Eat your Turmeric!

Suddenly, there is a spate of articles everywhere, talking about the healing properties of turmeric. Apparently, Oprah's health guru, Dr Oz, is a big fan.

Us old hippies and Ayurvedic medicine practitioners, have always claimed turmeric had miraculous powers. (Time to toot our own horns, alternative-medicine folks. Once again, we were right!)


The following article has made the rounds in most Gannett newspapers during the past week:

Can an ancient spice prevent and treat cancer? That's the question researchers are trying to answer.

In certain cultures, turmeric is known as a golden gift from God, a sacred spice that has been used for centuries in Indian Ayurvedic and Asian medicine to treat fevers, stomach aches and cuts.

Indians sprinkle the powder on cuts to help them heal, gargle with it to soothe sore throats and mix it with warm milk for sick kids to sip.

Madhu Sharma, owner of the Green Chili Indian Bistro in St. Petersburg, Florida, uses turmeric in almost all of her dishes.

She says it's also an important ingredient in other aspects of Indian culture.

"We use turmeric when the baby is born. We use turmeric when we get married. We use turmeric when we cook everyday and we use turmeric to worship God and offer to God," said Sharma.

People in India eat turmeric every day in curry dishes. They cook with fresh turmeric root — a bright yellow herb from the ginger family — or they use the dry powder, adding about one teaspoon to every meal.

Daily turmeric consumption is one of the reasons cancer researchers suspect India's rate for breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer is 10 to 50 times lower than in people in the United States.

Dr. Bharat Aggarwal, a professor in the Department of Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center has been studying the spice for several decades.

"It has enormous potential. It is very safe. It has been around for a long, long, time and for the first time, I think we have evidence that it may be working as well," he said.

Hundreds of laboratory and animal studies have shown that a substance in turmeric, called curcumin, kills a wide variety of cancer cells including colon, breast, prostate, pancreatic, brain and melanoma and slows tumor growth.

The preclinical research has taken the spice from the lab to the clinic.

"We have shown that a wide variety of tumor cells can be selectively killed by curcumin and it does not kill the normal cells but will kill only cancer cells. There are no known side effects in people," he said.

Turmeric capsules are available in most alt-med brands. I highly recommend Gaia Herbs, which I am told has recently run out (!) of their signature Turmeric Supreme.

Simply purchasing some of the spicy herb in bulk and mixing a teaspoon in warm water (yes, gross, hold your nose) and drinking it daily (traditional Ayurvedic remedy for inflammation) --would likely contain substantial health benefits. Although I sell them, I don't think pricey supplements are necessarily required, although the much-sought-after active ingredient (curcumin) is highly-concentrated in supplements. As they say on the net, your mileage may vary.

If you like the taste, make a habit of sprinkling it on potatoes, rice or some other food you enjoy. Keep in mind, it stains mightily, and has also historically been used as a bright yellow/orange dye! (Mucking around extensively in some loose turmeric and attempting to make my own capsules some years ago, my hands and fingers turned bright orange, and I ended up looking like I'd eaten several bags of Cheetos.)

Eat your turmeric!

You gotta have Faith

One of the things I do is put out magazines for consumers to flip through while they wait impatiently in the checkout line at my über-healthy place of employment. As they exhale noisily, loudly emoting that the line is not moving fast enough, they zealously flip through the mags-- flip-flip-flip--looking for... what? Patience? A faster line? A different and superior lifestyle? Recipes? I have stopped wondering about it, since I now realize the ritual page-flipping of the checkout-line magazines is a BASIC RIGHT, an actual sacrament of American consumerism. People get upset if you don't rearrange them regularly, import fancy new ones and keep them primped. Then they can put them back in the wrong slots. Then I go back and straighten them up again, so they can start all over.

Some of the local fundamentalists don't like certain of the magazine covers, and earnestly flip them over to protect the eyes of children and (presumably) other impressionable people. For example, the cover of Psychology Today is one of the main offenders this month, featuring a scantily-clad couple. (Psychology is a pretty sexy business, in case you didn't know!) The all-time winner would be the Rolling Stone cover featuring Rosario Dawson and Rose McGowan, which caused some major hyperventilating. I finally put some cardboard over it, with just the title ROLLING STONE peeping out.

A recent controversy, here and elsewhere, is the matter of Faith, this month gracing the cover of Animal Wellness magazine. Faith was born without her front legs, and is known as the amazing Biped Dog. Of course, Oprah got there first, and now Faith is famous. She endorses dog collars and visits disabled veterans.

Not a dirty magazine cover, but to many folks, still plenty alarming. Some people have asked that the magazine be removed, so that "children won't be upset." Others love the cover, and become angry at the idea that anyone would remove it. It seems to be selling well. Nonetheless, a lot of people recoil from the cover: "Ewww!" The children observe the adults carefully, and most want to see what their parents will say; they hold up the magazine to their parents and wait for the reaction.

"Awww! Poor doggie!"

"See what a happy doggie? People have rescued her and taken care of her, isn't that nice?"

"Eww! Gross! What the hell is THAT?!?"

"I saw that dog on Oprah!"

"In the wild, that dog would die off. I think it sends the wrong message to the children."

"That's fucking disgusting!!!"

"What happened to the poor dog??!"

"Can the dog walk without help? Whoa, that's amazing!"

"I had a dog/cat with three legs once!"

"Is the dog friendly/happy/healthy/affectionate? Well, that's the important thing!"

Etc.

Left: Faith as a puppy, from Faith the Dog.

I keep wondering how these sentiments translate to the way we encounter disability in humans. The comments sound similar, don't they? I think it's interesting that people will say right out loud how they feel about Faith, but have learned to keep their comments about, say, an armless person, to themselves. (Most of the time, anyway.) But what thoughts are roiling through their heads, that get acted out on people with disabilities?

If Faith upsets them, would a human with no arms upset them? I think that's a given.

Or is it somehow different when it's a dog? Why?

I am fascinated with the public reaction to Faith. Is Faith a poster-dog? For what, exactly? Faith's owner, Jude Stringfellow, is very open about her agenda. She believes Faith is all about faith. That's the reason for her name. She writes about how they wouldn't give up on little Faith; she became a family project. (And how many people born with disabilities can also identify with that?) She believes seeing the positive in everything is part of Faith's journey, and why she is with them today.

And how do you feel about Faith?

Iowa caucus debates: Adventures in Snoozeville

Left: Alan Keyes, from Race 4 2008.




Will someone tell me why Alan Keyes was allowed to participate in the Iowa caucus Republican debate, but Dennis Kucinich was not permitted to participate in the Democratic debate? Certainly, their numbers are about equal; Kucinich might even have a larger percentage than Keyes. True, they are both way out on the wings of their party, but so what?

Am I to understand that the Republicans are more inclusive than the Democrats?

Nope, according to The Campaign Spot at right-wing National Review Online, it's all the Des Moines Register's fault:


Des Moines Register Weeds Out Only the Democratic Fringe

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not participating in this week's Des Moines Register debate. The newspaper's standards for participation include at least 1% in its statewide poll and an office and paid staff in Iowa.

Kucinich's state office works out of his home. Yeah, that's why they're keeping Smeagol out.

Alan Keyes is participating. Alan Keyes has paid staff in Iowa? He has an office? He's past 1 percent?

There's no good reason for Keyes to participate, and I say that as a guy who likes Keyes. The only reason one would include Keyes at this point is because he's just about guaranteed to declare the rest of the field "inauthentic conservatives." (Perhaps he'll declare Vice President Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" as well.) The one percent standard is way too low. We've had nine Republican debates so far, and fifteen Democratic ones. If you haven't broken out past the margin of error by now, it's not gonna happen.

A debate time that already gives about one-eighth to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo is now going to be split nine ways. This is a disservice to the other candidates who actually have a shot of getting more than an asterisk's worth in the caucuses.

In a year of lousy debates, this one is set up to be a train wreck on par with CNN's YouTube debate for the Republicans.

I'll say. It was terrible. Even worse, it was boring. I'll admit, Alan Keyes isn't boring, as Kucinich wouldn't be either. As usual, Ron Paul tried to liven up the proceedings, but when the other candidates started yammering, it lapsed back to somnambulism.

Alan Keyes would make a great Shakespearean actor, with his rhetorical flourishes and first-class command of language; indeed, it would seem talk radio was made for him. (And he has had several radio and TV shows.) Instead, for some inexplicable reason, he keeps running for president over and over. It is interesting to remember that he was a hired gun for the GOP, and moved to Illinois simply to run for the Senate in 2004 against Barack Obama, whom it was thought no one could beat. And alas, no one could.


Photo of Senator Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey (left) from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Democratic debate wasn't much better. The CNN-talking-heads consensus is that Senator Hillary Clinton is now trying to "humanize" herself with references to weight loss, Chelsea, her mother, "eating her way across Iowa," etc. Her poll numbers have dropped alarmingly in the face of Barack Obama's incursions, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey joining him on the campaign trail, and filling Williams-Brice stadium here in South Carolina. (The last person I can remember doing that was Pope John Paul II.)

For his part, Senator John Edwards sounded great and highly focused, as Hillary and Obama took veiled digs at each other. There is also a mild scandal trying mightily to develop: it appears Obama may have taken a toke as a teenager. OMG! (I doubt this story will go anywhere, but you never know about things like that.)

Who will take the Iowa caucus? Stay tuned, sports fans!

----------------
Listening to: Sleater-Kinney - Off With Your Head
via FoxyTunes