Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 17, 2010 9:20:39 GMT -5
Luckily, ketchup tastes awful, awful, awful no matter how much sodium it has in it, so I won't have to worry too much about this.* www.nypost.com/p/news/national/big_shakeup_for_ketchup_v7oukEzVObs7MOdSjvoMsIHowever, if Heinz chooses to do this because (a) they want to help the problem, and (b) they think it's good business, then hats off to 'em. Doesn't require a government regulation to be accomplished. (*Ketchup -- specifically Heinz ketchup -- however, is a key ingredient to making awesome barbecue sauce, so I will continue to use it when necessary). ;D
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 17, 2010 9:28:33 GMT -5
1) I love ketchup and used to put it on everything. 2) once I learned how bad it was for me in nutrition class I started using it less. 3) I agree if companies do this on their own that's great. 4) I'm just doubtful every company will do the "right" thing. 5) although would this have happened if bloomberg hadn't started the initiative mentioned in the article to do stuff like this? That seems doubtful too.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 17, 2010 9:35:44 GMT -5
1) I love ketchup and used to put it on everything. 2) once I learned how bad it was for me in nutrition class I started using it less. 3) I agree if companies do this on their own that's great. 4) I'm just doubtful every company will do the "right" thing. 5) although would this have happened if bloomberg hadn't started the initiative mentioned in the article to do stuff like this? That seems doubtful too. It is very important to note that the National Salt Reduction Initiative is completely voluntary. Yes, politicians will exert influence on companies to participate, that's what politicians do, but there is no mandate. If we go all the way back to the beginning of this thread, you'll note my key issue was the FDA requiring sodium reductions (and classifying salt as "unsafe," which is plain ridiculous).
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 17, 2010 11:15:53 GMT -5
Would Bush I have invaded Iraq? Would Reagan? Bush I refused to invade Iraq the first time when it could arguably have been justified. Why would he invade them with no justification? Today's generic Republican is very different from the generic Republican on the 1980's. Despite what he says, Orrin Hatch would lose a primary today because he's not conservative enough, and I would have to think he was to the right of the generic Republican Senator of the 1980's (see D'Amato, Weicker, Chaffee, etc). Good point. Ronald Reagan might not survive a primary battle in today's environment. The oil politics of the 2000's are very different than the oil politics of the 1980's in terms of supply, price, and China - so I don't think the Bush I example really holds water. If the invasion of Kuwait was in 2003 and Bush I were president, I don't think there's any question that Bush I would consider it in our strategic interests to continue forward to Baghdad. "Doesn't hold water"?? Really? "No question Bush I would consider it in our strategic interests to continue forward to Baghdad."Back in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush I's former National Security Advisor wrote a high profile piece strongly recommending against invading Iraq. It was and is widely believed he would not have published his thoughts without the knowledge and approval of Bush I: Excerpt But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.
Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. [/url][/size] [/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 17, 2010 11:57:53 GMT -5
I disagree on the "generic conservative" hypotheticals. Afghanistan? Any US President would have led any US Congress to war in AFG over 9/11. Iraq? That was totally drummed up. In terms of the theory posited above, it was a case of conservatives inventing a problem, raising hysteria about it, and vastly over-reacting to what was a non-issue from the very beginning. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. It was not a threat. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice intentionally misled the country and the world and started a completely unnecessary war -- that would be paid for with Iraqi oil money... everyone remembers that one right Mr. Wolfowitz?. Would Bush I have invaded Iraq? Would Reagan? Bush I refused to invade Iraq the first time when it could arguably have been justified. Why would he invade them with no justification? No, I think your generic Republican would have stayed focused on our real enemies in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, and would have nailed Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and destroyed the core of Al Qaeda. The war could have been over years ago, and the second one never started. A Smart US president of either party would then have followed up with a reconstruction plan to help AFG recover from decades of war and shown the world that the US is NOT anti-muslim and is NOT a war mongering nation. Remember, the entire world was behind the USA after 9/11. The cost of such a plan would have been vastly less than a war in Iraq. The tax cuts? This one really requires speculation. My guess -- Guess -- is our generic Republican would not have made such drastic cuts, but would have (if he/she really were "conservative") used at least some of our Clinton surpluses in those days to continue reducing our National Debt. Again, the Nation would have been far better off. Saxa - very interesting perspective, and I would agree with many of your points. I don't think a traditional conservative who is true to his/her values would have authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003. I also think it would have been more conservative to not have $2.5 trillion tax cuts. The problem I have is - who is that conservative in today's America? Snowcroft is a good person to throw out there, but he is now as popular in conservative circles as John Kerry. Today's self-appointed conservative would call Reagan a liberal because he did not demonize gays and call Bush I a liberal because he raised taxes. I think Bush I was definitely more moderate than his son. Many of the 82% of self-identified conservatives who supported Bush II at the end of his presidency now call him a liberal - why?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,460
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2010 12:09:38 GMT -5
Back in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush I's former National Security Advisor wrote a high profile piece strongly recommending against invading Iraq. It was and is widely believed he would not have published his thoughts without the knowledge and approval of Bush I I think Bush I's former Secretary of Defense's position kinda renders that moot.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 17, 2010 15:39:22 GMT -5
I disagree on the "generic conservative" hypotheticals. Afghanistan? Any US President would have led any US Congress to war in AFG over 9/11. Iraq? That was totally drummed up. In terms of the theory posited above, it was a case of conservatives inventing a problem, raising hysteria about it, and vastly over-reacting to what was a non-issue from the very beginning. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. It was not a threat. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice intentionally misled the country and the world and started a completely unnecessary war -- that would be paid for with Iraqi oil money... everyone remembers that one right Mr. Wolfowitz?. Would Bush I have invaded Iraq? Would Reagan? Bush I refused to invade Iraq the first time when it could arguably have been justified. Why would he invade them with no justification? No, I think your generic Republican would have stayed focused on our real enemies in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, and would have nailed Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and destroyed the core of Al Qaeda. The war could have been over years ago, and the second one never started. A Smart US president of either party would then have followed up with a reconstruction plan to help AFG recover from decades of war and shown the world that the US is NOT anti-muslim and is NOT a war mongering nation. Remember, the entire world was behind the USA after 9/11. The cost of such a plan would have been vastly less than a war in Iraq. The tax cuts? This one really requires speculation. My guess -- Guess -- is our generic Republican would not have made such drastic cuts, but would have (if he/she really were "conservative") used at least some of our Clinton surpluses in those days to continue reducing our National Debt. Again, the Nation would have been far better off. Saxa - very interesting perspective, and I would agree with many of your points. I don't think a traditional conservative who is true to his/her values would have authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003. I also think it would have been more conservative to not have $2.5 trillion tax cuts. The problem I have is - who is that conservative in today's America? Snowcroft is a good person to throw out there, but he is now as popular in conservative circles as John Kerry. Today's self-appointed conservative would call Reagan a liberal because he did not demonize gays and call Bush I a liberal because he raised taxes. I think Bush I was definitely more moderate than his son. Many of the 82% of self-identified conservatives who supported Bush II at the end of his presidency now call him a liberal - why? Multi-billion dollar bailout of the financial system, with the money quote being (I think) "we have to destroy the financial system in order to save it".
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 31, 2010 23:23:27 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 1, 2010 9:18:35 GMT -5
You bastards! You've killed the Cheez-It! And Eggo Waffles! Leg'go my Eggos!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 1, 2010 11:02:48 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,460
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jun 1, 2010 11:50:37 GMT -5
You bastards! You've killed the Cheez-It! And Eggo Waffles! Leg'go my Eggos! The ongoing Eggo Waffle shortage killed eggos.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 1, 2010 14:55:01 GMT -5
Eggos are now on the endangered species list.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 26, 2010 12:13:29 GMT -5
I'm just sayin' is all....... www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-raw-food-raid-20100725,0,4951907.story Personally, you couldn't pay me to eat a lot of these raw foods, let alone me paying more for them. But if anyone wants to get sick and puke up raw goat's milk yogurt, all for some -- almost certainly imaginary -- health benefits, knock yourselves out. I'm glad the po-po were cocked and locked in their raid at least. You never know if Moonbeam over there in the corner is packin' an Uzi under her hemp blouse. (EDIT: Also of note in this story...how quickly we turn on our own. I really enjoyed the quote from the one guy who was like: "No, not us. Go after the medical marijuana store. Yeah! They're the ones you want!!" The guy's (girl's?) name was Sea J. Jones, funny enough in its own right, but it might as well have been Winston Smith.)
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 26, 2010 12:46:45 GMT -5
Kind of a rebuttal.... www.slate.com/id/2260389/I think that it's perfectly reasonable to regulate health standards for food on the concern that you don't know who's going to consume it. That milk you purchase may be consumed by you*, a fully functioning idiot who has the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even if it wins you a Darwin award while doing so - or it may be given to a child or used to make ice cream that's then given to someone else. It's also been assumed over the decades that part of the provenance of the government is to ensure that things don't have a good chance of killing you (hence organizations like the Consumer Products Safety Commission). I also think that this is not on the same level as censoring a Double Down burger. A Double Down burger, eaten once in your life, may not be healthy, but you'll be fine ten thousand pushups later. Raw milk, if contaminated with bacteria, drunk one time can kill you. It seems clear that raw milk is inherently more dangerous than regular milk. The only question that exists is whether or not it's possible for the government to allow foolish citizens to ignore that risk. * Not meant to be Boz - I just mean someone who believes the raw milk gospel.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 27, 2010 8:00:53 GMT -5
Kind of a rebuttal.... www.slate.com/id/2260389/I think that it's perfectly reasonable to regulate health standards for food on the concern that you don't know who's going to consume it. That milk you purchase may be consumed by you*, a fully functioning idiot who has the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even if it wins you a Darwin award while doing so - or it may be given to a child or used to make ice cream that's then given to someone else. It's also been assumed over the decades that part of the provenance of the government is to ensure that things don't have a good chance of killing you (hence organizations like the Consumer Products Safety Commission). I also think that this is not on the same level as censoring a Double Down burger. A Double Down burger, eaten once in your life, may not be healthy, but you'll be fine ten thousand pushups later. Raw milk, if contaminated with bacteria, drunk one time can kill you. It seems clear that raw milk is inherently more dangerous than regular milk. The only question that exists is whether or not it's possible for the government to allow foolish citizens to ignore that risk. * Not meant to be Boz - I just mean someone who believes the raw milk gospel. I still think, let them drink their raw milk. The danger is someone gets sick. I mean yeah, it might kill you in 1895, but I can't imagine raw milk has any greater chance of causing death than raw eggs or raw meats that are sold to consumers. This raid was completely unnecessary mind you. You simply put a supermarket beside the store and a vegan store on the other side. While the employees of the co-op are protesting the supermarket, the vegan store employees would raid the co-op and destroy all the raw milk in protest of animal products. Then next to the vegan store...just kidding nobody would go there and it would go bankrupt on its own. Then you build an IKEA under full protection of the Supreme Court.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 27, 2010 9:34:00 GMT -5
Giga, build an IKEA?
The Supreme Court was very clear that a corporation like IKEA is born from the womb of another company after a gestation period of a fiscal year.
IKEA is the bastard daughter of Ethan Allen and Jennifer Convertibles.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 27, 2010 10:16:10 GMT -5
Kind of a rebuttal.... www.slate.com/id/2260389/I think that it's perfectly reasonable to regulate health standards for food on the concern that you don't know who's going to consume it. That milk you purchase may be consumed by you*, a fully functioning idiot who has the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even if it wins you a Darwin award while doing so - or it may be given to a child or used to make ice cream that's then given to someone else. It's also been assumed over the decades that part of the provenance of the government is to ensure that things don't have a good chance of killing you (hence organizations like the Consumer Products Safety Commission). I also think that this is not on the same level as censoring a Double Down burger. A Double Down burger, eaten once in your life, may not be healthy, but you'll be fine ten thousand pushups later. Raw milk, if contaminated with bacteria, drunk one time can kill you. It seems clear that raw milk is inherently more dangerous than regular milk. The only question that exists is whether or not it's possible for the government to allow foolish citizens to ignore that risk. * Not meant to be Boz - I just mean someone who believes the raw milk gospel. I still think, let them drink their raw milk. The danger is someone gets sick. I mean yeah, it might kill you in 1895, but I can't imagine raw milk has any greater chance of causing death than raw eggs or raw meats that are sold to consumers. This raid was completely unnecessary mind you. You simply put a supermarket beside the store and a vegan store on the other side. While the employees of the co-op are protesting the supermarket, the vegan store employees would raid the co-op and destroy all the raw milk in protest of animal products. Then next to the vegan store...just kidding nobody would go there and it would go bankrupt on its own. Then you build an IKEA under full protection of the Supreme Court. www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2010/07/26/an-exchange-on-raw-milk.aspx"Tardiff's illness was traced to Campylobacter, which turned out to be thriving in that particular batch of milk. The outbreak sickened nine people. Eight were briefly ill—nausea, diarrhea, what we think of as classic food poisoning symptoms—and recovered. Tardiff was the unlucky one. The bacterial infection triggered a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome, which almost killed her, and which has left her, at age 55, almost helpless. " scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/mercola_and_raw_milk_faddism_invade_huff.php has more refutation of the science stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 27, 2010 10:20:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 28, 2010 13:08:02 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 28, 2010 14:31:44 GMT -5
Gregg Easterbrook, TMQ, would be appalled at such a punt.
|
|