None of the articles point specifically as containing reason why none of the possibilities are happening. When I read it all, maybe I will find something. Maybe a reader can comment on that aspect.
Almost amazingly impressive!
None of the articles point specifically as containing reason why none of the possibilities are happening. When I read it all, maybe I will find something. Maybe a reader can comment on that aspect.
Almost amazingly impressive!
This post has arisen from two incentives. The old ‘gem’ of the global warming debate and the perception about artificial sweeteners, the topics of the last two posts.
It concerns the way people formulate their beliefs, the way they perceive what they see and hear and why different people arrive at different conclusions based on the same information. Also, in particular, people’s automatic, willing acceptance of information from persons of authority even in cases where the information is blatantly incorrect.
To explain what I am trying to say, I quote from the relevant part of the ‘artificial sweetener’ post: [The last para is directly related to the sweetener topic but left in because it is a good example].
But there is a segment of the population who will follow the rule of ‘Authority’, or just perceived authority, even when it becomes obvious that this authority doesn’t have their best interests at heart. This segment is what Bob Altemeyer called ‘The Authoritarians‘, also referred to as Authoritarian Followers, who hold the unfortunate characteristic of blindly believing official authority. From Bob:
They [Authoritarians] are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use lots of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites. But they are also Teflon-coated when it comes to guilt. They are blind to themselves, ethnocentric and prejudiced, and as close-minded as they are narrow-minded. I think we all know people like this. I have an aunt who gets very upset whenever someone expresses an opinion that falls outside of right-leaning political ideology. Bob has found from his extensive studies on the subject that the authoritarian follower contingent makes up roughly 50% of the population.
This article is from Sott.net, written by Doug DiPasquale.
It is reproduced here except for the introduction. The question that is asked in the title is valid. The answers are comprehensive, and the problem is made quite clear, from the dangers of the products to the manufacturer’s unsavoury methods of utilizing and marketing them.
First off, let’s allay any doubts anyone has left in their minds about whether or not this stuff is bad for you. It is. Aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, the pink packet, the blue packet, the yellow packet, “diet” this, that or the other – this stuff is all killing you slowly by poisoning you. Sayer Ji over at Green Med Info has written some great articles gathering the scientific research on these sweeteners here and here. This is the cold sober science on the subject, not raving internet fanaticism. Aspartame is 11% methanol by weight and methanol is a poison. Splenda is a “chlorocarbon, in the same family as deadly pesticides like DDT, insecticides, biocides, disinfectants like Chlorox Bleach, and WWI poison gas like dichlorourea,” to quote Sayer Ji on the subject. And before anyone protests, telling me that chemical similarities don’t mean anything and that a single molecule difference can entirely change the properties of a substance, which is true in some contexts, here’s Dr. James Bowden:
“Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them. In test animals Splenda [sucralose] produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies.”
Here’s a short list of some of the many effects consumption of artificial sweeteners have on the body (most of these are from animal studies):
I have added a detailed comment to the TIP post.
To me there are questionable ramifications and issues involved. Another issue that I could have introduced is that of loyalty. When you live in one country but have divided loyalties, certainly for obvious reasons, but to what extent are prioritizing and acting on those loyalties justifiable, fair and reasonable? Especially as we are talking about persons taking up arms!
Julia Gilllard’s determination to vote ‘with’ Israel and the US is a clear indication of her agenda. She is a globalist. Any rhetoric about supporting a two state existence for Israel and Palestine is simply that and has no substance.
The fact that she has been forced by the Foreign office and colleagues to compromise by abstaining is fortunate for Australia and represents some semblance of democracy. Nevertheless, a true humanitarian approach would have seen a vote supporting Palestine. To suggest that abstaining supports the peace process is pure nonsense.
In a scenario typical of “Yes, Prime Minister”, decisions are made independently of the public or humanitarian grounds, and are simply based on political and vote winning factors.
From the ‘Yahoo 7 News’:
Julia Gillard has relented to a Cabinet and backbench push and agreed that Australia will adopt a neutral line on a crucial United Nations vote to give greater status to Palestine – a move certain to anger Washington and Tel Aviv.
In a historic shift, Australia will abstain from a scheduled vote in the UN tomorrow granting observer status to the Palestinian Authority.
Australia had been under pressure from the US and Israel to vote against the change, warning it could harm the Middle East peace process.
_The West Australian _ understands the Prime Minister was told by several ministers in Cabinet on Monday night that Australia should abstain or vote yes.
Ministers Stephen Conroy and Bill Shorten supported the PM’s view that Australia should vote no. But Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr, Chris Bowen and Tony Burke – all members of the NSW Right – and Anthony Albanese and Martin Ferguson – both of the Left – argued that Australia should vote yes or abstain.
It is believed about five other ministers shared that view.
Views from both sides were expressed firmly and at the end of the meeting Ms Gillard decided Australia would vote no.
However, yesterday, after taking soundings from backbenchers, she changed her mind and relented.
It is understood Deputy PM Wayne Swan advised Ms Gillard that she should back down.
Many key marginal seats in western Sydney are now home to large Muslim populations and sitting Labor members face demands from constituents to take a more neutral line on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Read the article here.
Some Australians grasp the truth!
Didn’t the Australian Labor Government claim that Opposition leader Tony Abbott was reckless, alarmist and mendacious in warning its new taxes would drive away investment?
The local head of US energy giant Chevron, the biggest foreign investor in Australia, has warned $100 billion worth of projects are “hanging in the balance” due to soaring coats and declining confidence in the federal government’s policy settings…
Chevron Australia managing director Roy Kryzwosinski said resources projects in Australia were 40 per cent more expensive than in the US and its workforce was 60 per cent less productive than the US…
Mr Kryzwosinski today attacked the Gillard government’s move to introduce new transfer pricing measures on foreign investors which would be backdated to 2004…
View original post 93 more words
Stunning photo! I love the country, the water, the beauty of nature.
The story is inspiring. Such a welcome contrast to my serious posts. No, wrong, this is also a serious post, but my other recent ones are depressing. The beauty of nature is real and serious life matter. This post is seriously uplifting!
The philosophy – be prepared to be adventurous in your tastes, your thoughts and your beliefs. ( I got carried away with the beauty aspects and forgot to highlight the basic theme).
All are welcome aboard the crazy train — but be warned, the world as you know it, is about to be turned upside down.
Just another WordPress.com site
"The Relentless Pursuit Of Common Sense"
A blog dedicated to the excellence in teaching
Letsgrow Individually and Collectively
Complex Trauma Lifer & Decoder of Human Oddities.
A multi-niche blog.
Critical evaluation of environmental fearmongering
Be Positive, Patient and Persistent...
Watching our environment ... our health ... and corporations ... exposing lies and corruption
They only do good to harm you.
A journey around the world with a medical theme
Distinguished reader selectively reads
It is time
I See This