Mediterranean Diet dumps a load on the South Beach Diet

There's a lot of pooh pooh stuff going on about the Mediterranean Diet here lately.  Believe me, I've been checking it out.  I always do when I such claims as reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke by as much as 30% make health headlines.  One of the news bits I found intriguing was that a study was stopped short because the results were 'so promising,' and evidently had been for several years.  If you do a 'search' you're going to fine a boat load of diet books already on the market, none of them by the researchers ( a plus).  I always find that suspicious knowing how some people will try to make a buck off of anything and everything.  Of course, the diet books don't really tell you much.  In fact, if you start looking at the recipes, some of them don't sound to dietetic.  One recipe for Naan, an Indian flat bread, I checked out included butter.  Hhhmm, now that sounds healthy.  The only thing I could really find out about it was the Mediterranean Diet food pyramid.  Personally, I think that's a good place to start.

The first thing I noticed was you don't get to eat a lot of red meat, but then I got to thinking.  What kind of red meats do they have in Italy, and Greece besides goats and sheep?  The only answer I could come up with was... goats and sheep, ain't no Guernseys there.  This makes sense to me.  There's not a lot of sugar, but most diets also avoid it.  Let's see, there's are a few eggs, about 4 per week is what they recommend.  A little more fowl and fish, of course, being on the Mediterranean birds and seafood would be a bit more prevalent.  Then you get to the cheeses, and olive oil, and vegetables and breads.  Holy Crap!  When it comes to breads, and pastas,and rice and potatoes, you're should be eating them with every meal!  Shit, it's like most of what you're eating is Carbs!  How can that be?

I don't know.  I'm also not going to spend a lot of my time brushing up on all of the scientific lingo jingo just to try and understand.  What I do know is that every diet which attempts to eliminate carbs turns into the enemy.  Any website which allows comments is filled with South Beach Diet aficionados shrieking their pants off.  Denouncement is their only choice, they have no alternative.  Personally, I feel that if their diet works for them, then they should follow it rather then attempt to brow beat other diets into the ground.  A couple of years ago I looked at the South Beach Diet and decided it was far to expensive for my blood.  With the price of meat today you need to have deep pockets just to put their diet on you table.

As for the Mediterranean Diet, I already eat a lot of olive oil, having given up other oils and fats years ago.  I eat nuts every day, and a lot of grains and vegetables.  About a year ago, well before the hubbub broke through the surface into public opinion, I began incorporating beans regularly into my diet.  I also cut my red meat consumption down to 2 or 3 times a month.  

For those trying to lose weight just by dieting, this is not the route to go.  In order to take the pounds off and keep them off you need to exercise, regularly.  Am I advocating this diet?  No, make up your own mind.

Seth MacFarlane triumphs, Fox News craps its pants

I watched the Oscar telecast last evening and enjoyed it thoroughly.  Originally I'd thought "Lincoln" might sweep, but then I saw "Argo."  When the audience broke into rousing applause twice before the film ended, I knew I was seeing Oscar gold.

As far as Seth MacFarlane hosting, I think he hit a home run; reviewers were not as kind.  People seem to forget, or else they never saw, both Both Bob Hope and Johnny Carson telling jokes that were considered a bit more than ribald and tasteless for their times.  Surprise, they did, and then they would stand there looking like guilty little boys.  The show was never meant to be a "G" rated family affair.  True, some of Mr. MacFarlane's jokes did make the audience wince, but again, this is pretty much a standard feature.  Everybody watching needs to have those "oh, he didn't say that," moments, without them the show would be rather lame.  The "I've seen your Boobs," number came close to hitting the mother lode.  Guess what everybody's talking about today?  Guess what everybody's trying to watch on YouTube?  If you don't think Bob Hope, or Johnny Carson, or even Billy Crystal would have done that number, if they could have gotten it passed the censors, you are living on another dimensional plane.  Thank you, Mr. MacFralane for making me laugh so hard!

Hopefully, he'll be back next  year

Some moron whined about having a Bondless, James Bond tribute.  Excuse me, two of the actors who played 007 are in the 80's.  I would rather remember them as being young and vibrant rather then elderly.  Two of the actors who played the character were not very successful in the role, so do we really want them onstage?  Some people need to think before they whine.

Another idiot complained about not seeing the audience reaction after Streisand sang.  Holy Crap, she ended the 'In Memorium' segment.  I was glad they faded to black rather then show the audience hooping and hollering because they'd gotten a chance to see the legendary Streisand.

And then there was the review by Fox News.  I could only wonder if the writer survived a pre-frontal lobotomy at some time in the past.  I'm reading this thing with phrases about 'conservative, family values,' wondering if they know they've just shit in their pants.  Their sister network is Fox Entertainment.  When was the last time you heard of Fox Entertainment advertising conservative, family value programming.  Over the past decades, this is the network which has proffered such titles as  Nip/Tuck, and Dirt, both enduring, family value shows.  I remember way, way back when they struck pay dirt with a raunchy little sex comedy call "Married With Children."  Of course, Fox News has always managed to show a blind eye to vulgar relative.

Marco Rubio - The GOP's bait and switch plan

Of course there is a lot of chatter out here about Marco Rubio's lunge for a glass of water while giving the GOP rebuttal to the State of the Union.  I suspect the GOP has a bigger problem then a thirsty spokesperson.  It seems like almost every time I turn around his face is being flashed on the TV screen or there is some sort of really not so very newsworthy item on the Internet.  I suspect this is because there were a lot of lessons for the GOP to learn after the 2012 election, one of them being they did not appeal to Latino voters.  Duh.  So, their game plan changes and they pick a nice looking Latino man to become part of their changing public image.  You have to admit he does look rather clean cut and is evidently not from the barrio.

Unfortunately he has already had some sort of GOP fallacy issues, one them being his claim his parents fled Cuba to get away from Fidel Castro.  This seems not to be the case, in that they had actually emigrated to Florida three years earlier.  The hook is to get Latino voters interested, and then run two other candidates president and vice president.  I mean, how bad can a political party be if Mr. Rubio is a member? 

I've seen recently Mr. Rubio has already stated he would not be running for president in 2016, of course this is one of those statements politicians have been making since the dawn of time.  However, I believe this statement might actually be true.  Another thing the GOP learned was just how racist their base was, which is rather telling in regards to the possibility of Mr. Rubio making a run for the White House.  I sure both he, and the GOP hierarchy, realize they have quite a problem on their hands.  If these Tweeters weren't going to vote for a black man, they're not going to vote a Latino either.  The only thing the GOP can do is the old 'bait and switch,' bait them Rubio and pray Latino voters will vote for some white bread guy instead.

Ratzinger retires as Pope, it's about time

Pope Benedict is retiring, it's about time.  While I am definitely not a Catholic and most assuredly not the most religious man alive, I do recognize the power of organized religion.  Some times they do very good things and at other times they just want to wield power.  To me it seems that the latter tends to be their preferred path.  Once the most powerful church in the world, Catholicism has been taking hits over recent years because of their backward facing dogma.  Before Benedict, they had John Paul, an unbelievably popular pope.  He knew how to sway in the breeze of public opinion without really stepping forward or falling back.  I do believe he might have been responsible for actually growing the church, somewhat.

After John Paul, the conclave served us up Benedict.  In spite of what the church hierarchy presents, he was not very popular.  For the first time, in this media savvy world, just how political the selection process was, where coalitions formed around specific candidates.  In the end a guy named Ratzinger won the papacy.  Immediately the rocks began appearing.  There were vague links between he and the Nazi party.  Even today, do a search on the Internet and you're going to find all kinds of links to websites which call him the Nazi Pope.

They eyes look a bit shady, don't they?

Then there were his strident views on doctrine, unflinching, unable to bend even slightly in the wind of an ever changing world.  For every one step forward John Paul had taken the church, he took it two steps back.  I suppose, had he been pope back when mass was still said in Latin, he might not have been so bad.  It wouldn't surprise me if his retirement, the first in 600 years or so, was not politically motivated.    There was the incident with "What the Butler Knew."  For the first time ever the doormat had been lifted and people began to see all the dirt hidden there.

We will have to wait and see if the Catholic Church has learned its lesson, or if they're going to dummy themselves up and take another couple of steps backwards.

Man Caves, the ugly truth

The Super Bowl is upon us.  For quite a few, it is the the greatest football game in the world.  Me, I prefer cycling so I don't share in all the excitement.  One thing I do find interesting is suddenly and quite frequently, one starts hearing about man caves.  What is a man cave?  Supposedly it is the only room where the man of the house can find refuge.  A real man should retreat to his man cave so he doesn't have to deal with the hum drum of daily life.  If you've ever watched House Hunters you've heard men talking about which room is going to be their man cave.  I always have to laugh at them since usually what they end up with is some thing like this.

Sure, there are trophies on the walls and there are a lot of what I call 'faux' male trappings, but this is not a man cave.  Don't believe the little sign over the fire place.  There are just too many feminine touches.  The rusticity is by design.  In spite of its intent, this is nothing more then a family room (note the videos under the television).

A real man cave has wood.  You know what I'm talking about, the real stuff, like this room here.

There is so much wood in this room, you can feel it.  Believe me, there is nothing like real wood.  And look at the leather, no doubt made from real cow hide.  And the bear on the lampshade?  That just screams man cave.  Who needs a sign on the fireplace when you have true, honest to goodness,  real wood and leather?  You can bet no family gathers here to watch television.  This room is only for men. Growl!