Reverse the Effect of Sitting for Prolonged Periods

http://boingboing.net/2014/09/10/walking-for-5-minhour-prevent.html
and
http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/09/slow-walking-sitting-study.shtml

A quick note -
A simple, slow five-minute walk per hour can reverse the deleterious effects of prolonged sitting! Prolonged sitting creates slack muscles in the legs and torso which fail to pump blood effectively, causing the arteries of the legs to lose their ability to expand to accommodate increased blood flow.  This decrease in ability is an early marker of greater cardiovascular disease.

This is the first experimental evidence available to suggest that a short break in sitting - as little as 5 minutes of walk at a 2-mile-per-hour pace - can help stave off a decline in the arterial functionality, and aid in reversing the effects of the sitting.  It was also a very small study - 11 male subjects in total, non-obese, and relatively healthy and young (ages 20-35).

US empire is reviled by the Middle East as the free market "religion" hurtles the world to destruction (Opinion)

Common Dreams - Is the World Too Big To Fail?

This long-form article written by Chomsky in 2011 sketches the historical backdrop to the "Arab Spring". The first part is to recount the strategic planning that the US military and economic advisers conducted in the wake of WWII: to control the world's energy source, the Middle East. The US-led NATO now secures (by force) shipping lanes, oil pipelines, and in other ways secures the "access to markets" because of they are "crucial infrastructure" to the energy economy. The Arab Spring poses a difficulty for US hegemony because of the highly negative public sentiment toward the US (and Israel), most notably in Egypt, which is shows over 90% of the public regards the US (and Israel) as the major threat to the country. Why do so many populations in the Middle East dislike and distrust the US? US government studies concluded, both in the 1950s and also after 9/11, that these attitudes are due to the (accurate) perception that the US supports dictators and stifles democratic movements when they threaten political-economic dominance.

The look back in history takes the two cases of Egypt and the US and looks at them in the early 1800s. During that time, cotton production and textiles were the most important domestic products, which the US developed under slavery and high tariffs, essentially protecting itself from more efficient producers like England. Egypt, on the other hand, couldn't accomplish this due to being conquered by England and therefore stuck to producing the lower-value cotton for export and importing English (value-added) textiles. The progenitor for the doctrine of not using protective tariffs but instead allowing free (international) competition was Adam Smith, and to this day similar strategies are used today to encourage the development of third-world countries. Interestingly, Chomsky points out that even Smith noticed that higher profits could be made using cheaper overseas labor, which would debilitate the domestic labor availability, but that domestic producers would be swayed to keep jobs local by a kind of patriotism, an "invisible hand" to keep production in their home countries.

The discussion then turns to Iran and the threat it might be to the US. Its military is not significant and mainly defensive. Given the fact that the US invaded two of its neighbors, it does seem reasonable to develop a nuclear deterrent. But the political, not military, power that Iran projects to its neighbors is "destabilizing", while invasions, coups, etc., at least when conducted by US or US-proxies, is "stabilizing". Another "threat" is China, which isn't a threat to the US homeland but instead a threat to develop its own sphere of influence, which is of course a threat to US hegemony. One solution to Iran developing nuclear weapons is to make the Middle East a non-nuclear weapon zone, but of course the US has openly stated that this could happen only if Israel is exempt. In other words, no nuclear weapons for non-allies.

A brief run-down of economic and political changes in the US since the 1970 ensues, with a vicious cycle of exporting production and deregulating financial markets causing elections to become enormously influenced by the business class as their wealth grew (Adam Smith's hopes against owners not exporting their stock notwithstanding). To distract from the real roots of these crises there must be fictitious targets, and Chomsky argues that these are the public sector employees (teachers) and, familiarly, immigrants. The hypocrisy regarding immigrant refugees from third world countries who have been ravaged by the US (or other European countries), either by force or by breaking down tariffs, is especially glaring. Due to NAFTA, Mexican agro-businesses couldn't compete with the (subsidized) US ones, thus unemployed Mexicans flooded the US to work for the winning team; only to be demonized. Chomsky discusses the popular response to immigrants in Europe: ultra-right racist parties gaining popularity. The ending to the piece discusses the likely destruction of the planet through global warming, propelled by business which knows full-well the outcome but must continue to maximize short-term profits.

A quick (dated) survey of the debate over how to be the American Empire

New York Times - American Empire, not 'If' but 'What Kind'

This piece written (in 2003) by two senior fellows at the Brookings Institution takes a quick survey of well-known pundits and policymakers who already assume that the US is a global empire. The only people quoted who deny it are those whose job it is to do so: President GW Bush (and, famously, Donald Rumsfeld), plus a Bush-friendly national security strategist (Zelikow) who doesn't appreciate the moniker but now seems to counsel toward imperious behavior. The substantive discussions are about whether the US should continue to be an empire (Buchanan and Chomsky say no), and since it is one, how much of one it should be (Kristol and Boot). The article continues by giving a history of US empire, but also, fascinatingly (given out current condition), to talk about how easy it is for the US to dominate the globe. US military spending dwarfs the rest of the world and yet it simultaneously accounts for a smaller portion of US GDP than during "the height of the cold war", hence the conclusion that empire comes "on the cheap". The article finishes with a discussion of attempts to manage the downsides of empire, most especially the resentment that it breeds from other nations. 

Propane grilling better for you than charcoal

Men's Health - Is it healthier to grill with propane or charcoal?

This quick little bit runs down the reasons to grill with propane rather than charcoal. In short, charcoals get hotter than propane, which means that fat drippings onto charcoal cause more flare ups of smoke and fire. The fire chars the meat, and the char is a known carcinogen. The smoke is also carcinogenic, and as the smoke hits the meat it covers the meat in the carcinogen. Of course both smoke and char occur in propane grills too, but scientists have found them to a greater extent on charcoal-cooked meat. In short, if you're going to grill, avoid flare ups and char by trimming fat and marinate, which reduces the char on meat by 90%.