Tuesday, December 22, 2015

When Sage Chickens Attack


Wound from a sage chicken, it wasn't quite dead, back during the season.  They have impressive feet.  It was almost gone, but kicked.  It was a bit bloody, so I didn't notice the blood or the wound, at first.

Given the blood, it infected.  That was easy enough to address, but it since has scarred.  Seems to be permanent.

Sort of like a dueling scar from days of old.  Except not as cool, which is okay as it isn't as visible.

Why am I posting this?  Clearing out my Iphone photos.

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Indian Wars In The West

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Indian Wars In The West: In 1825 President James Monroe, after looking at reports from his top advisors, created, what was called, the Indian Frontier between the M...

New hotels with elements of the old and new.



I've posted here in the past about old hotels, and how small their rooms were.  Here's a twist on that.

Single king bed room at the downtown J. W. Marriot in Houston, Texas.

These are photos of the room interior of the current JW Marriot in downtown Houston, which is a very nice hotel.  It's located in a building built in 1909, at which time the sixteen story structure was the tallest building in Texas.  It wasn't a hotel, however, it was an office building.  The solid steel frame building housed banks and offices in its early history.  It didn't become a hotel until last year, 2014.  It's a nice one, but a careful eye can tell that it wasn't built as a hotel.

Interior (back room) view.  The other views are no doubt much better.

The hotel is a very nice one, but what strikes me is how small the room noted above was.  It was a fine room, but very small, just like the early 20th Century hotels I've stayed in elsewhere are, except that this didn't become a hotel until 2014.

Ipad, taking the place of a hotel services book and phone in some ways.

Which isn't to say that it wasn't updated with modern conveniences.  It certainly was.  Included in these are, of course, the perfunctory television, which I rarely turn on in a hotel room, and an Ipad, which could be used to check the hotel's services, or order that your car be brought around, etc.

Interesting incorporation of the old and new in a renovation.

A move afoot to end tipping?


According to The New Republic, there's a move afoot in some significant East Coast restaurants to raise waiters' wages and ban tipping.

If so, that would would be quite a change.  It's apparently been tried once before, but waiters objected to it.

Interestingly, according to the article tipping originated in the United States as a means of paying freed blacks who had been slaves, and then found employment as waiters. low wages.

Monday, December 21, 2015

I'm sorry Dave. . . .



So what's a species anyway? New information on the Red Wolf.

Way back when I co-authored this article; 
Lex Anteinternet: Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act: A ...: From the Public Land Law Review: Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act:  A Study In Contemporary Federalism . An article I work...
I recall reading about Red Wolves.

The article is really on Gray Wolves, the same species people call Timber Wolves.  When researching it at the time I recall reading a fair amount of the literature of the species classification of wolves, and Gray Wolves were the big wolf group in North America, with there being in some people's minds a variety of subspecies of them. The local wolf was the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, but that's really just a regular Gray Wolf. Some old literature maintained that there might have been a species they termed Buffalo Wolves, but the best evidence was that those wolves were just wolves that had grown large on buffalo carcasses, rather than some giant species of wolf that drug down buffalo, although some maintained the opposite.

Red Wolves, however, were thought by most to be a completely separate species.  Some, however, argued that they were just a coyote wolf hybrid.

Indeed, canines don't fit the classic species definition well, as it's pretty clear that they'll readily produce viable offspring, which according to Linnean classification rules means that they're all one species.  This seems ignored in regards to them, however, in no small part as various dogs have significantly different behaviors.  Coyotes, for example, don't hunt in ordered packs like wolves do.

Well, with DNA studies advancing to rapidly it was only a matter of time until a DNA study was done of Red Wolves. And it turns out they have no identifiable separate genetic information. They really are a coyote wolf hybrid.

They like each other better than coyotes, it turns out, so they keep on keeping on. But this is really pretty significant in terms of our understanding of species, let alone wolves. For one thing, it means that a person now has to either question whether Red Wolves deserve the endangered species characterization they now have, as they might not be a species at all, or perhaps it means we should reconsider the definition of a species.

Or perhaps it brings back the old argument about lumpers vs. splitters in species classification, which has always been with us. Are there lots of species in any one genus, or just a few?

I think just a few, quite frankly. 

Courthouses of the West: Lahaina Banyan Courthouse, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii.

Courthouses of the West: Lahaina Banyan Courthouse, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii.:






This is the Lahaina Banyan Courthouse in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. The courthouse was built in 1859 to replace a courthouse that had been destroyed in a typhoon the prior year.  The courthouse served the Kingdom of Hawaii until in U.S. annexation in 1898.  It was renovated, while still being used as a courthouse in 1925.  It is now a museum, visitors center and a community center.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

It'll turn around . . . or maybe it won't.

Just yesterday I was in a gathering where the price of oil and coal were discussed.  The rosy "it'll turn around" comments were absent from the insiders.  "Five to six years out" was the most optimistic comment.  And I think that comment is likely truly optimistic.  In today's paper there's an article about service industries that are struggling, and another one on the state's outmigration, something that was inevitable.

Interestingly, there was also an article about the last underground British coal mine closing, which occurred last week.  Prior to World War Two 1,000,000 British were employed in coal mining, now its fading away.  Britain, the article notes, still uses coal for about 1/5th of its power generation, but it is anticipated that this will end.

I've commented on this all before, but the best evidence is that we live in a new economic regime regarding energy and fuels.  Perhaps the beginning of a new era.

Part of that era is fuel efficiency, on the fuels we are using.  The new gasoline 3/4 ton trucks get 16 mpg in town and about 25 mpg on the highway.  A truck, that is.  My 2007 diesel, currently convalescing with a sick diesel particulate filter in the shop, gets 16 mpg to 20 mpg on the highway, which I always thought was good.

That may help explain why I saw diesel for sale in town yesterday for $2.13.


Lex Anteinternet: You can't do what you want

This was posted on Friday:
Lex Anteinternet: You can't do what you want: In the film Lawrence of Arabia, Sharif Ali and T. E. Lawrence exchange these lines: Ali:  A man can be what he wants, you said. Lawrence...
Heard yesterday, from a young member of the demographic being discussed; "I want to die rich on my own place".

He works as a hired hand.  Indeed, in that small gathering of young agriculturalist in this county, only three out of the five young men who wold be in that occupation were "on their own place", and they were family places.  One wasn't working in the field at all.

Sunday Morning Scence: Churches of the West: Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Cathedral, Rapid City South Dakota





Saturday, December 19, 2015

The Best Post of the Week of December 13, 2015.


We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

I recently posted here regarding people undergoing medical treatment to ostensibly change their gender.  Of course, as we can't actually change our DNA, the degree to which we really can change our gender is questionable.  What we're really doing is changing the perception of gender, not our genetic gender assignment.  And that lead me to think of this.

 Chilean couple, 1940, no doubt a lot more natural than "all natural" folks today, in every sense.

Blog Mirror: This Cat Calendar Is Making the Russian Orthodox Church Go Viral

This Cat Calendar Is Making the Russian Orthodox Church Go Viral 

You’ve probably never seen cats and the Russian Orthodox church so up close and cuddly together. A group of Christian enthusiasts has released a photo calendar where the 12 months of the upcoming year are illustrated with images of Orthodox priests posing with their cats. The “Priest + Cat” calendar published by Artos, an association of Christian artists, is aimed at promoting “modern Orthodox culture” in Russia.

Denver continues in a boom in the midst of an oilfield recession.

Everyone knows that the oilfield is in a recession, if not a depression. But Denver is still booming and housing prices there are through the roof.

Why?

Nobody is certain, but it appears that marijuana may be the reason.

And according to the New Republic, the boom in LoDo and HiDo is so marijuana centric that space for that industry has crowded out the arts scene that was booming down there.

"They're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful". No, they aren't.

I saw this as a caption of a cartoon, but even if you haven't seen the cartoon, it's a fairly common flippant comment.

It's also wholly incorrect.

The concept that a lot of wars are religiously motivated is a fairly erroneous concept in general.  Some are, but a lot of the ones people claim are, aren't. And the idea that all religions are fighting for "peace" is complete bunk, as not all religions espouse peace never do they contest each other for the title of most peaceful.

That's right, they don't.

Indeed, the entire concept of a religion of peace is pretty much uniquely Christian although some other religions do incorporate that to varying degrees.  Some of the ones that people believe do, quite oddly, don't have that in the form we imagine.  Peace as a central virtue is not necessarily incorporated into every religion the same way it is in Christianity.  

Buddhism?  Surely it's central virtue is peace, there's one, right?

Oh, you know of course that there were Japanese fighting Buddhist monks, Sōhei. They even ran schools on the use of their arms.  You know that, right?  That they killed people in that pursuit. 

Hmmmm. . . .

This isn't easy to make light of.  I don't know, for example, that we can compare them to Knights Templar, as they seem quite different indeed.

Islam has frequently been cited as a "religion of Peace" by non Muslims, and that has been picked up by some Muslims as well. But it certainly didn't originate that way.  Islam was spread by the sword for almost all of its early history, with Judaism and Christianity being tolerated in the lands they captured, at the price of paying a special tax for belonging to either of those faiths, and with other faiths faring less well.  Violence in the name of Islam has never left it.  This doesn't mean all Muslims are violent, but stating that its a "religion of Peace" requires some examination.

Some will maintain, of course, that there have been violent Christians. And there has been. But violence has never been a tenant of Christianity.  It has been of Islam and it doesn't do the faith justice to pretend otherwise.  

What's the point of this?  It's not a comment on any faith. But, the frequent claim that various faiths are fighting for the title of "most peaceful" are just flat out wrong.  I"m not aware of that ever happening.

Friday, December 18, 2015

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

I recently posted here regarding people undergoing medical treatment to ostensibly change their gender.  Of course, as we can't actually change our DNA, the degree to which we really can change our gender is questionable.  What we're really doing is changing the perception of gender, not our genetic gender assignment.  And that lead me to think of this.

 Chilean couple, 1940, no doubt a lot more natural than "all natural" folks today, in every sense.

In our world today, westerners (residents of Europe and North America) are huge on things being "all natural".  It's the rage, and it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.  And I'm not really criticizing it, as my agrarian leanings make me sympathetic, when its done in the messy, bloody, muddy way of actual nature.  I'm not so sympathetic with the fanciful fake natural way that some who fear real nature would have it.

So, in this era of all natural, we have "natural" organic foods of all types.  Natural organic oatmeal (maybe even better if from Ireland and cut with steel), organic vegetables, grass fed beef.  You name it.

Indeed, entire sections of the European and North American populations are at war with any genetically altered foods of any kind, although it must be noted in fairness that nearly every food we eat was selectively bred that way so as to alter it from its original form, save for people who eat fairly primitive foods and hunt and fish.  Indeed, ironically for some of these folks, our meat sources tend to be much less genetically altered by selective breeding than our plant foods.  Cows, for example, differ little from aurochs.

 
Frequently satirical copied World War Two era poster.  Presenting an idealistic image, the mother and daughter in fact represent Americans who were a lot more "natural" than nearly any living today.

People have taken this one step further and now, in some hip circles, want their foods to be produced all locally.  Again, I'm not criticizing that.  I have some sympathy for it, being a fan of systems and realizing how odd some of our food production chain actually is.   I used to grow a big garden myself, and miss doing so, which sort of taps into this.

And we have all natural concerns expressing themselves in clothing.  I know of people who will only wear "all natural fibers".  Not liking synthetics much, I trend that way, although I do like the storm proof hoodies that are now out there, which make for great winter insulation.

Some folks, however, have gone even one step further there, and insist that their fibers, if plant derived, also be organic, out of an apparent concern for the environment.

All really big in Europe and North America, particularly with the upper class, the upper middle class, and the university crowd.

So why don't we apply it to ourselves?

It's really interesting.  We are now the least "natural" and "organic" we have ever been, and this includes a lot of people in the "all natural" and "organic" crowed.

If nature is good, shouldn't it be good for us too?  Why don't we go "organic"?

What do I mean, well consider this.

 This Tlingit couple is a lot more natural than darned near any modern American, and in part for reason that we hardly even consider.

Let's go back to the story that proceeds this one on this blog, which I reference above.  Nature determined  your gender.  The natural and organic thing to do is to go with that.  That's natural. Surgery and chemicals to change that aren't natural, they're unnatural and in-organic.

So too, I might add, is the ingestion of chemical compounds designed to interrupt the natural byproducts of those genders and their interactions, i.e., stop the creation or, as they actually will sometimes apparently do, stop the implanting of tiny human beings that come about when two big human beings of opposite genders become, well. . . ..  Indeed, it's becoming more and more evident that only is that not natural, but it's also dangerous for the women who take them.  I have to wonder if those pharmaceuticals were being introduced for the first time today, if they'd long last the resulting lawsuits that came about over some of those questions.  But, no matter, litigation isn't the point, nature is.  Messing with that is counter to nature, and most things we do with our bodies that are artificial have some sort of bad psychical or psychological result.

And on that particular topic, the psychology of this works the way it always has, creating a mess of people's lives who have otherwise defeated the natural, which then works to make all of our lives more messy and less natural.  And in terms of culture, the den of unnatural, Hollywood, doesn't even seemingly know what the purpose and results of two genders is, which is quite unnatural.  By extension, a lot of people in society today don't either.  Indeed, quite a few people have become confused enough about it that they now self identify based on their concept of their gender, which is really odd and not natural. That is, they don't identify by their culture, but by an attraction, which is not what nature would provide, no matter what their attraction.

Not to seem to leave men alone on the disruption of nature by physical or chemical means brought up above, having surgery to frustrate the same thing isn't very darned natural either.

Now, having surgery is something I'm not advocating against.  We've learned how to address many illnesses and defects surgically, and that's a great blessing.  No, what I'm talking about is surgery upon a healthy and functioning body. That is, to defeat the way the body is designed to work.  That's not in keeping with nature.

Cosmetic surgery sure isn't natural either, when looked at this way.  Or at least some of it isn't  I understand, and certainly do not oppose, surgery that is designed to fix a physical defect, no matter how derived, but surgery merely to make a nose look different, or worse to make certain attributes artificially bigger is extremely unnatural.  So is surgery to counter the effects of our appearance as we age.  We all age, and not looking like we are doesn't actually make us look any better as a rule, just artificial.

Diets (which is where this conversation started out) designed around a social construct aren't natural either.  So, vegans, you aren't natural.  Not that I'm saying that the American diet is 100% good for you.  I'm not. But what I am saying is that people who delude themselves into thinking that being a vegan, or a vegetarian, is a good thing for philosophical reasons are wildly off based.  You weren't designed by nature to be a cow.  And  your body knows that which means you'll have to do a lot of effort to defeat the fact that you are an omnivore, not a plant eating mammal.  That's just nature.

 Young farm couple in town, 1930s.  Yes, they're not hipsters. . . they they're a lot more natural that probably anyone reading this.


You can't do what you want

In the film Lawrence of Arabia, Sharif Ali and T. E. Lawrence exchange these lines:
Ali:  A man can be what he wants, you said.

Lawrence:  He can, but he can't want what he wants, this determines what he can want.
The "this" in that statement, referred to Lawrence's skin, meaning that he couldn't desire to want things an Arab could want, only things an Englishman could want.



Well, that's become the case with farming in this country. And that's something that should concern us.

Farming is the most basic, or elemental, of all occupations.  Only  hunting and fishing, which are not  professions per se, are more elemental.  The desire to own land to farm was one of the primary attractions to immigrants entering this country, and for some immigrant cultures, it was the single biggest enormous attractant.  People like to cite things like "freedom to worship" and the like, but except for certain distinct cultures, such factors weren't the primary motivators.  Land was a nearly universal one.

But now, you just can't get into it, or at least you nearly can't.

And this is not a good thing at all.  It isn't good for our society, and it's bad for individuals.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Washing machines

No machine goes more unsung, but does more to relieve domestic drudgery, than the washing machine.


Vermont, 1940.

New York, 1943.

Arizona, 1940

New Mexico, 1940.

1942.


Monday, December 14, 2015

Courthouses of the West: Big Horn County Courthouse, Basin Wyoming

Courthouses of the West: Big Horn County Courthouse, Basin Wyoming:


This is the classic courthouse of Big Horn County, Wyoming, another court in the state's 5th Judicial District.  The court sits on enormous grounds.  It was built in 1918.









But what if we are wrong?

The New York Times has an article about Jerná Nimmons, born Jerome Nimmons, who has become one of the first New Yorkers to undergo gender reassignment surgery via Medicaid.  It's a sympathetic human interest story, riding a trend line on this topic, which essentially follows the very rapid, and massive, social developments in our culture following the Obergefell decision by a slim majority of the United States Supreme Court.  That's a bit ironic, apparently, as according to at least some the population with same gender attraction is actually uncomfortable by the suggestion that they are in the same category as people who seek to change genders, and I guess I can see why they would regard that differently.

And of course the entire topic received a big boost after a former decathlete, whom I always thought fit into the Obergefell demographic (his marriage into a family of female celebrities always baffled me) decided he fit into this latter category.

So, now we find ourselves in an era when, suddenly, it's regarded as a medically valid procedure to undertake this radical surgery.

But here's a thought.

What if we're wrong?

Our track record on this sort of thing is absolutely abysmal.  Sure, medical science has advanced enormously, and we're getting very good at postponing killer diseases and conditions, but we're not really all that great at conditions that have a social aspect to them.  Indeed, we're still pretty good at getting some of these things completely wrong.

Over the past forty years for example, the evidence is now pretty good that we've routinely botched dietary information, leading to still ongoing popular beliefs that all sorts of foods are dangerous when the better evidence is that they are not.  At one time the suggestion that aluminum cookware caused Alzheimer's caused all sorts of people to thrown out their stuff in that category.  I was already using cast iron at that time, but my mother, a pretty bad cook, used a Teflon coated electric aluminum skillet that did make me nervous after that (to which there was the added concern that the Teflon was always stripping off her cookware).  That turned out to be complete bunk.  Following that, there was a very widespread belief that vaccinations were causing Downs Syndrome, for which there is no evidence really, but like the current situation on the topic at hand, a celebrity with a tragic personal interest in the story really helped boost the belief, which is still widespread.

On the topics immediately at hand, much more remains in the air, scientifically, than people seemingly believe or want to believe.  On same gender attraction, the causal origin of the condition is now nearly taboo to talk about, although it should be.  There remains no evidence that it's biologic in origin, and so it seems to arise due to early childhood conditions.  That isn't saying anything against anyone, it just is the truth.  That's where the science is basically at.  Likewise, with people who perceive that their "identity" is another gender, there's no medical evidence at all that that perception is backed up by anything, so it's psychological.

Biologically, the basic information is that the overwhelming majority have DNA assignments that make them male or female.  And in spite of the feminist pushed belief of some years ago that's still out there, that difference is huge.  Biologically, we have one of the highest degrees of separate morphology by gender of any mammal.  Even within simians we're very exceptional in that characteristic.  Separate behavior by gender, as well as morphology, is common amongst mammals, but here too, across cultures and regions, there are very demonstrable behavioral differences between the genders in our species.

Much of post 1900 social science has sought to ignore or alter that, but because these things are in our DNA, they really can't be.  And that's where my interest and concern comes in here.

I haven't, it should be noted, spoken about the morality or immorality of anything in this post.  Not at all.  I've commented only on biology.  My interest in evolutionary biology goes back to my days as a geology student, part of which necessarily exposes you to a fair degree of evolutionary thought.  And this is an area which, while it is only getting explored now, always seemed like a fairly apparent one, particularly for our own species.

Absent the the extraordinarily rare genetic abnormality, we're two genders and two only, true of all the other mammals and most animal life of any kind.  That might not be determinative of the topics addressed above, but it certainly should inform a rational discussion of them.

We're also a species with a high social order everywhere, in no matter what kind of culture we live in.  We take care of our own far beyond that of any other herd animal, and that's really what we are, loner and "lone  wolves" aside.  That's hugely significant in regard to the "human condition", as it means that our social order allows for us to endure in spite of any deviation from type that we may have.  Bad eyesight, weakness, illness and any other number of things do not result in our early deaths, and never have, to the same degree that they would in any other species.

Likewise, it's well established that we, as a species, have or endure a fair amount of psychological deviation. That gets people's ire up, but it's true.  Depression, severe anxiety, addictive behaviors, insanity, psychopathic behaviors, eating disorders, etc. etc. are not uncommon in our species.  But that doesn't mean that they constitute an ideal, nor does it necessarily mean that these are the outer fringes of our normal and functional genetic behavioral range.  Nor does it mean that the person who has such inclinations is morally bad for having them, which again is not the point of this post.

But what it may mean is that some conditions that exist in the human population, particularly when it is a very rare condition, which the conditions discussed in the main topic of the post are, may be aberrations.  Again, having an aberration doesn't mean a person is a bad person. 

I note this here as the entire concept now of a person's gender and their self identification regarding it would have been regarded as an absurdity not all that long ago.  That there are two genders and two genders only is self evident.  It's also self evident, however, that there have always been some people who have struggled with their gender.  But we don't really know why.

We do know, however, that those undergoing surgery in regards to this have a massive level of post surgery discontent and psychological difficulty thereafter.  So much so that as  a surgery it probably out to never be allowed on a minor, and moreover a person electing for it, at a bare minimum, really ought to go through some stout psychological counselling first. 

Indeed, this is apparently the norm in Europe, with the result that a high percentage of those who come in wishing for the surgery change their minds and do not pursue it.  It's rapidly becoming the case in the United States, however, that people declare they wish to undergo such things and it's just assumed that it's all okay, and its done, subsequent consequences not withstanding.

Beyond that, and particularly when a person is about to be cut on, its highly questionable to what extent any of this is backed up by the science.  I strongly suspect it isn't.  We probably shouldn't be surprised in fifteen or twenty years, when the social aspect of this has dimmed, if we start learning that the origin of much of this is truly psychological and that we're doing more damage to the people holding the views by treating it as something to be changed.

Which gets on to another point.

Nature.

And "all natural".

We supposedly live in an era when we want to preserve nature.  In the western world in particular, preservation of nature has taken on the status of a near religion. As a huge fan of nature, I"m hip with preserving nature.

And we worry about all natural, even in our foods, paying more for "organic" foods of all types.

But, the one thing we clearly don't like organic, or natural, in the world, is ourselves.  We particularly don't like it if it has anything to do with our genders, and why there are two genders. We seemingly hate it, in the western world, in regards to our genders, and urge behavior contrary to our genders, and even medicate ourselves against the natural byproducts of our genetic differences.  And now we're even pretending that, contrary to all evidence, that it's not part our natural natures that there are only two genders.

We really ought to rethink that.  Generally, acting contrary to nature is dangerous.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Lex Anteinternet: The caged tiger isn't happy? Mixed news on the medical front.

 Farmstead, Pennsylvania.  The life many left for life in cities.

I sort of feel that this story;
Lex Anteinternet: The caged tiger isn't happy?: Heard in an interview of a doctor regarding depression: "Major depression is unheard of in hunter gatherer societies".
is related to this one: 
As per a new study published online Dec. 11 in the Journal Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, high stress could increase risk factor for many cognitive functions that can lead to the Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Gayatri Devi, a neurologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said the latest study shows link between high stress levels and chances of developing diseases like Alzheimer’s.
From the Northern Californian.

Anyhow, I suspect modern high stress lifestyles are connected to the first item.  Occupiers of "good jobs" beware.  They may, I guess, be frying your brain.

Although that counters against stories I've otherwise read which claim that occupations that call for a lot of mental activity counter Alzheimer's.  Somebody's wrong.  This study found, however:
The study found that highly stressed participants were more than twice as likely to develop cognitive impairment become impaired than those who were not. Therefore, controlling stress in older people might help delay or prevent the development of Alzheimer's disease
From the University Herald.

Perhaps countering that, is this story:
Conclusions In this cohort of patients with mild AD, moderate alcohol consumption (2–3 units/day) was associated with a significantly lower mortality over a period of 36 months. Further studies are needed in this area. These may especially focus on the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive decline in patients with AD.
From BMJ Open.  It has been noted:
In the new study, Danish researchers found that moderate drinking was associated with a 77 percent lower risk of death among patients with mild Alzheimer’s (defined as a score of 20 or less on the Mini Mental State Exam) than those who consumed one or fewer drinks daily. While previous studies have linked moderate alcohol consumption to many health benefits, including a reduced risk of developing and dying from a chronic disease such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, drinking has also been linked to brain damage. Since Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder, researchers believed any amount of alcohol consumption would have an adverse effect on patients with the condition.
Medical Daily.

Of course, that says mortality is lower.  Not the incidents of Alzheimer's disease.   Although one earlier report had noted:
A drink or two a day may help, according to a new report. But the key is moderation. Too much alcohol can damage the brain and lead to other health problems.
Newsweek.  Moderate it is noted, is something like no more than two pints of beer per day in men.  More than that is dangerous by any standard, we are told.

So what to make of all of this?  I don't know.  Maybe some of the old vices turn out not to be so bad, as we always new, in moderation.  But stress, which is incident to many modern occupations, is a killer. We knew that, but it's a killer apparently in a new and more horrific fashion.