intermittent fasting, as early man couldn't always eat regular meals). With agriculture came the development of "staple" foods, or foods that provided basic sustenance to the population: grains, rice, potatoes, beans.
Thus, the development of agricultural staples, along with the low-carb explanation, helps explain obesity in poor people in modern developed societies. When I was younger, it seemed to me that fat was cheap. I was wrong, but not completely: carbs are cheap, not fat, and poor people who stretch their food budget with excessive carbs may tend to be fatter than normal.
Dr. Atkins also suggested that our modern, high-carb diet is responsible for the increase in Type 2 Diabetes in our society. High carb foods tend to also have a high glycemic index, which, when consumed, tends to increase the production of insulin in the body to deal with them. This tends to put stress on the body and increases the chances of insulin resistance, and insulin levels being all out of whack, and thus, diabetes. Yeah, I'm not being scientific in my explanation, but check out an Atkins site for more detailed info.
Simply put, carbs are cheap, but the body doesn't handle them too well. Thus, a high-carb diet results in poor nutrition, obesity, and diabetes. Several of these links seem to go together, so I think it makes a lot of sense. It certainly makes more sense than the gobbledy-gook the nutritional 'experts' keep feeding us. Does anybody really believe the Food Pyramid is the key to a good, nutritional diet? What's lacking is good, solid proof, either way, so the jury is still out.
Nonetheless, even if you don't want to start a low-carb diet, it probably wouldn't hurt to cut back on the junk food in your diet--we all probably get way too much sugar in our foods, especially in the processed foods. And sugar is a carb. But if the low-carb people are right, we have much more to fear from carbs than from fat.
8/14/2008
Olympics 2008
Olympics, Olympics, Olympics! It's hard to avoid the Olympic games right now, even if you're not into sports. But what really gets me is the nationalistic jingoism that surrounds it. People want to criticize China for making such a big deal out of hosting it, but other host nations, including the U.S., also make a big deal about it.
And yet, why do people get all nationalistic about it? I mean, these are presumably the top amateur athletes that a nation has to offer in the competitions, meaning these are exceptional people, not ordinary people who are representative of their nation. So an American wins the gold in some particular event? It doesn't mean that I'm (as an American) a particularly gifted athlete, or that Americans in general are especially athletic. All it means is that one person is the best athlete in that event at that time, and he just happens to be from the United States. A Chinese athlete winning the gold doesn't make China a better (or worse) place, either. So all this nationalistic furor seems way over the top for me.
If anything, the Olympics are supposed to be above politics and nationalism, a chance for people to come together and celebrate the best that humanity as a whole has to offer, and to show the best that people can be. A win by an athlete from any country is a win for all of us.
And yet, why do people get all nationalistic about it? I mean, these are presumably the top amateur athletes that a nation has to offer in the competitions, meaning these are exceptional people, not ordinary people who are representative of their nation. So an American wins the gold in some particular event? It doesn't mean that I'm (as an American) a particularly gifted athlete, or that Americans in general are especially athletic. All it means is that one person is the best athlete in that event at that time, and he just happens to be from the United States. A Chinese athlete winning the gold doesn't make China a better (or worse) place, either. So all this nationalistic furor seems way over the top for me.
If anything, the Olympics are supposed to be above politics and nationalism, a chance for people to come together and celebrate the best that humanity as a whole has to offer, and to show the best that people can be. A win by an athlete from any country is a win for all of us.
8/04/2008
Williams Keytar - Unusual musical instruments, part 1
I got a Williams Keytar, the V-1 model! Why? After playing around with autoharps, zithers, bulbul tarangs and other strange instruments, I still longed for the perfect combination of strings and keys. While I'm not sure this is the perfect combination, it's a lot closer than anything else I've come across.
How to describe the Williams Keyboard Guitar? Well, it's like a guitar, but instead of a fretboard for selecting notes and chords, you have an actual keyboard instead. The V-1 has 12 strings and keys, from C3-B3, so you can finger any possible chord type, although you have to settle for inversions of some chords to do it.
Like the Bulbul Tarang, pressing a key pushes a string down onto a metal platform and "frets" the string to that pitch. Unlike the Tarang, pressing a key only frets one string (one key per string), not all the strings, and thus allows for true polyphonic playing that the "Indian Banjo" is incapable of. Simply pushing the key down like that makes a sound, but you get a louder sound if you strum the string(s) at the same time. In fact, you can use the difference in volume to create complex rhythmic patterns.
Thanks to the strings, you get a very guitar-like sound out of it, even though you don't usually get the actual guitar voicings. Run it through some guitar effects, and you can get some very cool sounds and noises out of it. Chorus, reverb, distortion, any effect that you'd put on a guitar.
Because any unplayed strings are dampened, strumming the strings can give you that "washboard" effect. While that could be distracting, I think it adds interesting "guitar-like" noise to the sound. However, the effect can be lessened by playing more complex, four-note chords instead of simpler three-note triads.
Like I said, you can make sound simply by pressing the keys, and thus, can play melodic or harmonic lines as well as chords, but because the volume is lower than by strumming, and because you're limited to a 12-note range, the Keytar is not well-suited to soloing. The V-2 model has a 2-octave/24 string range, which would help there.
The default strings are pretty thin, though. The four lowest strings are .023 and sound pretty good, but the eight higher strings are all .009's. One of the first things I did was buy some heavier loop end strings to replace the .009's. I got a couple of .012's, .015's, .017's and .020's. I figured I would lay them out from highest and thinnest to lowest and thickest. Alas, I suck at changing strings, and ended up breaking a few while trying to get them on and tuned up. I ended up keeping 3 of the .009's so I would still have all twelve playable strings. But I do think the heavier strings help give it a meatier sound--I'll go get some more strings and try again to finish re-stringing it.
When I first saw pictures of the Williams Keytar, I figured playing it guitar-style with the strap over your shoulder would be awkward. I was right. It can be done, but it's really easier to play it sitting on your lap, or simply laying it flat on a keyboard stand and play standing up.
I don't know about that triangle-shaped, aluminum body, though, and I do wish they had some other colors for it. I suppose the aluminum body made it easier to do the precision machining and put it together, but I'd still like to see a solid wood body with some nice curves on it. The aluminum with the sharp edges just seems too harsh, although I suppose it could be considered a plus for metal or thrash musicians.
All in all, I'm really enjoying playing the Williams Keytar, and expect to start writing and recording with it pretty soon. I'd also like to get the V-2, but at $999, it'll have to wait a while. If I could just get someone else to do the re-stringing for me! ;-)
How to describe the Williams Keyboard Guitar? Well, it's like a guitar, but instead of a fretboard for selecting notes and chords, you have an actual keyboard instead. The V-1 has 12 strings and keys, from C3-B3, so you can finger any possible chord type, although you have to settle for inversions of some chords to do it.
Like the Bulbul Tarang, pressing a key pushes a string down onto a metal platform and "frets" the string to that pitch. Unlike the Tarang, pressing a key only frets one string (one key per string), not all the strings, and thus allows for true polyphonic playing that the "Indian Banjo" is incapable of. Simply pushing the key down like that makes a sound, but you get a louder sound if you strum the string(s) at the same time. In fact, you can use the difference in volume to create complex rhythmic patterns.
Thanks to the strings, you get a very guitar-like sound out of it, even though you don't usually get the actual guitar voicings. Run it through some guitar effects, and you can get some very cool sounds and noises out of it. Chorus, reverb, distortion, any effect that you'd put on a guitar.
Because any unplayed strings are dampened, strumming the strings can give you that "washboard" effect. While that could be distracting, I think it adds interesting "guitar-like" noise to the sound. However, the effect can be lessened by playing more complex, four-note chords instead of simpler three-note triads.
Like I said, you can make sound simply by pressing the keys, and thus, can play melodic or harmonic lines as well as chords, but because the volume is lower than by strumming, and because you're limited to a 12-note range, the Keytar is not well-suited to soloing. The V-2 model has a 2-octave/24 string range, which would help there.
The default strings are pretty thin, though. The four lowest strings are .023 and sound pretty good, but the eight higher strings are all .009's. One of the first things I did was buy some heavier loop end strings to replace the .009's. I got a couple of .012's, .015's, .017's and .020's. I figured I would lay them out from highest and thinnest to lowest and thickest. Alas, I suck at changing strings, and ended up breaking a few while trying to get them on and tuned up. I ended up keeping 3 of the .009's so I would still have all twelve playable strings. But I do think the heavier strings help give it a meatier sound--I'll go get some more strings and try again to finish re-stringing it.
When I first saw pictures of the Williams Keytar, I figured playing it guitar-style with the strap over your shoulder would be awkward. I was right. It can be done, but it's really easier to play it sitting on your lap, or simply laying it flat on a keyboard stand and play standing up.
I don't know about that triangle-shaped, aluminum body, though, and I do wish they had some other colors for it. I suppose the aluminum body made it easier to do the precision machining and put it together, but I'd still like to see a solid wood body with some nice curves on it. The aluminum with the sharp edges just seems too harsh, although I suppose it could be considered a plus for metal or thrash musicians.
All in all, I'm really enjoying playing the Williams Keytar, and expect to start writing and recording with it pretty soon. I'd also like to get the V-2, but at $999, it'll have to wait a while. If I could just get someone else to do the re-stringing for me! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)