#I'm back
68 messages in this thread
I don't think there is any question that smoking can cause cancer, but there
is certainly a genetic link as well since the vast majority of my family on
both sides are/were smokers and cancer is little known in our family. The point
is that the inhaling of ANY particulants in quantity can trigger cancer and
other diseases; this includes automobile fumes, particulates from coal-fired
power plants, and a lot of other causes people don't want to address because
they are too expensive and too complex.
It's about to get really bad here for any smokers. The state legislature is
considering a bill that would ban smoking in public. Period. Inside and
outside. It has a chance of passing. This is, of course, the same legislature
that will vote subsidies to southern Maryland tobacco farmers so they can sell
massive amounts of tobacco overseas….
But the thing is smoking isn't the only cause of cancer. I find that the way
they do things is way out to lunch. They always use scare tactics whenever
they want us to do something. Usually when someone moves here to Fort McMurray
they are sick for the first year. It takes them that long to get climatised.
Even though the two plants are monitored very closely accidents still happen.
With modern technology you have to pay the price, in the end life will kill
you.
Kb
In grad school I participated in a series of experiments monitoring all
sorts of pollutants and the like in major metropolitan areas around the U.S.
and relating them to a whole catalog of ills. We found that there was actually
little statistical difference between smokers and nonsmokers who lived in
central cities but that smokers tended to develop cancer and related ills at a
much greater rate in rural regions. The final report and conclusions, though,
DID strike out my suggestion that "Smokers should always live in cities" even
though that's what the data suggested. There are lies, damned lies, and
statistics.
Inhaling particulants can and does represent a cancer risk. That's what's
the problem with asbestos and coal-fired power plant regions and the like. Los
Angeles from the air even on a clear day looks like a dome of multicolored
toxic gasses. It's appalling. It also has one of the highest incidences of lung
and respiratory disease problems of anybody with cancer of the lung leading the
list. Los Angelinos are among the more militant anti-smokers, yet they insist
that the air quality is a "natural phenomenon of no health consequences" in
spite of all evidence to the contrary. Many vegetables and citrus crops in the
"bowl" look like mutants from bad horror movies; move outside and they look
fine. Guess those veggies and oranges are getting that way from being too near
smokers….
But don't kid yourself that smoking is good. It's not. But making it a
convenient scapegoat to ignore all the other serious causes and ills does no
one any service.
I believe you about major cities. The amount of pollution is unreal. When I
was in Manila I couldn't believe the pollution, they are just trying now to
combat it. I don't think while I was in the city I saw one vehicle not blowing
black exhaust. People were walking around with pieces of cloth covering their
mouth and nose. In places like that it is ridiculous to hear them screaming
about smokers.
Kb
Don't ever go to Mexico City, then. The most polluted city on the face of
the Earth, bar none. You can literally stain a handkerchief brown holding it
over your mouth and nose while just walking around the city. And at 15 million
people and growing, it's getting no better, and will soon pass Shanghai as the
most populous city on the planet if it hasn't already.
The only mystery is, it's the capital of the nation. All the big shot
politicians live there, and THEY and THEIR families have to breathe the same
muck. So, score this add-on to political profiles: politicians are not only
slimy, they're often also quite dumb.
It is amazing to me that the population can get that large in cities like that.
You would think that people would be dying off faster then they were moving in.
I know myself I couldn't live in a place like that. Fort McMurray is bad
enough with the garbage that the two oilsands plants put out. It is not news to
me that politicians are dumb, I think that the barnyard bovine is brighter then
the average politician. Sorry if I insulted any cows out there by comparing
the two.
Kb
Oh, human beings' ability to cram into urban crud is offset by their ability
to breed like bunnies in that kind of environment.
Considering that the average rural dweller in Mexico is still living in what
might be called an adaptation of feudalism, it's little wonder they continue to
flock to the cities, dead-ends though they are.
It's a shame, too. Mexico is a country potentially as rich as the U.S. or
Canada (and by Third World standards it's actually pretty good anyway) but so
much of the population is kept permanently down in misery because of the usual
corrupt one-party state more interested in preserving its own perks and riches
than in helping the people. The same was true of Russia under the Communists
and they're paying an awful price for it now.
It is unbelievable that people can live in those condition. It is a sad
experience to drive through a city like that. To see little children living in
those conditions tears the heart out. The government has ignored the problem
for so long they will never be able to clean it up. It makes you appreciate
where you live.
Kb
Yes, and it's also why everybody else wants to come here, climate or not.
I went to school in Mexico City in the early 60's when you could actually live
and breathe there. I used to go back at least every three months, until about 5
years ago when I could not see from my hotel across the street one morning…
and I heaved breakfast shortly after.
Now, I avoid it unless I am changing planes at the airport. The greater metro
is now 23 million, including the areas in the State of Mexico around the city.
Driving is like participating in a bull fight, but with hundreds of bulls and a
small cape.
And a cop with his palm extended on every corner…
Yeah. It's such a shame what they did to that city, which was a great city
in all respects. One wonders what that pollution is doing to those gorgeous
Inca ruins of the original city that have been so carefully preserved and
excavated, Rome-like, in the city center.
Anyone who allows a great city to deteriorate that way to the point where
the only way you can get around is wearing SCUBA mask and tanks is ripe for
old-fashioned revolutionary firing squads.
The Aztec (oops, not Inca, Jack… they were a few miles south) stuff in the
entire Valley of Mexico is being slowly corroded, much like the artifacts in
Egypt. Last time I was at Teotihuacan, the ceremonial centre just outside
Mexico City, it was obvious that the contaminants were destroying the remining
bits of the plaster and painting that had been recovered, sometimes almost
intact, on walls and surfaces. Either my eyes are much worse, or the colors are
fading and the mortar is crumbling.
I found that smoking a nice cigarette in that city was like a breath of fresh
air… sort of pre-empted the gunk in the atmosphere. <g>
Well, adding gunk to gunk won't really help, but I agree that anybody who
mounts an anti-smoking drive in Mexico City should also be prepared to dynamite
a lot of industry.
Aztecs, of course. Saw a thing on recent Incan discoveries the evening when
I was typing and had Inca on the brain.
They were excavating the huge central square and temple essentially well
within the city when I was there several years ago. They originally were going
to put an office building on the site but now it's being excavated, studied,
and restored and will be a civic plaza instead. One of the few progressive
moves the city has made, but I fear all it will do is hasten the destruction of
what they've uncovered.
Kevin,
A neighbor of mine quit smoking when he was hospitalized for a brain tumor
(benign, luckily). Given the odds of recovering from a brain tumor, I don't
recommend this method of quitting.<g>
I've never smoked, but I developed a real sensitivity to second-hand smoke
at a bridge tournament. We were seated on a balcony above the main floor for a
couple of days, and I was barely able to finish the final session. (Was
coughing and sneezing, and nauseated, just like I had a very severe cold or
case of the flu.)
Unfortunately, the sensitivity has never gone away. If you ask, "is it
okay to smoke?" I'll answer "please don't." But if you _don't_ ask, I won't ask
you to put your cigarette out, either. It's a difficult thing, trying to
balance the "rights" of smokers and nonsmokers…
Lynne
Well, you see, I never object to "smoking" and "no smoking" areas and I
would never knowingly smoke near someone who has a real physical allergy. The
problem is that this is no longer enough. Your own San Francisco is one of the
most militant in the business; I've had associates accosted outside in parks
and on streetcorners by militant nonsmokers.
As pretty as the Bay Area is, the mindset there has always been such that
I've never been able to understand how anyone from a conservative to a civil
libertarian could live there.
Jack,
In my husband's office, an interesting thing happened: a bunch of people
quit, and they became the most militant anti-smokers around. They said that
smelling others' cigarette smoke ignited their own cigarette cravings. So I
always wonder which of the militants are former smokers.
Berkeley is the one place in California where I could never live. For
example, they have street barriers, so that through traffic can't use
residential streets. The result? Autos exude copious exhaust fumes in
Berkeley, taking all the unnecessary detours that result.
Another example: the Berkeley city government recently abolished Columbus
Day, and replaced it with Indigenous Peoples Day. Now I guess that I ought to
protest, because the indigenous ones are getting a day that I don't get . . .
.<g>
When we first moved here, the Bay Area was the most tolerant place we'd
ever lived. I still think it's pretty tolerant, but sometimes it seems that
the tolerance has only spawned militants of every persuasion. Lynne
Well, my theory of historical migration is that North America was settled by
the losers, nuts, and extremnists of other nations. As each region was
civilized and the generations there became more like the old, these types moved
further and further west, until, reaching the Pacific, they stacked up with
noplace else to go.
There ARE no people indigenous to the Americas. Not one. Not a single sign
of one has ever been found even though we have a lot of the oldest dinosaurs.
The AmerInd are most closely related to the tribes of northern Laos, and they
embarked on a massive prehistoric imperialist/colonialist campaign that didn't
stop until they'd moved most of their then vast population from Alaska all the
way down to Patagonia. In most cases they did just what all other
imperialist/colonialist peoples have done–they raped the land, killed massive
species of animals and plants, corrupted the water, and when they were done
they moved on and did it somewhere else. They were still doing it when the
first Europeans showed up and showed them how to do it even better than they
could have.
I've been called a white Anglo-Saxon, which is a prejudiced and bigoted
accusation to a Celt. How ridiculous do we want to get?
Most of those types of people won't be satisfied until there is a Ministry
of Truth destroying all history that doesn't agree with them and having
everyone speaking a new language in which offending anybody anywhere will be
impossible. They'll probably call it Newspeak.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Jack,
Well, for a group of mutts, Americans have survived. In the recent genetic
studies, we can all trace our roots back to Africa, Native Americans and Asians
are close to Europeans. So Native Americans found their way to the Americas via
Asia and the Europeans crossed an Ocean. From what I can gather though, Native
Americans hardly raped the land in a way to be compared to the present
activities. Sure, they tilled the soil until crop failure and moved on, but the
soil lying fallow recovered. You don't see many farmers nowadays letting fields
go fallow. I just don't see much evidence of damage done by Native Americans.
Most immigrants came here for a better life and if that's nuts so be it. I
guess the founding fathers were extremists because they distrusted government
and resented paying taxes. I guess what you call losers came here because the
society they were leaving branded them that, but they didn't call themselves
that and here they didn't have to put up with that nonsense.
Paul
Given the same levels of agriculture and technology, the AmerInd
civilizations did about the same damage here as Europeans did during comparable
periods. It was only from the 1500s on that Europeans learned and showed how to
REALLY rape a landscape.
However, virtually all modern American archaeology is coming to the
conclusions that I stated in my previous message. The Anasazi were particularly
brutal with the land and most of it never did recover to this day. The Aztecs,
Mayas, and Incas also considered the land something given to them by the gods
to use and use up. Short of the Sahara, which was mostly man-made and
man-caused, you do not see this strip and leech the land, build a city until
you do, then leave and do the same thing again pattern anywhere else that I
know of. We have also now found strong evidence that the flood of AmerInds from
Asia caused massive extinctions of native creatures up to and including the
North American mammoth, possibly in a scale unmatched until this century.
Totally romanticizing early AmerInd civilizations is as wrong as painting them
as ignorant savages was. What they did was most impressive, but this concept of
them as loving caretakers of the land is nonsense. Sure, you can always find a
nation that you can point to as good guys; remember, what we call "tribes" were
really COUNTRIES of America, as distinct in languages, cultures, and all that
goes with it and most of them didn't like each other any more than ancient
European, Asian, and African civilizations did. Their patterns are quite
similar to cultural nations of the rest of the world.
The main reason that so many educated people are so down on political
correctness is that pcs believe that if the evidence contradicts the ideals,
ignore or trash the evidence.
The only people who MIGHT–MIGHT–be indigineous to North America are the
Eskimos. Otherwise we are talking about the first waves of New World
immigration.
Jack,
I don't romanticize about Native Americans; they could be as brutal to other
tribes as any other tribes on earth. However, I do feel compassion for them. If
I recall my history, every civilization on earth has been invaded or has
invaded someone else. Ok, so they ruined some of the environment and made a few
animals go extinct, but nothing on the scale of what's happening right now.
Anyway, would you want a wooly mammoth trouncing through your back yard? I
think I get your point, that the Native Americans are like everybody else. They
have an interesting cultural hertitage just like everybody else. And they have
had an environmental impact just like everyone else. So who's putting them on a
pedestal?
Paul
Jack,
Thanks for reminding me about the lack of traces of early man in this
hemisphere. Now I feel better about only being born here, and only being able
to point to ancestors from the Mayflower. But there's probably nothing that
can be done about the Berkeley City Council. My husband points out that
Berkeley is, was, and likely always will be a self-proclaimed "counter
culture." Thus it can't exist without a culture to respond to. Lynne
Lynne:
Or, as we–not fondly, call it: Berserkeley.
-Ed
Jack,
Actually, the fact that no one can freely express an opinion any more is
one of the things that I feel really degrades the quality of life in America.
Lynne
Lynne,
I am a psedo-militant anti-smoker. The only thing I ask is that I be aloud to
breath. Smoke makes me choke and gag. (I have never and will never smoke a
cig.) There is nothing worse than in hailing some nasty smelling smoke that
someone blew out of there face. I really hate it when it is a nice day out and
I am enjoying the fresh air and someone walks by with a little cig. It is a
sad state of affairs. I try to be polite, but when a smoker is not paying
attention to my rights I let them know it.
Ernie
I sympathize, but there are odors I find offensive and a few
substances to which I have a reaction nearly as bad as you do with
cigarette smoke, but I move away and do not go into screaming fits if
someone is around with that. I also find a good deal of alcohol
consuming types revolting, but I don't snatch drinks from their
hands. The price of living in any sort of free society is that some
compromise must be found for many things we find disagreeable and a
certain level of toleration maintained. If not, then we all get to
define our own prohibitions–all 260 million of us–and we wind up in
a state of civil chaos. It's precisely the same as defining free
speech. Those who would place a limit on free speech when that speech
does not infringe on another's equal rights generally have the best
of motives, but who gets to draw the line? Free speech does not
extend to "Fire!" in a crowded theater because it infringes on a
basic right of others to life. But when any subject, no matter how
odious, can not be written or spoken, then a line has been drawn and
that line, or bar, will be constantly raised until there is no right.
By the same token, there are various habits, substances, and
behaviors that I find either unpleasant or downright repulsive, but I
must accept that to the degree that I can move to avoid them because
those same people might have a list of objectionable categories that
I might fall under.
What we have been talking about is freedoms, compromises, and
perspective. The mere consumption of a ham sandwich as a picnic
lunch in the park would be both physically revolting and morally
repugnant to adherents of several major religions. Do they have the
right to ask you to throw it away, or, worse, snatch it from your
hands and throw it in the dirt?
A British comedian noted that there was an easy way to explain why
Europeans thought Americans quite mad.
"Hold it, kid! What do you have there?"
"A 50mm Uzi, sir, and sixteen magazines of ammo."
"Oh! Thank God! For a moment I was afraid it was a carton of cigarettes!"
I'll try to respect others rights when smoking, but outside? I live
in a rural setting and smoke outside. I resent it when a belching
diesel noisily goes by me really polluting the atmosphere, not once,
but many times a day. I resent it when a car goes by with super
boombox type speakers blasting away that can be heard a mile away. I
resent it when people throw their garbage out of their cars. This is
really a sad state of affairs. When you stop this behavior, I'll stop
mine.
Paul,
>>> I'll try to respect others rights when smoking, but outside? I
live in a rural setting and smoke outside. I resent it when a
belching diesel noisily goes by me really polluting the atmosphere,
not once, but many times a day. I resent it when a car goes by with
super boombox type speakers blasting away that can be heard a mile
away. I resent it when people throw their garbage out of their cars.
This is really a sad state of affairs. When you stop this behavior,
I'll stop mine. <<<
I don't drive a car with a loud stereo. I don't EVER throw garbage
out of the car. That isn't to say that others care for my rights. In
the city we are more likely to get the BOOM-CAR effect. It is
usually a bunch of Teeny boopers wanting attention. It truly is a
sad state of affiars that our young think that doctoring up their
cars for super sound and blasting their ears is COOL. It is also a
major shame that people don't care enough for their world to keep
trash in the car. I can agree about the diesel trucks. I realy like
to enjoy the cool morning air. In Phoenix durring this time of year
it is very nice. I work out of my apartment and a neighbor smokes
some really nasty cigs. When ever they are home, I must close up my
apartment to avoid getting sick. Who is right and who is wrong in
this case? I really can't fault someone for smoking in their
apartment. But what about my right to enjoy life? Why should I have
to shut my self in an apartment all day and not enjoy a nice "summer
like" breeze? This can go on and on. I will become "militant" when
someone starts breaking a law. I never sit in the smoking section of
a restaruant(sp). I find the non-smokers section. But when a RUDE
person grabs an ash tray and sits in the non-smokers section I most
certainly will do something about it. This is clear envasion of my
rights.
Ernie
Ernie,
What I object to in restaurants is finding the smoking section tables filled
with non-smokers so that the only free places are in the non-smoking section. I
usually walk straight out if that happens, but I have to eat sometime<g>
Adrian
Ernest,
In some respects I'm like you, believe it or not, in that I don't appreciate
cigar smoke. It's pretty annoying to have a neighbor whose smoke (from whatever
source from cigars to barbecues to leaf burning) blows into your apartment. All
I can say is hopefully he moves or you do–I gave up on apartment/city living a
long time ago because of the hassles. The way things are going you'll probably
get a law to regulate this sort of situation.
Paul
Paul,
If you live in a flat you can't win<g> There's always something that _you_ do,
that upsets _one_ of the other neighbours and there's always going to be _one_
of the others who upsets you<bg> some way.
The sooner I can afford to have my own house the better<g>
Adrian
Ernie,
Since developing a sensitivity to smoke (which scares me that I'm
going to wind up living in a stainless steel room, if I don't watch
out for exposure to other irritating substances), I've given a lot of
thought to people's "rights." And I can't see why my "right" not to
be exposed to smoke is in any way superior to somebody else's "right"
to smoke.
Where do such "rights" come from, anyway? Not from the U.S.
Constitution, that's for sure. It seems to me that smoker/nonsmoker
clashes should be resolved by basic rules of etiquette, rather than
treated as some kind of moral issue. Lynne
>>And I can't see why my "right" not to be exposed to smoke is in any way
superior to somebody else's "right" to smoke.<<
Lynne:
It is a matter of harm. The general rule is that you have a right to
do what you wish as long as what you do doesn't trample on the right of another
to do as he wishes.
You have a right to free speech, I have a right to worship. Do you
have a right to disrupt my worship with your speech? Generally not. You have
other venues for your speech, silencing you does less harm than disrupting my
worship.
I have a right to pollute my body as I please by smoking. You have a
right to a clean and safe environment. Who suffers more in a public place like
a restaurant? I can take my smoking outside (albeit I'm inconvenienced) you
can't take your plate onto the sidewalk.
I would expect the state to move swiftly to stop a factory from
polluting my air, and I would expect them to move just as swiftly to protect me
from indoor smokestacks.
-Ed
Lynne,
I get more hassles from ex-smokers than from people who have _never_ smoked in
their lives.
Another interesting phenomenon<g>. Non-smokers who object violently to other
people's _cigarettes_, but periodically themselves smoke cigars<g>.
Adrian
Oh, I think ex-smokers can be expected to be the most militant,
since the vast majority of smokers who quit in the past 5-10 years
have been pressed to by hassles and social pressure and the like.
They really didn't want to, they felt forced to, and, given their
druthers, they would still smoke. Thus, anyone smoking within a three
block radius of them triggers this and resentment as well.
Of course, there are exceptions. One friend of mine quit because it
was basically an ultimatum from his wife to "Quit or I walk out and
take the kids." HE spends as much time around smokers as he can and
seems to always be in position to inhale the atmosphere….
No Lynne I don't think I'll try your neighbors method of quitting, sounds a
little extreme for me. <g> Whenever I am out with non-smokers I always ask if
it is okay to smoke. If I am at their house I don't even ask, it doesn't
bother me to go without a cigarette for a few hours. But what bothers me is
when I am in a smoking section and have some non-smoker telling me how bad
second hand smoke is. With all this hoopla one thing seems to have been
forgotten. Smokers have rights also.
Kb
Wrong. Smokers no longer have rights, or haven't you noticed? See my message
quoting the current TV public service ad that we smokers are killing 60,000
innocent nonsmokers a year by secondhand smoke and if somebody near you is
smoking they are little better than murderers.
Jack,
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Adrian
You're telling me? Everywhere you look you see or hear something about
smoking. Like I said before soon the home will be the only place we will be
able to smoke.
Kb
Oh, no. There is a whole movement among the nonsmoking militants to classify
smoking at any home containing children as child abuse and smoking in a home
where the spouse does not as spousal abuse.
You have no idea the depths a religious crusade can be taken to.
I never heard of them making smoking child abuse but I guess that doesn't
suprise me. These are the same people who will sacrifice a human life to save
an animal. They are a very twisted group of people.
Kb
Kevin,
My father smoked and it didn't bother me. They warned everyone to quit smoking
back in 1962 and we convinced to stop. It didn't help. He really missed it, put
on weight and was dead in three years anyway. I say if you want to do it don't
let anyone talk you out it, and when you want to, quit. Right now, if I had to
hire someone, I wouldn't hire a non-smoker. So sue me for discrimination.
Paul
They just had a TV spot where the head of an insurance company who
smokes declared a totally smoke-free environment for the entire
building, including his own offices. He goes outside to smoke (and
admits that, irritation factor or not, the boss can ALWAYS go outside
to smoke when he wants to). His reasoning? In his state (Connecticut,
I think) one nonsmoker can sue for extreme damages if that one
nonsmoker objects to smoking, period, even if the other 3500 people
in the building don't care. He said he had to do it as an insurance
man–reinsurance risk.
An old editor friend of mine, John W. Campbell, Jr., quit smoking
in 1968 because he decided to find out if he had the willpower. He
did. He dropped dead in March, 1971…. Another old friend, a lawyer,
quit, ballooned to 300 pounds, and now has serious diabetes. Is his
quality of life better or lifespan longer because he quit? Want to
bet?
As I say, I'll probably quit at some point because of the hassle
and such, but while I might well jump something inside me really
resents being pushed.
Jack,
Isn't it time that Connecticut law got repealed? Either that or fire all the
troublemakers<g>
Adrian
Jack,
Well I was hoping to skip over all this smoking stuff, but I get it
from family, the news media and now on CIS. I thought CIS was the
politically correct way for a smoker to communicate with the outside
without the hazards of second hand smoke. I find that when I go into
public situations I can last for a couple of hours without smoking.
When I was in college, Chicago banned smoking in the elevators.
Smokers almost rioted. Now there seems to be no opposition to the
next regulation. In the end it will be a firing squad allowing us to
have one last smoke, scratch that last smoke, that wouldn't be legal.
Paul,
I like your attitude. You hire people to do a job and not those who aren't
interested in working, but just want to stir up trouble for everyone else.
Adrian
That seems to happen to quite a few people. I worked with one guy who quit and
was dead six years later of lung cancer. Sometimes it just too late. I'm happy
to hear that you wouldn't discriminate against a smoker. We sometimes feel the
world is against us, it's nice to have a friend.
Kb
Kevin,
How could I discriminate when I am a smoker. Gee Kevin, I'd consider you a
friend even if you didn't smoke.
Paul
Jack,
Unfortunately, you are correct. And you forgot to mention smoking or
drinking by pregnant women . . .
Lynne
Kevin,
It's very difficult to fathom why strangers feel "privileged" to deliver
their anti-smoking tirades in public places. If they're concerned about YOUR
health, why can't they see that you either can't or don't want to quit? It's
_really_ insulting to assume that you aren't aware of the possible health
consequences. So why be so impolite?
If they're concerned about their OWN health, why don't they stay away from
places where smoking is allowed? That's what I do. I kinda wish that the
donut shops didn't allow smoking (they all seem to), but I just take my donuts
out. Probably if I stayed, somebody would start lecturing me about the sugar,
caffeine, cholesterol, and fat that I consume.
By the way, it isn't easy being a heavy coffee drinker.<g> Every time
that I buy 10-15 pounds of beans (at a bulk discount, for the freezer) at a
coffee specialty shop, somebody has to make a comment. Surprisingly, it is as
likely to be the person behind the counter as it is to be a customer! Lynne
Yeah, well, in the Bay Area everybody's their brother and sister's keeper.
One reason why I continue to live in the east.
I can see myself giving up smoking but I can not conceive of giving up
coffee. On the other hand, maybe THAT'S who all those Californians are who are
flooding the coffeeholic capital of the world, Seattle. Bay Area coffee
drinkers sick of being lectured to!
A doctor in San Jose, of all places, once suggested that the reason why I
drink copious amounts of strong coffee to attain normalcy and don't have high
blood pressure is that I, in spite of bearing a resemblance to Henry VIII,
inherited congenital low blood pressure. He said he discovered that people with
routine low blood pressure tend to knock back coffee at a rate that would
destroy or kill other people because all they are doing is artificially raising
their blood pressure to an optimum rate!
I bought him a cup of coffee….
I find that everyone is quick to point out other people problems. I guess it
makes them feel better when they can point a finger at someone else. I also
like coffee, that was the first thing I taught Mayla when we got back to
Canada. Down there all they drink is instant coffee which is pure torture.
Even the hotels and restaruants use instant one even had the nerve to give me a
package of coffee, creamer and sweetener all in one I almost puked when I
tasted it. The things I want most when I get back home is a cup of bean coffee
and a hot shower. I allow instant coffee in the house now though since Mayla
won't drink my coffee, she finds it too strong.
Kb
I'm surprised about the Philippines and coffee. Americans must not have had
as much cultural pollution effect as I thought.
Still, outside of the Americas, where coffee is The Drink of just about
every country North and South, it can be hard finding good coffee. The Germans
have good coffee, and Italian cappachino is fine, but most European coffee is
awful and the British version sounds like your description of the Philippines.
On the other hand, Australia takes a huge amount of that true java of Java and
with all its Italians you get superior coffee even at small take-out joints and
often cappachino made with it as well.
Jack,
I used to drink instant coffee when I lived in England<shame>, but I
now drink filter coffee all the time. I don't drink tea though<g>
evem though I am English.
There is no coffee like that served by the Cuban community in Miami (I don't
know about Cuba itself… I was there once on a hijacked plane!). Thick, rich
and just loaded with caffeine.
It is so strong, it is sold by the sip, a "buche," which packt the full impact
of a cup of watery, American style coffee. Usually 25 cents for a large sip in
a cup like those you get a pill in at a hospital.
For a while, I trudged around with the modified espresso machine that makes it,
but it died on the move to LA.
If you can see the bottom of the cup, it isn't coffee.
I had Vietnamese coffee one time. You get a water glass with about an inch of
coffee in the bottom, they put ice in then top it off with cream. I walked out
of the restaurant with glassy eyes. It was a pretty good drink, though one you
treated with respect.
Kb
Lynne,
I drink a lot of coffee too. When I was at college, I didn't drink a
lot of coffee and my hands were ice cold all the time(so much so that
I got comments about it). When I started drinking coffee again my
hands warmed up. I've been drinking coffee since I was a kid and
maybe I'm like Jack, low blood pressure without it. Unlike Kevin, I
like instant, but a _good_ cup brewed coffee is better, but hard to
find. You should seen me in Europe trying to find a good cup of
coffee. I got used to expresso.
Paul
Only the Germans really know coffee in Europe, Paul. The whole
country's like Seattle, with McDonalds-like coffee bars with
virtually every blend available fresh brewed to order.
Me, I take a can of drip and a one-cupper with me when I travel.
Jack,
I'm afraid I overlooked coffee in Germany because I was diverted by
another beverage there. If I would have known the situation and my
traveling companions (both non-coffee drinkers) better, I would have
brought a can of drip and a one-cupper too.
Paul
Paul,
>> espresso
I never could tell whether that had milk in it or not until I got rid of the
froth<bg>
Adrian
Adrian,
I liked espresso and was fascinated by the machines that made it (but not
enough to get one). The froth plus the small cup made it hard to gauge exactly
what I was getting.
Paul
Paul,
I keep looking at those espresso machines as well, but they're still too
expensive to justify buying one<g>
Adrian
Adrian,
You sure you're not talking about Cappucino? Espresso is just the
coffee, add the steamed (frothed) milk for Cappucino……The best
drink in the world! (g)
Jim,
According to MS Bookshelf, cappucino is Italian for espresso. (See, the cd-rom
multimedia stuff is discussed here when necessary. (g))
Paul
Paul,
<<Cappuccino is Italian for Espress>>
Well…..You must have the 1865 edition {g}. In the 1992 version of MS
Bookshelf, nowhere could I find that cappuccino is Italian for espresso… What
I did find though…
Cappuccino: Espresso coffee mixed or topped with steamed milk or cream.
Espresso: Strong coffee brewed by forcing steam under pressure…, etc.
I know this is important stuff considering the current state of the world,
but what the heck, a man's got to have some pleasures {g}. Coming next month
in the Nautilus forum: Coffee beans, the elixer of life!
Regards, Jim
Jim,
Read the whole definition. Cappuchin is Italian for the color of monks outer
garments, supposedly dark brown. Espresso or cappuccino can be served without
the milk or cream or au lait (with milk).
Paul
Jim,
I can't drink coffee with milk in it<g>, so I'm unlikely to drink
Cappuchino<g>. Maybe what's described as Espresso in coffee bars here should
really be described as something else<bg>, but it definitely looks white until
you scrape the froth away<g>
Adrian
Paul,
"Cold hands, warm heart." That's what people have told me all my
life. I don't know whether drinking coffee warms you up, but holding
a cup of hot coffee sure does warm your hands!<g> Lynne
Lynne,
I'm going the warm cup of coffee tonight because we are in the beginning a
storm predicted to deliver six inches of snow. (brrrr…)
Paul