In The News Today...

>The food thing is weird.
>It's another case of me not being able to tell whether there has been a shift in product, or if it's just 24/7 news and social media.
The best example is to ask someone who builds and flys wooden airplanes. Sitka Spruce had a certain structural strength years ago, now the engineering charts for it are all different. There has been a change in product. Products are now tailored for commerce, not taste. Shipping not short term appeal. A peach from 1900 is different in size and composition today due to manufacturer selection.

>... what is real and what is Chicken Little?
Consider emulsifiers. Nature's glues that keep our food from separating during all that shelf life. It enhances appearance and adds to shipping times, but are all these glues healthy? Some scientists think not, many more say "not proven" but most say "not a concern". Its hard to get unbiased answers. There is evidence to both sides of the issue and definitive proof will probably never be available.

>I know I've felt better since recently switching from eating anything to adding a large portion of local grown, private
> farm meat and veg. Is that just psychological? Is it real, or is it Memorex?
Its real. Most farmers have 'butchering parties' at which they eat the delicacies and stuff that won't last for long. They do it without fear but none of them would do such a thing if they were dealing with animals raised in confined feed lots. Farmers eat brains and steak tatare but feed lot operators surely do not do so.

Size appearance and taste of eggs changes markedly between major commerce and local farms with a few chickens running around.

Caffeine and sugar=laden energy drinks are new on the scene.

>They can't tell me, for example, that any artificial sweetener has been adequately tested long-term,
Sure it has. Anyone who dies from artificial sweeteners will have a dozen scientists and two dozen lawyers contesting the issues.
That gives the companies time for the "tobacco routine"...."I don't know, lets have more studies, meanwhile we sell more tobacco".
The sugar industry once bought up all copies of a book and even paid for the printing plates that would generally have been sold as scrap metal for two dollars. So do you trust the sugar industry to have acted on your behalf in doing so?

Just about ALL diseases are a combination of diet, genetics and pathogens ... and there are plenty of lawyers to delay any findings and plenty of subsets of the population to suffer and plenty of subsets to benefit.

> if you're poor and trying to feed a family, ... then you are tired at the end of the day and want quick, cheap and easy.
So you pick them up from after school day care and drive them to eat sugared grease but you fasten the seat belts because the law requires it for their health and safety.

Alot of people join Community Agriculture groups wherein they receive "shares of crops" bagged and distributed by local farmers. It distributes risk and provides capital. Some people even join "underground" food sharing networks: raw milk, home butchered meats, local honey, etc.

We used to eat carrots and carrot tops. Anyone throwing away carrot tops in ww two was penalized two ration coupons on the spot.

We used to eat garlic scapes and onions, and not need to deal with winter time colds and flu stuff. Antioxidants come in expensive plastic containers now, but people used to get them by eating flower petals and standing in dirt with their shoes off.

Quote: odiousgambit

Kerry for me is the ultimate example of how extreme Liberalism is a mental disease. The guy was known for what? protesting the Vietnam War. What was he in his own mind? A war hero that reminded everybody of JFK because that was his initials too, and, you know, swiftboats are a lot like PT boats. What a disconnect!

Funniest thing to me is he compared himself to JFK yet JFK would not be welcome in the Democrat Party today.

Quote: AZDuffman

Funniest thing to me is he compared himself to JFK yet JFK would not be welcome in the Democrat Party today.

Kerry, who threw his medals away in protest,
but they weren't his, they were somebody
elses. He still has his. Kerry is the phoniest
politician I know of, I think he's lying every
time he talks.

Emails: IRS official sought audit of GOP senator

The pathetic part is that liberal apologists who claimed (and STILL claim) that there's "not even a smidgen of corruption" will continue to get a free pass from the mainstream media. *facepalm*

BROWN HOLDS BIG EARLY LEAD OVER KASHKARI FOR GOVERNOR

Libs keep claiming that Republicans need to run more "moderate" candidates to be more appealing, right? Well, California Republicans have nominated a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Indian guy to run against Gov. Jerry Brown.

But guess what? Mr. Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gay Marriage & Pro-Gun Control is LOSING by 20 points. LOL!!!

If a liberal Republican like that can't even come close in the People's Republic of California, then I don't know why clueless schmucks keep telling the GOP that they need to be more moderate. That ain't the answer, folks.

O'Reilly does a beautiful job of illustrating media bias. (No ethical dissimilarities here, bingo!)

The liberal media is a complete joke, but unfortunately LIV's rely on them for information. *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven

O'Reilly does a beautiful job of illustrating media bias. (No ethical dissimilarities here, bingo!)

The liberal media is a complete joke, but unfortunately LIV's rely on them for information. *facepalm*

You can't change anything without your hands out at the federal reserve, but then you wouldn't want to. The only way to have government not corrupt would be to vote for people not fundraising. I can't see this ever happening.

Quote: Beethoven

But guess what? Mr. Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gay Marriage & Pro-Gun Control is LOSING by 20 points. LOL!!!

If a liberal Republican like that can't even come close in the People's Republic of California, then I don't know why clueless schmucks keep telling the GOP that they need to be more moderate. That ain't the answer, folks.

For gay marriage (abortion is a totally different beast) in the short term (5 to 10 years) your analysis is correct: the GOP will continue to back candidates who oppose gay marriage, and those candidates will continue to win elections. But in the long term, (20+ years) most GOP candidates will support gay marriage. It's simple math: most Republicans (over 60 percent) under the age of 29 are ok with marriage for gays. Unless the vast majority of those twentysomethings suddenly flip-flop when they turn 40, the party will be as pro-gay marriage as the Dems already are.

Do you really think young Republicans will flip-flop on gay marriage once they mature into older Republicans?

Quote: reno

For gay marriage (abortion is a totally different beast) in the short term (5 to 10 years) your analysis is correct: the GOP will continue to back candidates who oppose gay marriage, and those candidates will continue to win elections. But in the long term, (20+ years) most GOP candidates will support gay marriage. It's simple math: most Republicans (over 60 percent) under the age of 29 are ok with marriage for gays. Unless the vast majority of those twentysomethings suddenly flip-flop when they turn 40, the party will be as pro-gay marriage as the Dems already are.

Do you really think young Republicans will flip-flop on gay marriage once they mature into older Republicans?

It doesn't much matter, America has already lost on the issue. There will be new fights to fight.

Quote: reno

For gay marriage (abortion is a totally different beast) in the short term (5 to 10 years) your analysis is correct: the GOP will continue to back candidates who oppose gay marriage, and those candidates will continue to win elections. But in the long term, (20+ years) most GOP candidates will support gay marriage. It's simple math: most Republicans (over 60 percent) under the age of 29 are ok with marriage for gays. Unless the vast majority of those twentysomethings suddenly flip-flop when they turn 40, the party will be as pro-gay marriage as the Dems already are.

Do you really think young Republicans will flip-flop on gay marriage once they mature into older Republicans?

Maybe you didn't read my initial post. Pretty much EVERYONE in California supports gay marriage, both young AND old.

If pro-gay marriage Californians don't support pro-gay marriage Republicans today, what makes you think that they're going to all of a sudden flip in the future??