Ad Widget

Collapse

"How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat"

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat"

    Man, this is infuriating...mostly because we fell for it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/we...me-to-fat.html
    Vegan from 1993 until Oct 16, 2010. "D'oh!!"

  • #2
    Yup

    Comment


    • #3
      Any bets on other areas where a vested interest group has bought the right people and managed to influence national policy, regulations, and law?

      I'll put my nickel down on the side of "it is all over the place."
      Finally have given up on MDA Forum.
      My friends, I'll see ya at primalforums.com where I'm user #4, and we do have a moderator.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^^^

        +++ Yes, it's all over the place.

        I'd also venture to suggest that it's a particular problem in the U.S.

        If someone had said that to me a decade ago I'd have thought: "This is the fantasies of the Left."

        And, of course, we knew what they were about. Who hadn't heard about Stalin and starvation in the Ukraine? Or the Great Leap Forward in China? - one terrible but in a sense hauntingly beautiful account of that:

        https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0593041798/

        Nowadays, I see that's only part of the truth. And, My God, it took years to see it! Perhaps the Berlin Wall falling and the retreat of the immediate fear of advancing Communism did it.

        This is how it is, in my view: This is just what a certain sort of man (more rarely woman) is like. They will steamroller over anything that stands between them and "worldly" success. It simply doesn't matter whether they do that through the agency of the the State or through private enterprise. That's not a distinction that matters as much as it seems to from an ideological angle of view ... whether that be a liberal ("capitalist") or socialist ("statist") ideology. Who can even say, in practice, where the one begins and the other ends?

        We badly need some new thinking here.

        On a similar note, I wonder how many people believe that the mistreatment of Native Americans is an historical issue. Regrettable but basically having to do with the past. Think again: it's gone about in a different way - and in such a way as not to disturb the press - but nothing has changed. Notes on the seizure and rape - no other way to put it - of Alaska and Nevada just decades ago:

        https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/08715...9vL&ref=plSrch
        Last edited by Lewis; 09-25-2016, 05:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          "If someone had said that to me a decade ago I'd have thought: "This is the fantasies of the Left."

          ... whether that be a liberal ("capitalist") or socialist ("statist") ideology. "

          At least here in the states, capitalist would normally be linked to being conservative or "right", "left", liberal, and statist have become pretty much synonymous at least in terms of what is being done. Now liberal is being (has been?) replaced with "progressive," a true semantics game. Even the term liberal does not reflect what it used to mean a long time ago, like when Thomas Jefferson was one.

          I like using a single line methodology, with anarchy at one end, total control on the other. One would not want to live in a true anarchy, nor in a a total control scenario, be it dictatorship, communism, whatever. Finding the right/best place between these two poles is not an easy task.
          Finally have given up on MDA Forum.
          My friends, I'll see ya at primalforums.com where I'm user #4, and we do have a moderator.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah. In the U.S. "Liberal" can mean "Socialist" ... which is kind of an inversion in meaning, and confusing to people in Britain and Europe.

            But there is a connection as well. Liberals thought in terms of individual rights. A sphere of freedom. If one thinks of this in geometrical form one could say every individual has a circle around him in which others must not trespass. But everyone's "circle" has to be the same size (otherwise no individual would actually be enjoying maximum freedom (in this picture).) Thus the notion of "freedom" (understood abstractly as a value) already includes the notion of equality. And thus it's not in practice difficult to drift across from a concern with "freedom" to a concern with "equality". The two concepts are already intertwined. IIRC, one of America's important liberal philosophers - John Dewey - went down that road. But I'm not an historian and never made a close study of Dewey.

            This drift becomes particularly easy when someone begins to notice - what I think is really fairly obvious - that "freedom" even where it does exist in more than rhetoric is in practice a dead letter unless circumstances enable one to take advantage of it.

            I used to tend more towards the "conservative" view of things (conservative in the traditional English sense of the term not the American one - Burke, Hume, T. S. Eliot, etc.) - what I am now I don't know - but I can see where these people, these "left-liberals" are coming from, and I think they're right up to a point.

            On your second point - again I agree. No one with any sense wants either close supervision of all their doings by the social organism in its political and imperative aspect - "the State". We wouldn't want to live in the Geneva Rousseau grew up in. But neither would most of us want to live in a lawless place where "freedom" in a negative sense - lack of restraint - rules. We don't long for life among outlaws and cannibals.

            I see our situation in a different way, though. I tend not to see it in political or ideological terms. As I intimated, I think the wicked can and will exploit any set of arrangements. And here I still agree with T. S. Eliot who speaks in a poem of people:

            ... dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
            For all my own moral and religious scepticism I feel that I'm left with a moral (and implicitly religious) understanding of our predicament. I don't think there's an answer on the level of politics, whether liberal, conservative, socialist, progressivist or whatever.

            And here I'm probably at odds with many people in the Paleo movement, since I suspect many of them are if less sceptical of politics than I very much more sceptical of morality. I think many people in the Movement, naively in my view, would think morals are an illusion and can be "explained" by Social Darwinists.
            Last edited by Lewis; 09-25-2016, 08:26 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The smallest minority is the individual. The USA was based on the individual having inherent rights provided by the Supreme Being, not passed out by any form of government. The Bill of Rights was essentially a list of what the FedGov can't do. The original configuration had the individual states that form the union carrying the burden of government. The national government here is 'sposed to have its power delegated to it by the states/people. The steady encroachment of the individual's basic freedoms here in the USA -- property, speech, religion, guns, is the hallmark of the political trend in the latter half of the 20th century to today. Both major parties do it, the Dummy-cats are just more brazen than the Repooplicans. The Libertarians, Greens, et al have never been in a position to do anything, so who knows what they would represent if they actually had the chance.
              In my life (first political exposure in the early 1950's) I've seen the FedGov gradually take over on virtually all fronts, and the Executive Branch (President) has, in the 21st century begun exercising power almost like a dictator. On my one dimension "freedom" axis, we've moved considerably closer to the "total control" point. What got Nixon out of office, under threat of impeachment, in today's world would not even make a week's worth of news, especially if it broke on a Friday evening.
              We are a far cry from what we were, and what we should be. The more we allow the Prez to be "King" the worse it gets.
              Finally have given up on MDA Forum.
              My friends, I'll see ya at primalforums.com where I'm user #4, and we do have a moderator.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                On a similar note, I wonder how many people believe that the mistreatment of Native Americans is an historical issue. Regrettable but basically having to do with the past. Think again: it's gone about in a different way - and in such a way as not to disturb the press - but nothing has changed. Notes on the seizure and rape - no other way to put it - of Alaska and Nevada just decades ago:

                https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/08715...9vL&ref=plSrch
                Wait, what? How many years are we saying is "just decades ago" in this case?

                And the author - Gerry Mander?

                Not that I think we treated (or are currently treating) Native Americans well, but I need some convincing here that there have been major atrocities (like seizure and rape) in Nevada in the past 20 years or so.
                Durp.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
                  Wait, what? How many years are we saying is "just decades ago" in this case?

                  And the author - Gerry Mander?

                  Not that I think we treated (or are currently treating) Native Americans well, but I need some convincing here that there have been major atrocities (like seizure and rape) in Nevada in the past 20 years or so.
                  Haven't a copy here. But if I had I'd try to avoid summarising - I mean there's so much opportunity for misunderstanding. That's already been demonstrated! I say that because I unwisely said "rape" meaning (effective) theft of resources and ecological damage. (I meant the sense in which Tacitus has a Celtic chieftain say that the Romans are "world-rapists". The original meaning of the word is illegal seizure and doesn't necessarily refer to the seizure of anything sexual.)

                  IIRC, the book was published in the 90s. I'd suggest buying a copy and seeing what the author himself says rather than relying on me trying to re-tell it at secondhand. You can pick it up 2nd hand for pennies. All I'll say is this. (1) Alaska was a tragedy. Native rights to the land were "extinguished" - a legal manoeuvre the U.S. Government can do - and will when it wants to enough. Alaska was actually "bought" from the Russians ... but why should we accept that Russia owned it in the first place? And (2) the Nevada story involves conflict over land (at the time of interest for the mining of minerals) between puppet tribal governments set up by the U.S. BIA for the Navajo and the Hopi. On the book's account neither set of puppets represented either tribe and the conflict was of the BIA's making and really about what U.S. mining industry interests wanted.

                  To be frank I believe Mander. There's always some doubt about anything one reads, but his account has one important criterion of truth - internal coherence.

                  Don't believe that government organisations can't always be trusted? Well, how about the story about Big Sugar above?

                  But, again, don't take what I say - read Mander and give him a chance to speak.
                  Last edited by Lewis; 09-27-2016, 09:03 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rig D View Post
                    The smallest minority is the individual. The USA was based on the individual having inherent rights provided by the Supreme Being ...
                    Ah, yes. And there's a difficulty right away. According to your Left over there, you mustn't bring the Creator into ... well, anything ... and the rejection of an established religion pretty much means that no-one is actually allowed to believe there's anything beyond the end of his own nose and atheism has some kind of moral high ground - which it, of course, that doctrine doesn't mean at all. (Can you imagine any of the Founders, whether Anglican, Presbyterian or merely Deist having meant that?)

                    And since this is a Paleo forum, notice that if anyone mentions religion to Robb Wolf he begins foaming at the mouth:

                    http://robbwolf.com/2016/09/27/episo...opharmacology/

                    ... though he'd have a job being more strident and irrational than his guest here on episode 336. (Shame, I expected something much more informative and anthropological and, indeed, botanical in nature.)

                    But Robb's basically a force for the good and I'll leave him be. ;-)


                    By the way, when I said a moral (and implicitly religious) problem above I meant two things. First, that one basic problem is that to many people in our current culture nothing is sacred. (And this is why the likes of Monsanto does what it does.) And I doubt, incidentally, that any primitive society would disagree with that statement. They definitely have a sense of the sacred.

                    Secondly, I meant that if one accepts that morality is ontologically real - if there really is right and wrong (and not, say, just blind causality) - then I think it probably follows that there is a Creator. I think A. J. Balfour thought so, and made a good argument for that (though no-one could, of course, offer a demonstrable proof of that):

                    https://www.amazon.com/Theism-Humani...dp/1587420058/


                    The Bill of Rights was essentially a list of what the FedGov can't do. The original configuration had the individual states that form the union carrying the burden of government. The national government here is 'sposed to have its power delegated to it by the states/people.
                    It's many things besides that, though. For one thing it's an understanding based in Enlightenment understandings of the nature of man and the world he moves in. So it also depends on whether, or to what extent, people like John Locke were correct in their understanding. But there's also an historical dimension to it, so the kind of rights they thought people should enjoy have a historical link to the Common Law rights in English law. On another note it was also perhaps meant to get the Virginia Squierachy what it wanted.
                    Last edited by Lewis; 09-27-2016, 09:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                      Don't believe that government organisations can't always be trusted?
                      Nope, I definitely never said that. I was just concerned that I had been living in Nevada for almost 20 years and had not heard much about it.

                      Looks like my local library has a copy, so I have it reserved.
                      Durp.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
                        Nope, I definitely never said that.
                        Sure, I know.

                        I just gave in to a rhetorical flourish not "aimed" at you but making a general point for the sake of anyone reading the thread.

                        I was just concerned that I had been living in Nevada for almost 20 years and had not heard much about it.

                        Looks like my local library has a copy, so I have it reserved.
                        See what you make of it. He seems to be still alive:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Mander

                        I only got a copy because Dr. Tom Cowan of the WAPF mentioned the book in a recent interview. I find the WAPF, and Cowan, pretty interesting. I like the Paleo people, but I think Ancestral Health as a wider thing gains a lot from the very different approach the WAPF brings. I have Cowan's book on the heart pre-ordered and can't wait.



                        To be totally frank with you I feel a little overwhelmed sometimes by just how everything seems to be below the surface. I had imagined that oppression of the Native Americans was something that finished years ago, but the more I learn the more I doubt that's true. But I don't mean to get at anyone else's nation. Didn't George Santayana remark of the British that "never had the world known such sweet boyish masters"? - but what an absurdly rosy-eyed comment! (And come to think of it there's a slightly gay feel to that comment, and I believe Santayana was unmarried!) Cecil Rhodes? Dyer at Amritsar? And what went on in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency who knows. No wonder your President, with his Kenyan background, looks askance at our people. All one can really say is that the British Empire seems to have been rather less red in tooth and claw than the French or German or Belgian ones … but that's not saying much.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X