Posts tagged choice
The Government (and Dr. Robert Lustig) in Your Kitchen
Dr. Robert Lustig’s new book is out: “Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease.” Here is a January 11, 2013 interview with the author on NPR that is well worth the half hour of listening. Dr. Lustig’s 90-minute talk on YouTube, “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” is also an excellent informational video, which is why it has 3 million+ views.
There is a caveat with Lustig, however – he thinks that the same government that gave us this problem, by force, is the same government that can and must solve the problem. Dr. Lustig’s problem is that he refuses to delve beyond the scientific questions, which leaves him clueless regarding the political implications of food policy. While he correctly blames the Industrial Food Machine for a diseased, fat, sugar-addicted nation, he cannot understand that it was the government-corporate alliance (Corporate State) that has enabled this omnipotent force.
Dr. Lustig’s unfortunate path is to advocate for a reduced availability (supply intervention) of processed and sugary foods that are at the foundation of a collective metabolic derangement that exists within our federalized Food Pyramid internment camp that houses the imprisoned masses. The reduction would occur, of course, via the government dictates from government dictators who are balancing the pressure of a public health carnage with the monetary pressure from their Corporate-Big Agra Benefactors who have wormed their way into every single nook and cranny of the American industrial food system.
In this interview, Dr. Lustig takes to deriding the concept of libertarianism. He implies that libertarianism is nothing more than a platitude invoked by folks who don’t understand the ultimate end of their choices. To him, on the food freedom issue, libertarianism means, “Don’t tell me what to eat.” His response to that is, “We have already been told what to eat.” So he then says (to paraphrase), “Who do you want in your kitchen? The government? Or the industrial food machine? That’s your choice.” This is, of course, a false dichotomy. Other choices exist that do not require the force of government via arbitrary law. I write about these choices all the time. The alternative to having the government or the Industrial Food Machine in your kitchen is this: you and your family make your kitchen your kingdom, and you make all the choices based upon your desires, knowledge, and end goals.
Additionally, while Dr. Lustig is exactly right about the toxic nature of the products of the industrial food system, not once has he ever discussed the history of government intervention and how the industrial products have been created and subsidized via the political system that has enabled and funded the entire industrial food chain that he tells people to avoid.
In July 2011, I wrote an article about Dr. Lustig, “When the Sugar Police Go Marching In.” As I stated in this article, Dr. Lustig has done some excellent work and he is very much worth your time in terms of exploring his lectures and book. He needs to learn much more about the omnipotent forces that drive disease and devastation, but when he does, he will be a valuable proponent of real food and real health. Follow me on Twitter @karendecoster.com.
For reader convenience below is the 90 minute video Karen mentions at the beginning of her post.
Published on Oct 22, 2012 by TheBigPictureRT
So, your Nobel Peace Prize-winning European Union is demanding that indebted nations like Greece and Portugal privatize all their water resources if they want to continue receiving bail outs. As in – you want to stay in the Eurozone? Then hand over your most precious commons to transnational corporations. This is in line with the broader privatization agenda we’re seeing all around the world – especially here in America as water, roads, school, prisons – you name it – are all being privatized and taken out of the hands of “we the people.” These are all assaults on democracy.
For your reference:
50 Countries Label Genetically Engineered Foods – When Will Americans have the Right to Know and Choose?0
By Dr. Mercola
The greatest opportunity to give people the right to know if their food is genetically engineered will occur with the California ballot initiative – officially known as Proposition 37 – which is coming up for vote on November 6. Proposition 37 will require labeling of genetically engineered foods, and end the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as “natural.”
Your support, regardless of what state you live in, can make all the difference between winning and losing.
As summed up by Mark Bittman in a recent New York Times piece:1
“Polls show Prop 37 to be overwhelmingly popular: roughly 65 percent ‘for’, to 20 percent ‘against’, with 15 percent undecided. Nationally, on the broader issue of labeling, in answer to the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should require that:
‘Foods which have been genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that,’ a whopping 91 percent of voters say ‘yes’ and 5 percent say ‘no’. This is as nonpartisan as an issue gets, and the polls haven’t changed much in the last couple of years.
Published on Aug 30, 2012 by BenSwannRealityCheck
Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how the most controversial rule change in party history was not legitimately passed.
No matter if you are right, left or capable of critical thinking and not needing a party to tell you where to cast your vote, this should appall everyone. Maybe more will wake up and realize the illusion of choice is just that, an illusion to make you think you still have a voice.
By Mike Adams
Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney contradicts his words: Rand Paul is disgusted with him!
Linguistics and intonation
If you watch Rand Paul deliver his announcement, pay particular attention to the part where he says:
But you know, now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m uh happy to announce that I’m gonna be supporting Governor Romney.
Do you like eating natural, raw, or unprocessed food?
Republican Senators Corker and Alexander in Tennessee have just voted against food freedom by allowing the FDA to raid farmers, natural food stores, and people who sell/posses raw unprocessed foods at gunpoint!!!
Small-government Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky offered an amendment which would prevent the FDA from carrying firearms or making arrests during raids without a warrant. Senators Corker and Alexander voted AGAINST Rand Paul’s amendment by voting to table it.
Senators Corker and Alexander must think it is ok for the FDA to point a gun at you if you like eating healthy food.
If you want more details read these two blog posts:
Watch Senator Rand Paul’s speech on the FDA and raw foods:
Here are videos of actual raids that have taken place by the FDA – don’t think it can’t happen to you:
Reason.tv: Rawesome Foods Raided… Again!
Zach Weissmueller | August 4, 2011
A little more than a year ago, Rawesome Foods, a health food co-op based in Venice, California was the target of an armed raid by several agencies, and the resulting video went viral.
On August 3, 2011, Rawesome experienced another multi-agency raid, but this one resulted in the arrest of the establishment’s owner James Stewart.
Stewart, and Sharon Palmer, the farmer who supplies him with raw goat milk, are being held on bails in excess of $100,000 and are each charged with four felonies and several more misdemeanors. Some examples of the charges are “processing unpasteurized milk,” “improper labeling of food,” and “improper egg temperatures.”
The government has kept pursuing Stewart and his club for years, despite a lack of any reports of illness or injury from consumption of his foods. Rawesome members argue that they are part of a private club, not subject to government regulation, and that they are being persecuted for their alternative lifestyles.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office would not comment for this video, but offered this press release and also released a list of the charges against Stewart and Palmer.
Reason.tv covered the first Rawesome raid shown below.
Reason.tv: Raw Foods Raid – The Fight for the Right to Eat What You Want
Zach Weissmueller | November 17, 2010
This summer armed government agents raided Rawesome Foods, a Venice, California health food co-op. What were the agents after? Unpasteurized milk, it turns out.
Raw milk raids are happening all over the United States. The Food and Drug Administration warns that raw milk consumption can cause health problems, but a growing community of raw foods enthusiasts are ignoring government recommendations and claiming that they are getting tastier, more nutritious food by going raw.
Reason.tv visited Rawesome to examine the circumstances of the raid and discovered that this particular raw foods case stretches across county lines and involves at least five separate government agencies, despite the fact that not a single member of Rawesome has complained or been harmed by the raw foods. In fact, members have to sign a contract stating that they understand and accept the risks of consuming raw foods before they are allowed to step inside.
If members of a private club sign a waiver stating that they want to drink a certain type of milk, why is the government getting involved? As Jarel Winterhawk, a manager at Rawesome, puts it, “This is America. How are you going to tell me what I can and cannot eat?”
Though no charges have yet resulted from the raid, Rawesome is threated with shutdown due to the involvement of yet another government agency, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, and the club’s raw goat milk supplier, Healthy Family Farms, has had its dairy license suspended.
“Raw Foods Raid” is written and produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning and Weissmueller. Senior Producer is Ted Balaker. Music by Jami Sieber, Five Star Fall, and Kammen and Swan (Magnatune Records).
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
What is scary is that Obama is interchangeable with Perry, Romney, Gingrich, or even George Bush. And on every issue they would be the same. Do you like the flyer in the video? Grab that and more here http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27703&p=17… print them and share them. And share this video.
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
No one in their right mind would borrow money at a high interest rate to buy a lottery ticket.
But that’s exactly what would happen if state lawmakers go through with a wretched idea: Allow people to purchase lottery tickets using their credit cards. Right now, lottery tickets can be bought using only cold cash. The new proposal, which also would allow debit cards, comes as lawmakers struggle to figure out how to generate more lottery money for college scholarships.
“If the state is going to encourage people to gamble, it should be done with cash on the barrel head and not with funny money,” said Bobbie Patray, state president of the Eagle Forum, a conservative group that opposed a state lottery. “If we’re going to have it, I want it not to be run in a way that is detrimental to the people who play it. I want to keep it on the up and up, so that people don’t play it and get into financial trouble.”
The lottery is a popular state program, passed by voters in 2002. It’s raised more than $2 billion to pay college tuition and for other education programs. Though opponents feared it would spark widespread compulsive gambling, it’s been pretty innocent. You have a couple of spare bucks in your pocket. You plop them down for an instant win scratch-off ticket or, perhaps, a multimillion-dollar Power Ball. It’s fun.
But adding credit cards to the mix makes it a decidedly non-innocent game. Families are drowning under credit card debt, many with double-figure interest rates. The average Tennessee family owes between $6,000 and $7,000 on credit cards, in a state that has the nation’s highest bankruptcy rate.
According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, up to 60 percent of cash spent in casinos is withdrawn from personal accounts or cash advances from credit cards. Quite simply, it doesn’t feel like you’re spending money.
“Gambling on credit, on money you don’t have is an extremely bad idea,” said Keith Whyte, executive director of the national council. “Most people who gamble will lose. The longer you gamble, the more likely you are to lose. We recognize in this day and age, non-cash ways of paying for things are ever proliferating. But being able to rapidly drain your account certainly contributes to the severity of gambling problems.”
The state Senate Lottery Stabilization Task Force has begun hearing testimony to allow credit and debit cards for lottery tickets. It would require action by the full General Assembly, which convenes in January.
The legislature loosened the requirement for who gets scholarships, meaning the annual cost to the lottery is increasing.
According to testimony, 12 lottery states allow credit cards. The idea is that younger lottery players don’t carry cash and would be more likely to swipe a card to take a chance.
True, but it also would increase a sure bet: Their personal debt would go up. It’s far easier to set self-imposed limits when dealing with cash.
The lottery was supposed to be fun and entertaining. This takes it down a dangerous path. Encouraging people to charge lottery tickets would be downright sinful.
[CIM Comment below.]
My sole purpose of posting this ill conceived commentary was for the opportunity to show the many errors in the authors thought process.
Firstly, Ms. Kerr appears to be fine with state sponsored gambling as it is for educational fund raising, but only when using “cold cash” to make the purchase, not some “funny money”. I will not go into the arena where these funds are for college scholarships while we do little to prepare our students for this level of education in the first place. Let’s see, this “funny money” refereed to credit card purchases, commonly used for office supplies, groceries, gasoline, to pay utilities and also to purchase alcohol. Payment by the use of a credit card is an accepted business practice and transaction exchange for almost all products and services, but if used in the same manner for the purchase of a lottery ticket Ms. Kerr deems it to be a “sinful” act that would have been permitted by “wretched” legislation? So am I to assume that should I stop at a gas station and purchase $40 in gasoline, a twelve pack of beer and pack of cigarettes with a credit card I am a good citizen but I will surely be considered an immoral and “sinful” person if I were to add a $2 PowerBall ticket to the purchase?
Secondly, trying to understand the vast difference between the “cold cash” and the “funny money”, which has me for a bit of a loss. Both are acceptable currency transactions and both are equally funny money, as they are based on a fiat form of currency system. Whether I make payment with pebbles, marbles, paper or plastic, the determination should be based on what the seller is willing to accept.
Following up on the original thought of “No one in their right mind would borrow money at a high interest rate to buy a lottery ticket”, wouldn’t this thought process hold true for any non-essential purchases? Why then would anyone make a purchase of frivolous items in exchange for the convenience of today verses the inflated bill due to this high interest rate that will come in the mail tomorrow? The reason is quite simple, people have freedom of choice by nature. That freedom is only curtailed through the intervention of government created regulations abashing one’s rights to choose.
This commentary by Ms. Kerr reflects the support of the nanny state, which assumes the individual is not capable of making what the state deems a correct decision so it must implement limitations to the individuals choices. Unfortunately, this intervention runs rampant and can only be justified as providing the greater good for the greater number of people. Sound familiar?