Margaret Mitchell

 Margaret Mitchell was born November 8, 1900 in Atlanta, Georgia. Mitchell went to Smith College and then returned home to work for the Atlanta Journal. She spent ten years writing her one and only novel, Gone with the Wind, one of the best selling novels at the time.

 

Joseph Kim

Russia Warns Obama: Monsanto

The shocking minutes relating to President Putin’s meeting this past week with US Secretary of State John Kerry reveal the Russian leaders “extreme outrage” over the Obama regimes continued protection of global seed and plant bio-genetic giants Syngenta and Monsanto in the face of a growing “bee apocalypse” that the Kremlin warns “will most certainly” lead to world war.
According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.
At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.
So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these “bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.
Two of the most feared neonicotinoids being banned are Actara and Cruiser made by the Swiss global bio-tech seed and pesticide giant Syngenta AG which employs over 26,000 people in over 90 countries and ranks third in total global sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market.
Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now control nearly 100% of the global market for genetically modified pesticides, plants and seeds.
Also to note about Syngenta, this report continues, is that in 2012 it was criminally charged in Germany for concealing the fact that its genetically modified corn killed cattle, and settled a class-action lawsuit in the US for $105 million after it was discovered they had contaminated the drinking supply of some 52 million Americans in more than 2,000 water districts with its “gender-bending” herbicide Atrazine.
To how staggeringly frightful this situation is, the MNRE says, can be seen in the report issued this past March by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) wherein they warned our whole planet is in danger, and as we can, in part, read:
“As part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.
ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds,” reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.
“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird,” Palmer said. “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid — called imidacloprid — can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”
The new report concludes that neonicotinoid contamination levels in both surface- and ground water in the United States and around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates.”

Quickly following this damning report, the MRNE says, a large group of group of American beekeepers and environmentalists sued the Obama regime over the continued use of these neonicotinoids stating: “We are taking the EPA to court for its failure to protect bees from pesticides. Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an agricultural system in trouble.”
And to how bad the world’s agricultural system has really become due to these genetically modified plants, pesticides and seeds, this report continues, can be seen by the EC’s proposal this past week, following their ban on neonicotinoids, in which they plan to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with the European Union, and as we can, in part, read:

“Europe is rushing towards the good ol days circa 1939, 40… A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the “EU Plant Variety Agency.”

It’s called the Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.”

This MRNE report points out that even though this EC action may appear draconian, it is nevertheless necessary in order to purge the continent from continued contamination of these genetically bred “seed monstrosities.”
Most perplexing in all of this, the MRNE says, and which led to Putin’s anger at the US, has been the Obama regimes efforts to protect pesticide-producer profits over the catastrophic damaging being done to the environment, and as the Guardian News Service detailed in their 2 May article titled “US rejects EU claim of insecticide as prime reason for bee colony collapse” and which, in part, says:
“The European Union voted this week for a two-year ban on a class of pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, that has been associated with the bees’ collapse. The US government report, in contrast, found multiple causes for the collapse of the honeybees.”
To the “truer” reason for the Obama regimes protection of these bio-tech giants destroying our world, the MRNE says, can be viewed in the report titled “How did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s man in Washington?” and which, in part, says:
“After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA: At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center. As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.”
Even worse, after Russia suspended the import and use of an Monsanto genetically modified corn following a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage this past September, the Russia Today News Service reported on the Obama regimes response:
“The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week – including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.
The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.
The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.”
On 26 March, Obama quietly signed this “Monsanto Protection Act” into law thus ensuring the American people have no recourse against this bio-tech giant as they fall ill by the tens of millions, and many millions will surely end up dying in what this MRNE report calls the greatest agricultural apocalypse in human history as over 90% of feral (wild) bee population in the US has already died out, and up to 80% of domestic bees have died out too.

No room for girls

No room for girls at a 'women's conference' in Saudi: Is this ridiculous spectacle real?

A picture of a conference in Saudi Arabia on 'women in society' – attended by men only – has gone viral. As absurd as it sounds, it reminds Louisa Peacock of a typical UK business conference.

The apparent conference in Saudi Arabia on 'women in society', where only men attended. Photo: Twitpic

By Louisa Peacock

12:08PM BST 27 Jun 2013

Ha ha. It's a good gag by whoever's come up with it – a room full of Saudi Arabian men supposedly coming together to talk about 'women in society'. Without any women present.

No wonder the picture's currently doing the rounds on Twitter – both men and women are laughing at the absurdity and hypocrisy of it.

And yet, is it really that absurd? We don't actually know if the photo is real. But this is a country where women are not allowed to drive, women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions – oh, and stoning them to death if they try to leave their husbands is still OK.

It's not too hard to make the leap, then, that Saudi Arabia would seriously, actually, run a conference about 'what to do with all these women' – those who are rising up, who are starting to disobey the 'norms'. Post the Arab spring and this 'new world' of politics – it's possible women may want a change in culture in the Middle East. And the men don't like it.

Regardless, even if it is just a picture of any old get together – to talk about business or politics – it still screams alarm bells at you: the fact that no women are present is telling.

Perhaps it was, literally, a man's only event and the originator of this gag is just making a point.
Come to think of it, his or her point is well heard. I have been to many a business conference in the UK over the years that may as well be men-only: a sea of grey suits and balding, middle aged men doesn't help to inspire the new generation, especially women, into industry.
If it seems absurd that Saudi Arabia would host a male-only event excluding women, perhaps it is just an exaggerated version of what goes on in the Western world?
But before the UK Government is tempted to launch an Inquiry into said problem, let's just enjoy this photo for what I believe it is: a good gag.

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2013

Thanks to Fox News and its expert commentators, millions of Americans now understand the real, hidden reason why Germany's solar-energy industry is so much further along than ours. Turns out it has nothing to do with the fact that Germany's government has long supported the industry far more generously, withpolicies like feed-in tariffsthat stimulate investment in green technologies. No, the real reason is much simpler, explained a trio of journalists on Fox & Friends: It's always sunny in Germany!

"The industry's future looks dim," intoned host Gretchen Carlson at the beginning of the segment, which was preserved for posterity bythe liberal blog Media Matters for America. She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. 

You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."

Gosh, why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Wouldn't you think that some scientist, somewhere, would have noticed that the East Coast is far less sunny than Central Europe and therefore incapable of producing solar power on the same scale?

You would—if it were true. As Media Matters' Max Greenberg notes, it isn't. Not even remotely. According to maps put out by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, virtually the entirety of the continental United States gets more sun than even the sunniest part of Germany. In fact, NREL senior scientist Sarah Kurtz said via email, "Germany's solar resource is akin to Alaska's," the U.S. state with by far the lowest annual average of direct solar energy.

Dorothea Lange

Nueva Jersey  1895 - California 1965

La Fotógrafa del pueblo, como ella misma hacía constar en su tarjeta de visita, fue una de las iniciadoras del documentalismo social y pionera en el reportaje. Dorothea Lange, nace en Hoboken (Nueva Jersey - USA) en el año 1895  y fallece en San Francisco (California – USA) en el año 1965. Con tan solo siete años contrae la poliomielitis, enfermedad que le daña el desarrollo de la pierna derecha, mancándola este hecho de por vida. En 1917 estudia en la Clarence White School (Nueva York),  de marcada tendencia pictoralista.[1] Aunque las verdaderas señas de identidad de su trabajo se las proporciona su faceta como reportera, que comenzaría a ejercer dos años más tarde, en 1919 cuando abre un estudio en San Francisco. Antes de ello, en el año 1918, se dedica a dar la vuelta al mundo. Afición que compaginará con su trabajo de reportera más adelante. En 1920 se casa con su primer marido, el pintor Maynard Dixon, con quien tiene dos hijos. En Taos, México conoce a Paul Strand, quien tendrá una cierta influencia en su trabajo. También establece relación con Imogen Cunninghan, quien junto con Margrette Mather y Laura Gilpin son exponentes de un pictorismo moderno e híbrido en el que confluyen las atrevidas formas de la modernidad y del esteticismo hermético y la suavidad atmosférica del pictorismo. Posiblemente influenciada por sus frecuentes contactos, a partir de 1933, con el grupo f/64 (también llamado 64f)[2] empieza a reflejar su entorno mediante documentos fotográficos de las condiciones laborales de la época, dedicando especial interés en captar a los más afectados por la grande presión norteamericana de los años 30. En 1934 ofrece su primera exposición, en al galería de Willard Van Dike. Y un año más tarde trasladará su residencia a Carlifornia, Berkey, tras casarse con Paul Taylor. Desde el año 1935 al 40 estuvo trabajando para la administración de Franklin Delano Roosbelt, mediante su programa de recuperación económica, el New Deal y sobretodo mediante la Farm Security Admnistration (FSA), cuya sección fotográfica fue mucho más allá de dejar constancia de las actividades de esta y constituyó un impresionante archivo gráfico que abarcaba todos los aspectos de la vida en el campo.   En esta época es cuando Lange prepara junto a su marido “A American Exodus, A Record of Human Erosión”. Libro, editado en 1939, donde se combinan junto a las fotografías textos que ofrecen un análisis del fenómeno migratorio así como microfilms donde se recogen fragmentos de conversaciones escuchadas en el momento en que se tomaba la fotografía.  A mediados de los años 40 Lange que había sido contratada para documentar a los japoneses-americanos en los campamentos es censurada por parte de Autoridad de Reubicación de la Guerra, al mostrar los campos de internamiento de los americanos de origen japonés. A partir de esta fecha empieza a tener problemas relacionados con su salud, hecho que determina que su objetivo fotográfico se vuelque hacía temas cercanos como su familia. En la década de los 50, mientras su estado de salud se lo permitió, realizó diversos trabajos para revistas en América Latina, Así y África, así como un estudio sobre el sistema judicial californiano. A partir de 1964, tras tener conocimiento de que padece un cáncer, se dedica a lo que sería sus dos últimos proyectos: organizar una retrospectiva de su obra en el MOMA y ha documentar su vida. Mediante estos escritos que recogió explica su ideario fotográfico, su forma y manera de ver, percibir y vivir la fotografía. En ellos se autodescribe como una fotógrafa totalmente purista y defensora de la fotografía directa, objetiva y sin pasar por ningún tipo de manipulación Lange que no sufría las limitaciones de las grandes y pesadas cámaras fotográficas, comentó: “Te cuelgas la cámara en el cuello así como te calzas los zapatos y ahí está, un accesorio del cuerpo que comparte la vida contigo. La cámara es un instrumento que enseña a la gente cómo ver sin la cámara.” El 11 de octubre de 1965 fallece en San Francisco. El verdadero éxito de la obra de Dorothea Lange no se da hasta el año 1972, cuando el Museo de Whitney incorpora 27 obras en la exposición “Executive Order 9066” destinada a mostrar el internamiento japonés. El entonces crítico del New York Times, A.D. Coleman, describió las fotografías de Lange como: “documentos de tan alto nivel que compenetran los sentimientos de las víctimas y también los hechos del crimen.” Lange dejó aproximadamente 25,000 negativos que ahora son parte trascendente de la historia de Estados Unidos. http://www.ciudaddemujeres.com/mujeres/Fotografia/Lange.htm

Dorothea Lange

Her photograph of Florence Owens Thompson, a Cherokee woman sitting outside a pea-picker's camp with 3 of her 7 kids, became one of the most iconic images of the Great Depression.

At the time Lange captured "Migrant Mother" she was working for the Federal Government's Resettlement Administration, so the photo passed to the public domain. In 1998, the image became a 32-cent U.S. Postal Service stamp. This was quite unusual since daughters Katherine McIntosh and Norma Rydlewski (depicted) were alive at the time of printing.

While Florence never got any royalties for the image, three prints auctioned at Sotheby's and Christie's fetched around $700,000 combined.

 

Intolerance

Una periodista de la emisora egipcia Al-Nahar TV se atrevió a desafiar en plena entrevista al conocido imán fundamentalista Yusuf Badri.
La disputa entre Riham Said y el fundamentalista se dio por el uso del velo que la entrevistadora se negó a usar.
"¿Tengo que hacer esta farsa de ponerme el velo sólo para la entrevista?... “Usted, en su vida diaria, lidia todo el tiempo con mujeres musulmanas que no usan velo”, recalcó la periodista en estudio, antes de salir al aire, en un envío transmitido tiempo atrás pero que recién ahora empezó a circular por la web.
“Afuera del aire, usted puede hablarme sin que yo me ponga el hijab, pero después cuando los televidentes pueden observar, ¿usted me quiere hacer usarlo?”, exclamó molesta Said.
A lo que el religioso respondió: “Quizás te quieras quedar con el hijab después del programa, ¿quién sabe?”.
Cuando el programa salió al aire el tono de la polémica aumentó cuando la discusión se dio sobre supuestos acosos sexuales por parte de clérigos que practican exorcismos.
De inmediato, el imán pidió cambiar de tema con el argumento de que se trataba de una “provocación”, a lo que Said replicó: “Hable de cosas que le interesan a la gente”.
Entonces la periodista se retiró el velo y explicó: "Desde que comenzó la transmisión, no hizo otra cosa que atacarme y decir que recibió 1.000 liras egipcias por participar de la entrevista. (…) No le pagamos para que venga a gritarme".
Y el religioso contestó: "O cambia el discurso o me voy", a la vez que le pidió a la entrevistadora que volviera a ponerse el velo y amenazó con clausurar la emisora: “Haré cerrar el canal”, sentenció.
Pero la periodista se negó a ponerse el velo nuevamente y le aclaró que sólo lo usaría por Dios, mas no por él. "¿Por qué toma el dinero si nos quiere hacer cerrar?", arremetió la periodista egipcia.
Y agregó: "Estas son las personas que llevan a los medios a los tribunales. Es muy desafortunado que personas así se metan en nuestra religión. Soy yo la que se va, no tú", completó antes de abandonar la entrevista.

Once More

 

Un empleo en el fin del mundo.

Asesino asalariado

para una gran empresa petrolera.

No sé por qué hice

la mitad de las cosas que hice...

pero sé que pertenezco

a este lugar...

rodeado de los de mi clase.

Ex convictos, fugitivos, vagabundos...

Imbéciles.

Inadaptados sociales.

No pasa un segundo

en que no piense en ti de algún modo.

Quiero ver tu rostro...

Sentir tus manos sobre las mías...

Sentirte junto a mí.

Pero sé que nunca pasará.

Me abandonaste...

Y no puedo recuperarte.

Me muevo como lo hacen los condenados...

Maldecido.

Y siento que solo es cuestión de tiempo.

No sé por qué escribo esto.

No sé en qué puede resultar.

Sé que no puedo recuperarte.

No sé por qué nos pasó esto.

Siento que fui yo.

Mala suerte.

Veneno.

He dejado de hacerle bien al mundo.

Una vez más a la contienda.

Al último buen combate que libraré.

Vivir y morir este día.

Vivir..

...y morir este día"




There's not a second that goes by when I'm not thinking of you in some way. I want to see your face. Feel your hands in mine. Feel you against me. But I know that will never be. You left me, and I can't get you back... I move like I imagine the damned do, cursed. I feel like it's only a matter of time... I don't know why I'm writing this, I don't know what can come of it. I know I can't get you back. I don't know why this has happened to us. I feel like it's me. Bad luck. Poison. I've stopped doing this world any real good.

10 Lies and Misconceptions Spread By Mainstream Nutrition

By Dr. Mercola

There's no shortage of health myths out there, but I believe the truth is slowly but surely starting to seep out there and get a larger audience. For example, two recent articles actually hit the nail right on the head in terms of good nutrition advice.

Shape Magazine features a slide show on "9 ingredients nutritionists won’t touch,"¹ and authoritynutrition.com listed “11 of the biggest lies of mainstream nutrition."²

These health topics are all essential to get "right" if you want to protect your health, and the health of your loved ones, which is why I was delighted to see both of these sources disseminating spot-on advice. I highly recommend reading through both of them.

Here, I will review my own top 10 lies and misconceptions of mainstream nutrition—some of which are included in the two featured sources, plus a few additional ones I believe are important.

Lie # 1: 'Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease'

As recently as 2002, the "expert" Food & Nutrition Board issued the following misguided statement, which epitomizes this myth:

"Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet."

Similarly, the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine recommends adults to get 45–65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20-35 percent from fat, and 10-35 percent from protein. This is an inverse ideal fat to carb ratio that is virtually guaranteed to lead you astray, and result in a heightened risk of chronic disease.

Most people benefit from 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health, whereas you need very few, if any, carbohydrates to maintain good health... Although that may seem like a lot, fat is much denser and consumes a much smaller portion of your meal plate.

This dangerous recommendation, which arose from an unproven hypothesis from the mid-1950s, has been harming your health and that of your loved ones for about 40 years now.

The truth is, saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances, without which your body cannot function optimally. They also act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.

In fact, saturated is the preferred fuel for your heart! For more information about saturated fats and the essential role they play in maintaining your health, please read my previous article The Truth About Saturated Fat.

Lie # 2: 'Eating Fat Makes You Gain Weight'

The low-fat myth may have done more harm to the health of millions than any other dietary recommendation as the resulting low-fat craze led to increased consumption of trans-fats, which we now know increases your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease—the very health problems wrongfully attributed to saturated fats...

To end the confusion, it's very important to realize that eating fat will not make you fat!

The primary cause of excess weight and all the chronic diseases associated with it, is actually the consumption of too much sugar -- especially fructose, but also all sorts of grains, which rapidly convert to sugar in your body. If only the low-fat craze had been a low-sugar craze... then we wouldn't have nearly as much chronic disease as we have today. For an explanation of why and how a low-fat diet can create the very health problems it's claimed to prevent, please see this previous article.

Lie # 3: 'Artificial Sweeteners are Safe Sugar-Replacements for Diabetics, and Help Promote Weight Loss'

Most people use artificial sweeteners to lose weight and/or because they’re diabetic and need to avoid sugar. The amazing irony is that nearly all the studies that have carefully analyzed their effectiveness show that those who use artificial sweeteners actuallygain more weight than those who consume caloric sweeteners. Studies have also revealed that artificial sweeteners can beworse than sugar for diabetics.

In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study showed that drinking dietsoft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain, far more so than regular soda.³ On average, each diet soft drink the participants consumed per day increased their risk of becoming overweight by 65 percent within the next seven to eight years, and made them 41 percent more likely to become obese. There are several potential causes for this, including:

• Sweet taste alone appears to increase hunger, regardless of caloric content.
• Artificial sweeteners appear to simply perpetuate a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is therefore not reduced—leading to further problems controlling your weight.⁴
• Artificial sweeteners may disrupt your body's natural ability to "count calories," as evidenced in studies such as this 2004 study at Purdue University,⁵ which found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids.

There is also a large number of health dangers associated with artificial sweeteners and aspartame in particular. I've compiled an ever-growing list of studies pertaining to health problems associated with aspartame, which you can find here. If you're still on the fence, I highly recommend reviewing these studies for yourself so that you can make an educated decision. For more information on aspartame, the worst artificial sweetener, please see my aspartame video.

Lie # 4: 'Your Body Cannot Tell the Difference Between Sugar and Fructose'

Of the many health-harming ingredients listed in the featured article by Shape Magazine—all of which you're bound to get in excess if you consume processed foods—fructose is perhaps the greatest threat to your health. Mounting evidence testifies to the fact that excess fructose, primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is a primary factor causing not just obesity, but also chronic and lethal disease. In fact, I am convinced that fructose is one of the leading causes of a great deal of needless suffering from poor health and premature death.

Many conventional health "experts," contend that sugar and fructose in moderation is perfectly okay and part of a normal "healthy" diet, and the corn industry vehemently denies any evidence showing that fructose is metabolically more harmful than regular sugar (sucrose). This widespread denial and sweeping the evidence under the carpet poses a massive threat to your health, unless you do your own research.

As a standard recommendation, I advise keeping your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day. For most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less. Unfortunately, while this is theoretically possible, precious few people are actually doing that.

Cutting out a few desserts will not make a big difference if you're still eating a "standard American diet"—in fact, I've previously written about how various foods and beverages contain far more sugar than a glazed doughnut. Because of the prevalence of HFCS in foods and beverages, the average person now consumes 1/3 of a pound of sugar EVERY DAY, which is five ounces or 150 grams, half of which is fructose.

That's 300 percent more than the amount that will trigger biochemical havoc. Remember that is the AVERAGE; many actually consume more than twice that amount. For more details about the health dangers of fructose and my recommendations, please see my recent article Confirmed—Fructose Can Increase Your Hunger and Lead to Overeating.

Lie # 5: 'Soy is a Health Food'

The meteoric rise of soy as a "health food" is a perfect example of how a brilliant marketing strategy can fool millions. But make no mistake about it, unfermented soy products are NOT healthful additions to your diet, and can be equally troublesome for men and women of all ages. If you find this recommendation startling then I would encourage you to review some of the many articles listed on my Soy Index Page.

Contrary to popular belief, thousands of studies have actually linked unfermented soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease.

Not only that, but more than 90 percent of American soy crops are genetically modified, which carries its own set of health risks.⁶ I am not opposed to all soy, however. Organic and, most importantly, properly fermented soy does have great health benefits. Examples of such healthful fermented soy products include tempeh, miso and natto. Here is a small sampling of the detrimental health effects linked to unfermented soy consumption:

Breast cancer	Brain damage	Infant abnormalities
Thyroid disorders	Kidney stones	Immune system impairment
Severe, potentially fatal food allergies	Impaired fertility	Danger during pregnancy and breastfeeding

Lie # 6: 'Eggs are a Source of Unhealthy Cholesterol'

Eggs are probably one of the most demonized foods in the United States, mainly because of the misguided idea implied by the lipid hypothesis that eating egg yolk increases the cholesterol levels in your body. You can forget about such concerns, because contrary to popular belief, eggs are one of the healthiest foods you can eat and they do not have a detrimental impact on cholesterol levels. Numerous nutritional studies have dispelled the myth that you should avoid eating eggs, so this recommendation is really hanging on by a very bare thread...

One such study⁷, conducted by the Yale Prevention Research Center and published in 2010, showed that egg consumption did not have a negative effect on endothelial function – a measure of cardiac risk – and did not cause a spike on cholesterol levels. The participants of the Yale study ate two eggs per day for a period of six weeks. There are many benefits associated with eggs, including:

One egg contains 6 grams of high quality protein and all 9 essential amino acids	Eggs are good for your eyes because they contain lutein and zeaxanthin, antioxidants found in your lens and retina. These two compounds help protect your eyes from damage caused by free radicals and avoid eye diseases like macular degeneration and cataracts	Eggs are a good source of choline (one egg contains about 300 micrograms), a member of the vitamin B family essential for the normal function of human cells and helps regulate the nervous and cardiovascular systems. Choline is especially beneficial for pregnant mothers as it is influences normal brain development of the unborn child
Eggs are one of the few foods that contain naturally occurring vitamin D (24.5 grams)	Eggs may help promote healthy hair and nails due to their high sulphur content	Eggs also contain biotin, calcium, copper, folate, iodine, iron, manganese, magnesium, niacin, potassium, selenium, sodium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin E and zinc

Choose free-range organic eggs, and avoid “omega-3 eggs” as this is not the proper way to optimize your omega-3 levels. To produce these omega-3 eggs, the hens are usually fed poor-quality sources of omega-3 fats that are already oxidized. Omega-3 eggs are more perishable than non-omega-3 eggs.

Lie # 7: 'Whole Grains are Good for Everyone'

The use of whole-grains is an easy subject to get confused on especially for those who have a passion for nutrition, as for the longest time we were told the fiber in whole grains is highly beneficial. Unfortunately ALL grains, including whole-grain and organic varieties, can elevate your insulin levels, which can increase your risk of disease. They also contain gluten, which many are sensitive to, if not outright allergic. It has been my experience that more than 85 percent of Americans have trouble controlling their insulin levels -- especially those who have the following conditions:

• Overweight
• Diabetes
• High blood pressure
• High cholesterol
• Protein metabolic types

In addition, sub-clinical gluten intolerance is far more common than you might think, which can also wreak havoc with your health. As a general rule, I strongly recommend eliminating or at least restricting grains as well as sugars/fructose from your diet, especially if you have any of the above conditions that are related to insulin resistance. The higher your insulin levels and the more prominent your signs of insulin overload are, the more ambitious your grain elimination needs to be.

If you are one of the fortunate ones without insulin resistance and of normal body weight, then grains are fine, especially whole grains—as long as you don’t have any issues with gluten and select organic and unrefined forms. It is wise to continue to monitor your grain consumption and your health as life is dynamic and constantly changing. What might be fine when you are 25 or 30 could become a major problem at 40 when your growth hormone and level of exercise is different.

Lie # 8: 'Milk Does Your Body Good'

Unfortunately, the myth that conventional pasteurized milk has health benefits is a persistent one, even though it’s far from true. Conventional health agencies also refuse to address the real dangers of the growth hormones and antibiotics found inconventional milk. I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk of any kind, including organic, because once milk has been pasteurized its physical structure is changed in a way that can actually cause allergies and immune problems.

Important enzymes like lactase are destroyed during the pasteurization process, which causes many people to not be able to digest milk. Additionally, vitamins (such as A, C, B6 and B12) are diminished and fragile milk proteins are radically transformed from health nurturing to unnatural amino acid configurations that can actually worsen your health. The eradication of beneficial bacteria through the pasteurization process also ends up promoting pathogens rather than protecting you from them.

The healthy alternative to pasteurized milk is raw milk, which is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in my estimation, one of the finest sources of calcium available. For more details please watch the interview I did with Mark McAfee, who is the owner of Organic Pastures, the largest organic dairy in the US.

However, again, if you have insulin issues and are struggling with weight issues, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer or high cholesterol it would be best to restrict your dairy to organic butter as the carbohydrate content, lactose, could be contribute to insulin and leptin resistance. Fermented organic raw dairy would eliminate the lactose issue and would be better tolerated. But if you are sensitive to dairy it might be best to avoid these too.

Lie # 9: 'Genetically Engineered Foods are Safe and Comparable to Conventional Foods'

Make no mistake about it; genetically engineered (GE) foods may be one of the absolute most dangerous aspects of our food supply today. I strongly recommend avoiding ALL GE foods. Since over 90 percent of all corn grown in the US is GE corn, and over 95 percent all soy is GE soy, this means that virtually every processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label likely contains one or more GE components. To avoid GE foods, first memorize the following list of well-known and oft-used GE crops:

Corn	Canola	Alfalfa (New GM crop as of 2011)
Soy	Cottonseed	Sugar derived from sugar beets

Fresh zucchini, crookneck squash and Hawaiian papaya are also commonly GE. It’s important to realize that unless you're buying all organic food, or grow your own veggies and raise your own livestock, or at the very least buy all whole foods (even if conventionally grown) and cook everything from scratch, chances are you're consuming GE foods every single day... What ultimate impact these foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects. The first-ever lifetime feeding study also showed a dramatic increase in organ damage, cancer, and reduced lifespan.

Lie # 10: 'Lunch Meats Make for a Healthy Nutritious Meal'

Lastly, processed meats, which includes everything from hot dogs, deli meats, bacon, and pepperoni are rarely thought of as strict no-no’s, but they really should be, if you’re concerned about your health. Virtually all processed meat products contain dangerous compounds that put them squarely on the list of foods to avoid or eliminate entirely. These compounds include:

• Heterocyclic amines (HCAs): a potent carcinogen, which is created when meat or fish is cooked at high temperatures.
• Sodium nitrite: a commonly used preservative and antimicrobial agent that also adds color and flavor to processed and cured meats.
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Many processed meats are smoked as part of the curing process, which causes PAHs to form.
• Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures—including when it is pasteurized or sterilized—it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

This recommendation is backed up by a report commissioned by The World Cancer Research Fund⁸ (WCRF). The review, which evaluated the findings of more than 7,000 clinical studies, was funded by money raised from the general public, so the findings were not influenced by vested interests. It's also the biggest review of the evidence ever undertaken, and it confirms previous findings: Processed meats increase your risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, and NO amount of processed meat is "safe." A previous analysis by the WCRF found that eating just one sausage a day raises your risk of developing bowel cancer by 20 percent, and other studies have found that processed meats increase your risk of:

• Colon cancer by 50 percent
• Bladder cancer by 59 percent
• Stomach cancer by 38 percent
• Pancreatic cancer by 67 percent

Processed meats may also increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent, and lower your lung function and increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). If you absolutely want or need a hot dog or other processed meats once in awhile, you can reduce your risk by:

• Looking for "uncured" varieties that contain NO nitrates
• Choosing varieties that say 100% beef, 100% chicken, etc. This is the only way to know that the meat is from a single species and does not include byproducts (like chicken skin or chicken fat or other parts)
• Avoiding any meat that contains MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial flavor or artificial color

Ideally, purchase sausages and other processed meats from a small, local farmer who can tell you exactly what's in their products. These are just some of the health myths and misconceptions out there. There are certainly many more. The ones listed above are some of the most important ones, in my view, simply because they’re so widely misunderstood. They’re also critical to get "right" if you want to protect your health, and the health of your loved ones. For more great advise, please review the two featured sources.

The Incredible Tree-Climbing Goats of Morocco

By staff in Animals & Habitats, Featured Articles, Geography & Travel

(Images via: Nick Outram and Moment)

Before you jump to conclusions: no, these were not created by a bored geek in Photoshop. Amazingly, these uncanny animals are actually real: they climb the Argan trees of Morocco in search of food, which is otherwise sparse in the region. Over time they have become not only able to climb trees but downright adept at the art – the traipse across trees with a sure-footedness that is hard to imagine from a hoofed animal.

(image via Lottelies)

The droppings of the goats contain the kernels of the seeds they consume which are, strangely enough, used by locals to press and grind into oil. Even more disturbingly: this oil has a number of uses including culinary (yes, people eat it) and cosmetic (yes, they also smear it on themselves). You might want to skip over the versions of these products sold by local farmers for the somewhat cleaner mass-produced varieties. For a quarter-liter bottle of this goat-digested kernel-oil you can expect to pay from 15 to 50 dollars.

Known as skilled navigators of treacherous mountain conditions, maybe it isn’t such a surprise after all to find goats making their way up the steep and narrow trunks and branches of only slightly more dangerous trees. Unfortunately, the Argan tree is slowly being over-harvested so you may have to hurry to see the real thing. Still not sure you believe the images of goats climbing trees up to heights of 30 feet?

Corredor Popular

Snowden

Snowden: An exercise in disinformation

June 25, 2013 By 21wire Leave a Comment

Stuart J. Hooper
21st Century WireOver the past week, many have embraced Edward Snowden as a ‘hero’, including a vast majority of people who purport to be in the ‘alternative media’ – all of whom would usually question what the mainstream news corporations present to them.

Numerous questions and concerns have been raised, albeit by a vocal minority, about the reality of what Snowden represents. Those who would usually be the ones to join this vocal minority in search for real answers, namely the aforementioned majority of alternative media personalities, appear to have been duped into jumping onto the latest staged bandwagon hero, along with large numbers of a naïve general public.
Edward Snowden’s leaks and scandals can be explained as a highly sophisticated, disinformation project of the highest order. Disinformation being defined as false information deliberately, and covertly, spread in order to influence public opinion (Merriam-Webster, 2013).

Historian Dr. Webster Tarpley (2013) has already noted that in 1620 a Venetian intelligence official recommended ‘saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad’. Tarpley provides the example of ‘criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog – the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed’. So, we should be against the bloody dictator beating his dog, but ought to be more concerned with the more substantial crimes the ‘bloody dictator’ is known for. The scandals provided by Snowden are of an equivalent standard to the example of the dictator beating a dog. While we should be against unwarranted spying, this new scandal looks to distract us from the greater, and significantly more important, context of global affairs that are currently focused on Syria.
Snowden can be described here as an actor in a ‘limited hangout’ operation. Limited hangouts are described as when an intelligence agency resorts ‘to admitting, sometimes even volunteering, some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case’ (Marchetti, 1978). This coincides with the first of Tarpley’s (2013) three conceptual identifiers for a limited hangout operation – the revelation of little information that is actually new. Simply put, Snowden has told us that the NSA is spying on emails and telephone calls (Drury and Robinson, 2013), along with revelations that international super powers spy on one another (Chen, 2013). While this may be shocking to some, these revelations can hardly be detailed as ‘new’ or ‘ground-breaking’. Snowden has simply provided a name, PRISM, for what has already been understood to be going on for some time. This is somewhat similar to how Julian Assange of Wikileaks rose to fame after providing the graphic video for an already acknowledged incident. These new slivers of information can, however, be particularly impactful as Marchetti (1978) notes, ‘the public is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further’. Not pursuing Snowden further may have disastrous consequences for world peace and security.

For the press, it all makes perfect sense on the surface, and the surface is where the press operates. A deeper look, however, reveals the full picture…
The second conceptual identifier Tarpley (2013) provides for recognising a limited hangout operation is that the actors involved, Snowden and Assange for example, will become ‘instant media darlings’. A naïve view would suggest that this occurs due to the magnitude of information the person is presenting. Reality would show that when providing a critique of controversial issues that truly matter to the ‘Wall Street centered US ruling class’ (Tarpley, 2013), such a 9/11, that these critics are slandered, attacked and denigrated. It is also interesting to note that these limited hangout actors have themselves participated in the attacking of 9/11 truth activists. Assange has provided the most scolding attack stating ‘I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11’ (Bell, 2010). Glenn Greenwald, who brought Snowden forward, is not interested in veering from the official 9/11 story and instead focuses on ‘blowback’ being the cause of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Norman Solomon, a former U.S. State Department asset who is now supporting Snowden, ‘was notorious ten years ago as a determined enemy of 9/11 truth’ (Tarpley, 2013). The magnitude of the 9/11 issue is reflected in the authoritative status of those who question the official story such as: Andreas von Bülow, the former secretary of state for the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran. It must be asked why these ‘whistle-blowers’ seem so vehemently opposed to the issue of questioning the biggest elephant in the room per say – 9/11, and why they never have any new information to reveal regarding the event. They all appear to agree with the establishment, that they proclaim to be fighting against, on what is arguable the most important and controversial event in recent history; which provides much cause for concern.
These concerns are somewhat amplified when the characteristics of Snowden are looked at in detail. Naomi Wolf (2013) has stated that during his interview he looked like ‘someone who had learned his talking points’ and his message promoted fears that an oppressive government would want to instil in other would-be whistle-blowers; such as the idea that you will lose everything by standing up against it, in effect, demonstrating the omnipotent capacity of said government. Doubts have also been raised about whether Snowden had the ability to wiretap the president and shut down the NSA in a few hours, as he has claimed (Rappoport, 2013). These claims might be attributed to Snowden’s apparent narcissistic tendencies, most evident in modelling photographs and an online biography of his that have now been published (Reilly, 2013). Snowden is known to have enlisted in the U.S. Army in May 2004 where he wanted to fight for freedom in a Special Forces unit. Tarpley (2013) states that this ‘shift from militarist to civil libertarian remains unexplained and highly suspicious’, a conclusion that is substantiated by the other added character concerns.
One can also judge a man by the company he keeps and in Snowden’s case that means Wikileaks (Shane and Savage, 2013). Before shooting into mainstream fame, Wikileaks received an endorsement from Cass Sunstein suggesting that ‘they have immense potential’ (Sunstein, 2007). This should be of immediate concern to anyone looking for legitimacy in leaked information, as Sunstein is the author of a 2008 paper where he advocated the ‘main policy idea’ and ‘promising tactic’ of using ‘cognitive infiltration’ to disrupt and break up ‘ideological and epistemological complexes’ that investigate and promote anti-government conspiracy theories. He notes that ‘direct government rebuttals…will prove ineffective’ and therefore external government ‘allies’ will need to be used (Sunstein, 2008). Assange appears to fit perfectly into the role of an external government ‘ally’. His attack on 9/11 conspiracy theories, as documented earlier, appears to be an example of Sunstein’s ‘cognitive infiltration’ tactic in action as the information he ‘leaks’ looks to distract from greater areas of inquiry. Now that the organization is said to be working with Snowden, more questions of his legitimacy are inevitably raised. It’s also worth noting that the founder of Cryptome and mentor of Assange, John Young, denounced Wikileaks in 2007 as a CIA front (Tarpley, 2013).
Tarpley’s third and final identifier for a limited hangout operation is when they are used to prepare large covert operations, which in the case of Snowden would be to advance an attack on Syria. This is evident from a number of key points. The first being that Snowden’s initial revelations came on the same day that Qusayr, a crucial rebel stronghold, fell to the Syrian army; enraging British and French imperialist warmongers. Here we must remember the critical contextual point that Obama has refrained from an all out attack on Syria; something that those in London and Paris have been pushing for heavily over the past few months. Snowden’s revelations triggered what Tarpley (2013) described as ‘a firestorm of criticism’ specifically aimed at Obama. The London Guardian does not only publish the new ‘scandal’ that caused this uproar, but they also like to point out how it is causing damage to Obama by putting his approval rating at ‘its lowest point since last November’s election’ and has caused a ‘collapse in trust’ (Enten, 2013). Attacking Obama pushes him to a point where he must conform to the will of the establishment, to attack Syria outright, or be ousted.
For further evidence of The Guardian’s push for war in Syria, we can find an article titled ‘A Political Ploy: The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD’ (Edwards, 2013). It documents the stunning comments from Guardian editors including: ‘that use (of Chemical Weapons) is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime’. The article’s author states that these are ‘among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian’, that they ‘endorse the latest claims on Syria’ and that ‘the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda’. We can now understand why The Guardian would use Snowden to attack Obama as a means to fulfil the agenda, which they support, of a more open war against Syria.


IMAGE: The international press campaign against the Assad regime is currently in its second year.
It is possible to provide a real world example for another limited hangout operation that has prepared similar attacks by looking to none other than Wikileaks. As an organisation, they have never destroyed the career of a British, American or Israeli politician, but instead a laundry list of people that ‘bears a striking resemblance to the CIA enemies’ list’ (Tarpley, 2013). Their attack against Assad of Syria, through a somewhat pathetic email-sex scandal (Taher and Slater, 2012), should make it immediately clear whose interests they represent: the same ones who also control the direction of The Guardian. With both The Guardian and Wikileaks supporting Snowden, we can almost be certain of whose interests he too represents: those who are aiming for war. Therefore, the armies of dupes currently attacking Obama for what Snowden has revealed, many of who should know better, are in actual fact facilitating the establishment’s agenda for a wider war in Syria by weakening the anti-open war president.
While this is in no way seeks to aggrandise or apologise for Obama, the fact that he has not initiated a wider war in Syria must be recognised as a positive policy direction. We can see a similar direction during the attack on Libya where Obama officials refused to call the attack a ‘war’, they instead insisted on calling it ‘kinetic military action’ (York, 2011). To add to this anti-open war course, Obama’s actions against Iran do not include bombing runs and tactical nuclear strikes, but instead, methods of economic warfare that look to make Iran’s currency, the Rial, useless (Klimasinska and Katz, 2013). Articles are now emerging stating that ‘Obama needs to act now on Syria’ from those who clearly understand what Snowden represents: the manufactured opportunity to fulfil the agenda of war with Syria. They state that ‘lives have been lost, and battlefield gains the insurgents enjoyed six months ago have been squandered’ thanks to Obama not acting sooner (Doran and O’Hanlon, 2013). Are we really going to allow this new limited hangout operation to bring us into another war?
It is disappointing that so many are unable to understand the complexities of the disinformation, and limited hangout capacity, that Snowden symbolizes. But what is more worrying is the fact that many should simply know better when it comes to such matters. What is particularly interesting is how it was broadcast that Ed Snowden had been a supporter of, and donor to, libertarian Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. The use of the name ‘Ron Paul’ appears to be an indispensable tool for ensnaring the support of the libertarian audience, an audience that is substantial in both physical size and influence particularly in the alternative media. Do libertarians have an almost childlike trust in anyone who supports Ron Paul? Would they allow this to blind themselves from the reality of a situation? It appears so, and also that the cunning minds behind the Snowden limited hangout are well aware of this. To what degree could this phenomenon be truly exploited? This is surely the question on the minds of those with nefarious intentions for future disinformation and limited hangout campaigns.
While we must be against warrantless spying, we must recognise the wider global context in which such scandals are presented to us. Remember the analogy of the brutal dictator beating the dog. This new limited hangout operation must be exposed as such in order to alleviate pressure on Obama, who is evidently attempting to maintain his Peace-Prize-Winner image. Hopefully, that can reverse the current trend of forcing both him, and the world, into yet another unnecessary conflict. Snowden is, at best, a fool who was deceived into his current position. At worst, he may be said to be a double agent who is fully aware of the wider consequences of his ‘leaks’. Interestingly enough, Snowden recently came out and stated that Britain’s ‘GCHQ (the NSA of the UK) is worse than the US’ (McDermott, 2013). Is this an attempt to shake the claims that Snowden is in fact a British sponsored limited hangout agent? Possibly. It would appear, therefore, as if we are on the right track. Following this line of enquiry may not only pull us away from war, but also remove many people from a state of what can currently only be termed as terminal naïveté or gullibility.