Can Religion Make You More Optimistic?

The following is an article by Barbara Kantrowitz posted on November 11, 2011, in Health goes Strong. It has some interesting ideas, and some research that suggests that spirituality helps one view life in a more positive light. However, in my mind, I question if this will actually extend your life. Being optimistic, cannot hurt you, but to make the claim that being optimistic, because one is spiritual could extend one's life, I think is a stretch. Interesting idea though. 

Religion encourages social interaction, researchers say

There's no question that regular attendance at religious services can improve your sense of spiritual well-being but a new study says going to religious services can also improve your mental health as well and could even extend your life.

The research is relevant to midlifers because it is based on an observational study of more than 92,000 postmenopausal women over 50. They were an ethnically and religiously diverse group who participated in the Women's Health Initiative, a massive federally funded study that looked at the effects of hormone therapy on heart disease, among other things.

In the study, to be published this week in the Journal of Religion and Health, older women who attend services frequently were 56 percent more likely to be optimists than those who don't attend regular services. Women who attended services were also 27 percent less likely to be depressed.

Other studies have indicated that religious activity contributes to psychological well-being by encouraging social interaction with religious leaders, other members of other congregations or even volunteer efforts to help those less fortunate.

Aging: The inevitability and challenges of growing older

As I am now officially an "old age pensioner" I think many believe that I should be looking at the world through different eyes. I am not sure that as I age, my perception will or should change. I know that my definition of "old" has not changed for many years.

I define a person that is "old" as someone who is at least 10 years older then me. I find that I am not alone in this perception, and this article presents a slightly different view of the idea of aging.

This is an interesting article that speaks to an issue that I find interesting. Published Wednesday, November 9, 2011 written by Rebecca Lippel,who is the manager of Family Centers' Friendly Connections senior outreach program

One's age is often a sensitive topic and is very much a part of the aging process and how we embrace it. In general, individuals have a hard time dealing with getting older -- and understandably so. Our roles personally and professionally shift, children begin their own lives and families, responsibilities change and so do our bodies. All of these life changes can be very challenging for someone and no matter when it happens it seems to sneak up on us.

One of the most interesting aspects of the aging process is perception. Here, perception relates to how a person perceives themselves and what age they feel like. Here is a challenge, call or visit with a family member who is older than you and ask them what age they feel like they are. Very few people will respond that they feel like their actual chronological age.

For example, a senior who is 88-years-old may be speaking to his/her case manager and in order to get them more socially active to improve his/her health the case manager may suggest they get involved with the local senior center or a senior outreach program. However, the senior responds with, "No, that's for old people." This type of a response indicates the 88-year-old does not perceive himself/herself as a senior citizen and as someone who is entitled to take advantage of a service designed for older adults though being a seasoned octogenarian it would be expected that he/she accepts the services.

Because of personal perception we must be sensitive to people and their aging process whether this be personally -- with our family and friends, ourselves even -- or professionally, when working with aging clients. For example, AARP is marketed as a membership organization for adults 50 and older. As we know, 50 does not look like what it used to. To engage 50 year olds as older adults is no longer appropriate for our quickly changing society.

Because there seems to be an increased sensitivity to the aging process, people tend to struggle when it comes time to care for an aging family member or loved one. This is certainly a very challenging role on its own, but with the added weight of internalizing the process it becomes daunting. Becoming a familial caregiver can remind a person of their own aging process and mortality. No one wants to be reminded that they are getting older and life is changing. Change in general is a hard thing for many people, and when it is in the form of aging it is easy to become anxious. Change is not always easy, but it is a common element of life, and while we are not always able to embrace it with open arms, we can work on accepting that various aspects such as aging will change at some point and work on it from there.

The aging process is an odd element of life. It is not cookie cutter and will not look the same for each person. It can be challenging but it doesn't always have to be. Many of history's greatest inventors, artists and musicians have produced masterpieces well into their golden years.

More commonly, many use their retirement years as a time to engage in volunteer activities to give back, travel, enjoy family and loved ones and engage in activities that they find personally fulfilling.

At the end of the day there are two inevitabilities in life that just simply cannot be avoided: Paying your taxes and aging.

Canada open for business but closed to criticism

An interesting article on the position taken by the Harper Cons by Nathan Lemphers, which appeared in a column in Troy Media on Jan 12

 

While calling foul over environmental "ideology," Oliver ignores the ideological underpinnings of his own government

January 12, 2012
ALGARY, AB, Jan. 12, 2012/ Troy Media/ - Apparently Canada is open for business but closed to criticism, no matter how constructive. This is the clearest conclusion that can be drawn from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter to Canadians, in which he attacks advocates of responsible oil-sands development as “radicals” and dismisses the concerns of thousands of Canadians who want to have a say in the decision of whether to build Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The $6.6-billion project would run two parallel pipelines carrying diluted bitumen and condensate along a 1,177-kilometre route linking the oil sands in Alberta with the remote port of Kitimat on the northern B.C. coast. The pipelines would traverse hundreds of salmon-bearing rivers and streams, the mountainous and landslide-prone terrain, the Great Bear Rainforest, and the territory of more than 50 First Nations.

Federal government isn’t listening
The joint review panel public hearings that have just begun aim to determine whether the project is in the interest of Canadians.

But recent statements from the Harper government indicate it is not interested in listening to the concerns of more than 4,000 Canadians who have signed up to speak at the hearings. Forget the democratic process and ignore the obligations of due diligence and harm prevention inherent in Canada’s environmental review process – as Oliver states, “For our government, the choice is clear.”

In fact, the minister’s letter makes one wonder if he spends any time at all listening to those Canadians who care about environmental protection and responsible resource development. Dismissing opponents of this project as “ideological” and opposed to all major projects, Oliver ironically ignores the ideological underpinnings of the Harper government’s consistent efforts to pit economic growth against environmental protection. 

The two objectives don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The Pembina Institute has long argued for responsible oil-sands development – and we’ve done our due diligence to map out 19 policy solutions that could move Canada closer to that goal. But rather than fulfill its duty to ensure environmentally responsible oil-sands development, the Harper government has preferred to engage in the “bait and switch” PR manoeuvres of the “ethical oil” crowd.
A pipeline rupture along the mountainous interior B.C. route and a supertanker spill in the waters off the Pacific Coast are two significant risks associated with this project. The government’s refusal to acknowledge and address those risks – let alone demonstrate how it would propose cleaning up the potential damage and compensating the British Columbians whose livelihoods would be affected – is irresponsible.

Canadians deserve a government that is willing to listen to their concerns about our current course of energy development and take those concerns seriously. Interfering in due process (particularly for a project of this magnitude, and one in which so many Canadians have a legitimate interest in the outcome) risks more than the integrity of our natural resources – it undermines the basic principles of a democratic society.
The government has also been outspoken in its criticism of “foreign intervention” in the Gateway hearings – that is, input from environmental advocates outside Canada. But a quick bit of number-crunching by Environmental Defence shows that the government is overstating the case: Of the 216 interveners registered to participate in the hearings, not one represents an environmental group from outside of Canada, while 10 represent multinational corporations.

Forty First Nations from B.C. and Alberta make up the largest single block of registered interveners, and of the 4,522 people registered to make 10-minute oral presentations at the hearings, 79 per cent are British Columbians.

There certainly may be room to improve the efficiency of the regulatory approvals process for energy projects in the future. But standing up for Canada means ensuring that energy developers don’t profit from extracting our resources and degrading our environment while Canadians are stuck paying for the cleanup bill. This is quite contrary to the Harper government’s apparent desire to bulldoze any opposition to the government’s oil-sands-development agenda – especially when that opposition emerges from within our borders.
Minister Oliver states that, “Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination. It must be based on science and the facts.”

We couldn’t agree more, and can’t help but point out the troubling disconnect between the minister’s call for a “dispassionate” and “objective” approach and his government’s blatant political interference in the process.

Consider the risks
Remember the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer? The fact is, such a disastrous spill could easily happen here, too. Canada’s environment commissioner recently warned Parliament that pipeline regulators were being too lax in their efforts to ensure safety, pipeline integrity, and environmental protection. And our research into the risks of transporting oil-sands crude by pipeline along the Gateway route shows that neither the Canadian government nor the project’s proponent, Enbridge, is prepared to deal with the consequences of a worst-case-scenario spill.

Canadians are right to be concerned about the costs and risks associated with this project. The hearings kicking off this week are designed to ensure that the government takes those concerns into account before rushing this project ahead.

Too bad the government doesn’t seem to be in the mood to listen.

Nathan Lemphers is a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, a national non-partisan sustainable energy think-tank.

Source:  Troy Media

Modern Aging: Know the 10 signs of Alzheimer's

By: SHERRY PETERSON, KATIE GILSTRAP, published in the Richmond Times dispatch on December 10

 

Many of us will be visiting parents and other aging family members this holiday season. And while preparing for those visits may include cooking, wrapping and packing, it also might include familiarizing yourself with the 10 warning signs of Alzheimer's disease:

• Memory loss that disrupts daily life. People with Alzheimer's often forget recently learned information.
• Challenges in planning or solving problems. They may have trouble following a familiar recipe or tracking monthly bills
• Difficulty completing familiar tasks at home, work or at leisure, such as using a microwave.Confusion with time or place. Losing track of dates, seasons and the passage of time.
• Trouble understanding visual images and spatial relationships. Difficulty reading, judging distance and determining color or contrast.
• New problems with words. Struggling with vocabulary, problems finding the right word or calling things by the wrong name.
• Misplacing things; unable to retrace steps.
• Decreased or poor judgment. Changes in judgment or decision-making.
• Withdrawal from work or social activities. Removing themselves from hobbies, social activities, projects or sports.
• Changes in mood and personality. The mood and personalities of people with Alzheimer's can change. They may develop very specific ways of doing things and become irritable when a routine is disrupted.

If you notice any of these signs, encourage your loved one to schedule a doctor's appointment as soon as possible. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or other dementias will help your loved one get the maximum benefit from available treatments as well as offer your family more time to plan for the future.

For information on Alzheimer's disease and support resources, visit liftcaregiving.com.