the same old

The last couple of years have felt rather different from any I've experienced in my short adulthood, at least politically. This is partially because we do live in odd political times where standards that applied before no longer do. However, that being acknowledged, many of the issues being argued in politics and the problems with the political system are as old as the country is.

I am just now wrapping up listening to the audio book version of David McCullough's biography of John Adams.  In this, I have been struck by the number of issues that are still resonant today.

Foremost among the problems in the political system are people's loyalty to party over country.  Adams himself is presented in the book being aghast at the party-ism he saw, though he did represent a party when in office.  The book goes to great lengths to illustrate that his fellow Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, caused him as much trouble as the Republican-Democrats did.  Hamilton was to Adams like the modern-day tea partiers to establishment Republicans or Bernie supporters to establishment Democrats.  The sense is presented that many Federalists didn't believe that Adams was enough on their side on some matters.

Another issue McCullough presents is how many people picked and chose their media coverage based on whether they presented the political slant that they agreed with.  Furthermore, the papers that sided with one party over the other were ruthlessly savage to the opposition, and one gets the sense that they weren't overly concerned with accuracy.

It is partially because of the savage press that Adams committed what many consider to be his most shameful act in signing the Alien and Sedition Act.  This was partially anti-immigration legislation, which apparently is not a new thing, and partially legislation to limit what was called seditious speech against the government in power.  I personally believe that this act is a black mark on Adams' legacy, but it is interesting that recent immigration actions by the current administration that feel like a new thing are not new at all.

It's almost only mentioned in passing in the book, but one of the early debates in the country was whether having a national bank was reasonable.  This sounds very much like the Libertarian and somewhat Trumpian rumblings today of, "Wouldn't it be better if markets ran themselves rather than being managed by the Fed?"  That view toward the national bank was more mainstream then than the anti-Fed view is today.

The Federalists were seen as the war-mongering party of their day, as there was a major push by Hamilton to go to war against post-revolution France.  Adams was called a monarchist in part because he favored a good trade relationship with Britain that was imbalanced against the Americans, which was the equivalent of decrying someone as unpatriotic today.  Likewise Jefferson, the figurehead of the Republican-Democrats, was labeled as an irreligious and immoral person.  These are still go-to attacks for some candidates.

The book spends time discussing the work put into establishing trade deals, and at least one ill-conceived embargo that backfired on Adams' son when he voted for it in Congress.  Those are both scenarios that are salient today.

One final thing unrelated to politics that has struck me about the book is the different amounts of time that Adams spent with his different children.  He spent a lot of time in Europe, and his oldest son--John Q. Adams--was there with him much more than any other member of the family.  Later, Adams' two other sons turned out to have very significant issues, with one dying of cirrhosis of the liver, and one wonders if this is partially due to them being left behind when their dad traveled away.  This makes me feel fortunate that I have not had to travel away from my family for work as many others have had to.

fiber

When thinking about today's topic, my mind keeps going to the old SNL skit below.

When I started watching my calories this past March I very purposefully avoided putting too many rules in place.  I figured if I started trying to manage carbs, or sugar, or anything else I'd eventually give up.  So, I kept it to simply managing calories, and that was a very effective approach for me in cutting weight.

In the course of managing my calories I noticed a side benefit to this as well that minor digestion issues that regularly flared up for me largely died down.  Over time, I have concluded that this is because my fiber intake has increased some as I've started eating more low-calorie fruits and vegetables.

This confused me a little since the way fiber helped me seemed to be the opposite of what it's reputation is.  I was visiting the bathroom less frequently rather than more.  The jokes I had always heard were always about how fiber kept you chained to the toilet.

With this evidence behind me and having learned about some of the purported benefits of a high fiber diet I decided a few weeks ago that I would increase my fiber intake.  If increasing my fiber intake a little helped out my digestion increasing it a lot would make it even better, right!?

WOW, have I learned a life lesson!  Specifically, it is not wise to increase your fiber intake between 50% and 75% overnight.  The body has to adjust to this new way of life.  Fiber has to be stepped up gradually.  The problem is, this is hard to do.  Too much fiber produces just so much gas (Sorry for that detail!), but too little fiber will not adjust my body to being able to handle the volume of fiber I need to have in my diet.  Furthermore, it's not always easy to know whether I've properly hit my fiber target.

So, I'm hopefully at the tail end of this adjustment period.  Having gone through this, I really don't ever want to fall off the fiber wagon because it'll be painful getting back on.