I just read a fascinating discourse by Ariel Durant, presented as a lecture at Ripon College in 1970. The entire lecture can be read at this link: http://www.willdurant.com/candr.htm
What struck me most was near the end of the lecture where she says, "I prefer reform to revolution. If there anything clear in history it is that violent revolution multiplies chaos, disseminates destitution, and passes through the excesses of freedom to a dictatorship by an oppressive minority. Revolution is a master that devours both its parents and its children. Less alluring, but less costly, are those processes of reform, by persistent education and gradual public acceptance, which have achieved so many beneficent changes in our century."
The reason this statement strikes me so close to the heart is because so very frequently, I hear people express their willingness to take up arms in an effort to fix the problems of our society, to give up their lives in order to prevent the losses of our freedoms and rights. I learn through forums such as this and from other venues of those who will give up their well-being, their families' lives and all that they possess in order to pick up arms and pursue those freedoms which we have and perceive to be losing, bit by inexorable bit.
What I hear of much less frequently, indeed, quite rarely, are those who are willing to consider the prerequisites to revolution. Rarely do I hear of those who are willing to go to their local city council meetings, get up a couple of times a month and write effective letters and correspondence to their local and national representatives, to speak out when opportunity presents itself. To step away from their televisions and entertainments to speak up and voice their concerns about excessive taxation and overbearing government waste and excess.
There is a huge dichotomy of thought and action between the two. It never ceases to amaze me that there there is an appearance of a great many who prefer the idea of some supposed (mistakenly) glamor of bloodshed to the quiet, peaceful motion of written and verbal dialogue.
Be assured, if it were necessary to shed blood to preserve freedoms, there can be no doubt that rising up to face the enemies of freedom is the right thing to do. Until then, can we prevent it from becoming a need?
I suggest that yes, we can. Freedom-loving Americans such as ourselves can reverse the trend. We must look and see that the erosion we face at this time has been brought about by such means. There has been no military suppression to threaten our peace as a whole. The threat has been the oratory, the verbiage and the pen. Little by little, over the course of almost 100 years, have our freedoms been assaulted by and compromised because of the steady and devoted progress of opponents of rights and freedoms.
Can we do something to stop it? To reverse this trend? Can we end the divisions between us and unite together to bring about a restoration of our need to live free and not die? Is there a leader around whom we can gather in order to press our desires?
I speculate. I'm no expert. I do not see the desired progress. Am I blind? There are battles won, to be sure, but it seems that for each step forward, we have lost a couple of other steps. Nonetheless, I don't despair. I believe in all of us and in our sense of desire and urgency that will move us in the direction which pleases us. I would never attempt to foist a blood revolution upon us. It's too heady a responsibility. Rather, I would foster a revolution of the pen and the words of our mouths.
If you haven't been writing to your representatives, discoursing with your acquaintances, bringing up these issues at appropriate times and using the opportunities at your disposal to discuss such things, it's time. Time to arm ourselves with the written word and use the magnificent technologies we have at our disposal to begin to reverse the negative trends.
Are you willing? Will you?
--Wag--
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
You selfish bastard.
Yeah, occasionally, people think I'm a selfish bastard. Some of my friends are also called selfish bastards and so we started talking about this topic one day a few weeks ago.
It seems that the issue is not whether or not someone is actually selfish. In truth, it's nearly impossible to know if someone is generous and compassionate because we can't read minds. Unless you see them do something nice for someone, you simply don't know. Even then, it's questionable as I'll discuss below. If they tell you they did something nice, then you can probably tell if they are being generous. More likely, someone else may tell you that a third person has done something generous.
Really though, what we see most frequently are people who are all bent out of shape because they believe that someone ELSE should be less selfish and give of themselves or their means. That's pretty judgmental, frankly, but what's even more amazing is how often those same people who are calling for the generosity of others are the same ones who are not wiling to be generous of themselves!
Hypocrisy at its best.
It's said on every airplane prior to the flight: "Secure your own oxygen mask FIRST before securing your own." This rule holds true in real life, too. If you have nothing to give, you may very well be as unselfish as anyone, but you just don't have it to give. Add to that the idea that if you harm yourself in your effort to help another, you have had a net effect of zero or less. Actions which are harmful to yourself are quite often less than helpful to the other person as well.
Yes, we hear stories of people who are killed while helping another person and it is said that they truly gave everything. I have no problem with that. It's honorable to help another person, even at the risk of your own life. What's not honorable is for someone ELSE to ask you to do it and castigate you if you don't. I suspect that if someone does help another person, they are often hoping that they are able to give aid AND preserve their own life and means. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve yourself in the process of helping another and foregoing the opportunity if circumstances demand it.
Money is a big one. How often do family and friends ask you for financial assistance in one form or another? I strongly suggest that if you have no money of your own to give, if you are in debt yourself, if you don't have the means to provide, you are jeopardizing your own well-being to help the other person. I'm not talking about a guy borrowing $20 for lunch money. I'm talking about the family member who asks you to help them make a couple of car payments or take a wayward child into your home to live, etc. If you bear that expense for them and put yourself in a lurch and can't cover your own living costs, where is the value in that? That is a critical question. What value is there in jeopardizing your well-being to help another person?
If you decide, however, that you're going to refrain from damaging your own security and you withhold the aid that is requested of you, how often does that individual, along with his or her friends and family, consider you a selfish prick? It happens all the time, often to the point of the loss of relatiionships. I suspect that most often when you're accused in such a way, it's when you have the appearance of means on the surface when in reality, you may not be doing as well as others might believe. Indeed, if someone is going to ask you for help, frequently, they have an overblown sense in their minds about what YOU have and what you should do with your resources.
We're not even going to talk about the idea that sometimes, the help you give is much more detrimental than helpful. That's a whole 'nother blog post!
Money is not the only thing, either. Time or Possessions. How often do you get asked to loan your car to someone who's just had their car repossessed? If it's YOUR only or primary means of transportation, or a substantial part of your personal resources, are you jeopardizing your well-being by loaning it out? It's not only possible, it's even quite likely. If you can afford to bear the potential loss, Great! Do as you will. But if you don't have the ability or the means to bear that loss, then you are not necessarily selfish by withholding, regardless of the accusations which could be levied upon you by others who claim a higher morality.
In other words, there are those who cannot see beyond the mark and who would be just fine with everyone being completely unselfish and all of us being completely useless to each other because we have all expended all of our resources in order to give aid and assistance to each other in a personally irresponsible way.
Be assured, I'm all in favor of helping people. I'm an advocate of assisting those in need. Of giving of yourself and your means. Giving a guy $5 worth of gas at the pump even though his story is likely B.S. is a good thing. Helping a family member with $100 to get him through the week is a good thing too. Allowing someone to move in with you while they get back on their feet post-tragic-job-loss.
BUT!!!
Only when you're able to do so without compromising your own security in life. Withholding such things is no crime if you have valid reasons and no other person can tell you what any of those reasons should be. Nor can they look into your heart and mind and arrive at any sort of understanding about why you may have said, "No."
There are many unselfish people out there who would give if they had the means to do so. Unfortunately, they are often guilt-tripped into doing more than they are truly able to do. They put themselves into debt in order to resolve the debts of others. They give up their pensions, retirements, short-term savings, marital security and other security in order to bail out the other person.
No, it's not easy to say no. But often, it's better to say no than to give unthinkingly. Again, bordering on a discussion for another post but definitely something to think about. Sometimes, it's better to say no.
Returning to the original premise, it's important to realize that the ONLY person who can judge your generosity is you. Nobody else can look into your heart and see what it is that makes you decide to help another person or not. Nobody but you is able to know what your circumstances are and why you decide to help or why you decide that now is not the time.
A tangential part of this discussion lies with those who I would consider, "selfishly generous." These are the people who only give when they have some way to benefit from it. They expect a return for their generosity. I'm not saying that giving to another and expecting something is return is entirely bad. It happens all the time and it's a normal part of bartering in real life. So long as it's agreed upon up front, there is no issue. Generosity can benefit both people.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about when I say, "selfishly generous." A mother or father gives up a wad of cash only because they feel guilty that their child is suffering financially. They give unthinkingly, without considering the potential harm to themselves, then walk away feeling like a million bucks! They solved the problem! What's wrong with this is that they didn't solve the problem they professed to solve. They only solved the problem of their OWN feelings of guilt, inadequacy, etc. Their desire was not motivated by wanting to help their kid, they only looked at it as an opportunity to bandage their own hurting soul.
You could call it, "lazy generosity." An unthinking gift may do no good. Indeed, it may do more harm than good. The point though, is that it is not especially generous. It is, in fact, selfish of a person to give to another with no thought of helping but only of covering up some hurting feeling within. Equally disingenuous is helping without considering the long-term effects of what such, "help," will be.
How do you know the difference? If you're giving only to appease the critical masses (family, friends, church people, etc.) and because of the pressure they are putting upon you, then you're not being generous. Do a reality check and make absolutely sure you're not helping just because you feel guilty for NOT doing so. Make sure that when you give, you're not expecting some personal benefit or compensation or repayment in return. (I know people who say that if you help someone now, chances are very good that you'll be able to rely on that person for help in the future if you need it. Kind of like making a deposit into a charity bank account or something!)
If you are genuinely interested in giving help to another, be absolutely sure you give a great deal of thought into what the long-term benefits will be. In a short-term emergency, there may be more room for erring in the side of caution but if you've played out the scenario in your mind ahead of time, you should be able to think clearly without emotion clouding your judgment. Make sure the help you give is not motivated by the fear of the haranguing by others you are sure will come your way. Consider the possibility that the kind of help you're giving is the best help possible. It could be that even though someone is asking for money, it may not be the most helpful thing for that individual or for those circumstances.
There is much more to be said on this subject, no doubt. I may return and re-edit.
--Wag--
It seems that the issue is not whether or not someone is actually selfish. In truth, it's nearly impossible to know if someone is generous and compassionate because we can't read minds. Unless you see them do something nice for someone, you simply don't know. Even then, it's questionable as I'll discuss below. If they tell you they did something nice, then you can probably tell if they are being generous. More likely, someone else may tell you that a third person has done something generous.
Really though, what we see most frequently are people who are all bent out of shape because they believe that someone ELSE should be less selfish and give of themselves or their means. That's pretty judgmental, frankly, but what's even more amazing is how often those same people who are calling for the generosity of others are the same ones who are not wiling to be generous of themselves!
Hypocrisy at its best.
It's said on every airplane prior to the flight: "Secure your own oxygen mask FIRST before securing your own." This rule holds true in real life, too. If you have nothing to give, you may very well be as unselfish as anyone, but you just don't have it to give. Add to that the idea that if you harm yourself in your effort to help another, you have had a net effect of zero or less. Actions which are harmful to yourself are quite often less than helpful to the other person as well.
Yes, we hear stories of people who are killed while helping another person and it is said that they truly gave everything. I have no problem with that. It's honorable to help another person, even at the risk of your own life. What's not honorable is for someone ELSE to ask you to do it and castigate you if you don't. I suspect that if someone does help another person, they are often hoping that they are able to give aid AND preserve their own life and means. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve yourself in the process of helping another and foregoing the opportunity if circumstances demand it.
Money is a big one. How often do family and friends ask you for financial assistance in one form or another? I strongly suggest that if you have no money of your own to give, if you are in debt yourself, if you don't have the means to provide, you are jeopardizing your own well-being to help the other person. I'm not talking about a guy borrowing $20 for lunch money. I'm talking about the family member who asks you to help them make a couple of car payments or take a wayward child into your home to live, etc. If you bear that expense for them and put yourself in a lurch and can't cover your own living costs, where is the value in that? That is a critical question. What value is there in jeopardizing your well-being to help another person?
If you decide, however, that you're going to refrain from damaging your own security and you withhold the aid that is requested of you, how often does that individual, along with his or her friends and family, consider you a selfish prick? It happens all the time, often to the point of the loss of relatiionships. I suspect that most often when you're accused in such a way, it's when you have the appearance of means on the surface when in reality, you may not be doing as well as others might believe. Indeed, if someone is going to ask you for help, frequently, they have an overblown sense in their minds about what YOU have and what you should do with your resources.
We're not even going to talk about the idea that sometimes, the help you give is much more detrimental than helpful. That's a whole 'nother blog post!
Money is not the only thing, either. Time or Possessions. How often do you get asked to loan your car to someone who's just had their car repossessed? If it's YOUR only or primary means of transportation, or a substantial part of your personal resources, are you jeopardizing your well-being by loaning it out? It's not only possible, it's even quite likely. If you can afford to bear the potential loss, Great! Do as you will. But if you don't have the ability or the means to bear that loss, then you are not necessarily selfish by withholding, regardless of the accusations which could be levied upon you by others who claim a higher morality.
In other words, there are those who cannot see beyond the mark and who would be just fine with everyone being completely unselfish and all of us being completely useless to each other because we have all expended all of our resources in order to give aid and assistance to each other in a personally irresponsible way.
Be assured, I'm all in favor of helping people. I'm an advocate of assisting those in need. Of giving of yourself and your means. Giving a guy $5 worth of gas at the pump even though his story is likely B.S. is a good thing. Helping a family member with $100 to get him through the week is a good thing too. Allowing someone to move in with you while they get back on their feet post-tragic-job-loss.
BUT!!!
Only when you're able to do so without compromising your own security in life. Withholding such things is no crime if you have valid reasons and no other person can tell you what any of those reasons should be. Nor can they look into your heart and mind and arrive at any sort of understanding about why you may have said, "No."
There are many unselfish people out there who would give if they had the means to do so. Unfortunately, they are often guilt-tripped into doing more than they are truly able to do. They put themselves into debt in order to resolve the debts of others. They give up their pensions, retirements, short-term savings, marital security and other security in order to bail out the other person.
No, it's not easy to say no. But often, it's better to say no than to give unthinkingly. Again, bordering on a discussion for another post but definitely something to think about. Sometimes, it's better to say no.
Returning to the original premise, it's important to realize that the ONLY person who can judge your generosity is you. Nobody else can look into your heart and see what it is that makes you decide to help another person or not. Nobody but you is able to know what your circumstances are and why you decide to help or why you decide that now is not the time.
A tangential part of this discussion lies with those who I would consider, "selfishly generous." These are the people who only give when they have some way to benefit from it. They expect a return for their generosity. I'm not saying that giving to another and expecting something is return is entirely bad. It happens all the time and it's a normal part of bartering in real life. So long as it's agreed upon up front, there is no issue. Generosity can benefit both people.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about when I say, "selfishly generous." A mother or father gives up a wad of cash only because they feel guilty that their child is suffering financially. They give unthinkingly, without considering the potential harm to themselves, then walk away feeling like a million bucks! They solved the problem! What's wrong with this is that they didn't solve the problem they professed to solve. They only solved the problem of their OWN feelings of guilt, inadequacy, etc. Their desire was not motivated by wanting to help their kid, they only looked at it as an opportunity to bandage their own hurting soul.
You could call it, "lazy generosity." An unthinking gift may do no good. Indeed, it may do more harm than good. The point though, is that it is not especially generous. It is, in fact, selfish of a person to give to another with no thought of helping but only of covering up some hurting feeling within. Equally disingenuous is helping without considering the long-term effects of what such, "help," will be.
How do you know the difference? If you're giving only to appease the critical masses (family, friends, church people, etc.) and because of the pressure they are putting upon you, then you're not being generous. Do a reality check and make absolutely sure you're not helping just because you feel guilty for NOT doing so. Make sure that when you give, you're not expecting some personal benefit or compensation or repayment in return. (I know people who say that if you help someone now, chances are very good that you'll be able to rely on that person for help in the future if you need it. Kind of like making a deposit into a charity bank account or something!)
If you are genuinely interested in giving help to another, be absolutely sure you give a great deal of thought into what the long-term benefits will be. In a short-term emergency, there may be more room for erring in the side of caution but if you've played out the scenario in your mind ahead of time, you should be able to think clearly without emotion clouding your judgment. Make sure the help you give is not motivated by the fear of the haranguing by others you are sure will come your way. Consider the possibility that the kind of help you're giving is the best help possible. It could be that even though someone is asking for money, it may not be the most helpful thing for that individual or for those circumstances.
There is much more to be said on this subject, no doubt. I may return and re-edit.
--Wag--
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Just do it.
I wrote this on the Diabetes board the other day. Thought it would fit in here!
---------------------------------
This post falls into the category of, "What are we willing to do?"
"We," have developed a mentality, and by, "we," I mean people everywhere, of doing just about anything.....
We have a mentality of seeking the easy fix for any and all of our ills. We feel we don't have time to wait around for a solution to our problems, we want them solved right this instant.
Granted, we've succeeded at providing instant solutions for ourselves in many ways. We can go to a fast food restaurant just about 24/7 if we're hungry. A pill makes our headaches go away. Etc.
There are, however, some things for which we have yet to find our magic bullet. Yet, given our propensity to seek fast, easy solutions to so many ills in our lives, we tend to seek, or at least wait around for, the same types of fast, easy solutions to other problems instead of facing the reality.....
There ain't one.
Exercise is one extreme example. Years ago before my Dx as I struggled to lose extra weight, I read a lot of different diet plans and everyone one of them had one thing in common: At least one chapter on exercise. No joke. If you read any diet book, you'll see it has a chapter on exercise. Conversely, if you pick up any workout magazine or book, you'll see diet referenced in all of them.
The glaringly obvious is so simple to see: You cannot lose weight/get healthy/control BG/improve blood work etc. with either just exercise or just diet. You must have both going at the same time.
In times past, I've attempted to do either or but never, until my Dx, had I ever done both simultaneously. I was more than willing to deceive myself into believing that diet was enough or that exercise was enough. From personal (and admittedly anecdotal) experience, it has recently become clear that both are required.
I look at my father as an example of what not to do. When he died, he was 6' 2" and weighed over 300 pounds. I had to help carry the casket at his funeral and believe you me, that was no easy task. What was notable about my father toward the end of his life was that he had let himself get so overweight and out of shape that he could no longer exercise, even if he wanted to do so. He no longer had the option of working out, walking, bicycling or any other of the things which might have extended his life or at least improved the quality of his day to day life.
He was past the point of no return.
It's easy for me to preach. I know that there are many who are unable to exercise through no fault of their own. There are those who cannot eat certain beneficial things through no fault of their own. It's unfortunate and I understand that. If you can only exercise or only diet, do it. Do what you can do.
If you can do both, though, do both. What I'm talking about here with this mini-essay is, if you still have a choice, make that choice and take control. Do it now and reduce or eliminate the risk of not being able to do it at all. Once, I was asked the question: "If you CAN do better, SHOULD you?" It was a business-related question to be sure, but it applies here. Can you realistically do better than you're doing? Then why not? Are your excuses legitimate or are they just excuses? Are your priorites really aligned properly?
Last year, before my Dx, I reflected on the poor quality of my father's life for his last 10 years and I pondered on how he could barely move as he got older and on the fact that he suffered two major strokes in three years, the second of which killed him. He never did get control of his eating habits and never did exercise during his life. His body and his physiology deteriorated to the point of no return, to the point where he was no longer able to rescue himself.
Last year, I determined that I didn't want to live any more of my life in such a way that I was going to pass the point of no return. I started working out religiously. I didn't change my eating except to watch my portion sizes more closely and it helped. I lost some significant weight. But it wasn't until my Dx several months later that I combined exercise with a proper eating plan and lost MUCH more weight much faster.
The point of all this is very simple. It's tough to exercise but you know what? It's worth the momentary pain. Without exercise, we are unlikely to live the healthiest possible lifestyle we prefer. We may or may not extend our lives but what we WILL do is improve the quality of our lives. I believe longevity is pretty much built into our genes in any case and there isn't much we can do about that. But if you find yourself huffing and puffing after a short walk up a flight of stairs, think about it. If you find that you've eaten too much AGAIN, think about it. If you find yourself vegging in front of another mindless T.V. show, think about that, too.
Think about it. Seriously think and come to the conclusions you need to reach in order to motivate yourself to start working on it. I hear anecdotal stories all the time about how someone had a crappy life, often for many many years and turned things around completely just be getting on this bandwagon. That includes Diabetes control, too.
We resist exercise in many cases because of the pain of it. That's true for me, especially. It's boring. It's time-consuming. I'd rather be in front of my computer doing things which I consider more rewarding. Reading a book, etc. It's a trade-off. We can do the things we enjoy now or gradually give up the ability to do so.
If I don't exercise, I'm giving up several things in my future. All of a sudden, I'm more willing to get my butt off the couch or out of the chair and start doing. Moving more.
And the rewards? Numerous. To put it simply, everything is now easier to do. Even just getting up out of my chair is easier! No grunting any more! LOL
Mostly, I'm just rambling, but it seems that in our never-ending search for a "cure" we miss the closest thing we have to a cure and that is our diet and exercise regimen.
--Wag--
---------------------------------
This post falls into the category of, "What are we willing to do?"
"We," have developed a mentality, and by, "we," I mean people everywhere, of doing just about anything.....
We have a mentality of seeking the easy fix for any and all of our ills. We feel we don't have time to wait around for a solution to our problems, we want them solved right this instant.
Granted, we've succeeded at providing instant solutions for ourselves in many ways. We can go to a fast food restaurant just about 24/7 if we're hungry. A pill makes our headaches go away. Etc.
There are, however, some things for which we have yet to find our magic bullet. Yet, given our propensity to seek fast, easy solutions to so many ills in our lives, we tend to seek, or at least wait around for, the same types of fast, easy solutions to other problems instead of facing the reality.....
There ain't one.
Exercise is one extreme example. Years ago before my Dx as I struggled to lose extra weight, I read a lot of different diet plans and everyone one of them had one thing in common: At least one chapter on exercise. No joke. If you read any diet book, you'll see it has a chapter on exercise. Conversely, if you pick up any workout magazine or book, you'll see diet referenced in all of them.
The glaringly obvious is so simple to see: You cannot lose weight/get healthy/control BG/improve blood work etc. with either just exercise or just diet. You must have both going at the same time.
In times past, I've attempted to do either or but never, until my Dx, had I ever done both simultaneously. I was more than willing to deceive myself into believing that diet was enough or that exercise was enough. From personal (and admittedly anecdotal) experience, it has recently become clear that both are required.
I look at my father as an example of what not to do. When he died, he was 6' 2" and weighed over 300 pounds. I had to help carry the casket at his funeral and believe you me, that was no easy task. What was notable about my father toward the end of his life was that he had let himself get so overweight and out of shape that he could no longer exercise, even if he wanted to do so. He no longer had the option of working out, walking, bicycling or any other of the things which might have extended his life or at least improved the quality of his day to day life.
He was past the point of no return.
It's easy for me to preach. I know that there are many who are unable to exercise through no fault of their own. There are those who cannot eat certain beneficial things through no fault of their own. It's unfortunate and I understand that. If you can only exercise or only diet, do it. Do what you can do.
If you can do both, though, do both. What I'm talking about here with this mini-essay is, if you still have a choice, make that choice and take control. Do it now and reduce or eliminate the risk of not being able to do it at all. Once, I was asked the question: "If you CAN do better, SHOULD you?" It was a business-related question to be sure, but it applies here. Can you realistically do better than you're doing? Then why not? Are your excuses legitimate or are they just excuses? Are your priorites really aligned properly?
Last year, before my Dx, I reflected on the poor quality of my father's life for his last 10 years and I pondered on how he could barely move as he got older and on the fact that he suffered two major strokes in three years, the second of which killed him. He never did get control of his eating habits and never did exercise during his life. His body and his physiology deteriorated to the point of no return, to the point where he was no longer able to rescue himself.
Last year, I determined that I didn't want to live any more of my life in such a way that I was going to pass the point of no return. I started working out religiously. I didn't change my eating except to watch my portion sizes more closely and it helped. I lost some significant weight. But it wasn't until my Dx several months later that I combined exercise with a proper eating plan and lost MUCH more weight much faster.
The point of all this is very simple. It's tough to exercise but you know what? It's worth the momentary pain. Without exercise, we are unlikely to live the healthiest possible lifestyle we prefer. We may or may not extend our lives but what we WILL do is improve the quality of our lives. I believe longevity is pretty much built into our genes in any case and there isn't much we can do about that. But if you find yourself huffing and puffing after a short walk up a flight of stairs, think about it. If you find that you've eaten too much AGAIN, think about it. If you find yourself vegging in front of another mindless T.V. show, think about that, too.
Think about it. Seriously think and come to the conclusions you need to reach in order to motivate yourself to start working on it. I hear anecdotal stories all the time about how someone had a crappy life, often for many many years and turned things around completely just be getting on this bandwagon. That includes Diabetes control, too.
We resist exercise in many cases because of the pain of it. That's true for me, especially. It's boring. It's time-consuming. I'd rather be in front of my computer doing things which I consider more rewarding. Reading a book, etc. It's a trade-off. We can do the things we enjoy now or gradually give up the ability to do so.
If I don't exercise, I'm giving up several things in my future. All of a sudden, I'm more willing to get my butt off the couch or out of the chair and start doing. Moving more.
And the rewards? Numerous. To put it simply, everything is now easier to do. Even just getting up out of my chair is easier! No grunting any more! LOL
Mostly, I'm just rambling, but it seems that in our never-ending search for a "cure" we miss the closest thing we have to a cure and that is our diet and exercise regimen.
--Wag--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
