Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 85

Thread: Michelle O's new School Lunch Menu: Less Fat, More Grains page 7

  1. #61
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by iniQuity View Post
    I'm sure Ann Romney's plan would be better - "Lem 'em eat hay! my dressage horses love it!"

    Not that I give a quarter fuck about politics, I'm not an American citizen - but it sounds to me like Mrs. Obama has the right intentions, but like many other people, lack the proper knowledge - also, you have to realize that a paleo diet for ALL CITIZENS is totally impossible and completely unsustainable, you NEED grains to feed the huge numbers we have here, you can't be feeding everyone top quality fats, pastured animals, fruits and veggies, it's impossible - you would have to kill off a huge chunk of the population for that "utopia"

    I personally think it's a step in the right direction to limit kid's exposure to junk food - doesn't have to be about politics.
    then give them the knowledge and let people reason it out for themselves. I was at the rest home the other day inquiring about my 94 year old aunt who simply can't taker care of herself anymore and this fat administrator proudly showed me their menu which is dictated by the government. Typical SAD crap. I was talking to a friend this morning who has a sister in this same rest home with diabetes. She told me her sister has gained 40lbs since entering and that she them not give her sister all those starches due to her diabetes. One one plate they had mashed potatoes and grave, pinto beans, canned fruit, and bread. This woman complained to the staff and their reply was the beans were protein.

    On your comments about unsustainable: I hate to tell you this but....in the 1970s some MIT systems-analysts grad-students and professors modeled the population grow, to resource usage, and the environment. They published their results in a book called "The Limits to Growth." Their conclusion was that the world would see a population collapse about mid 21st century. Their economic detractors argued against the MIT study. One argument the detractors made was oil was supposed to run out by now. No, the MIT model predicted oil production would max out by now. Oil production capacity has be flat since 2005. The MIT people are still doing these models but with better information and computers. Mary Logan, University of Alaska does an up-to-date presentation on the model Dr. Mary Logan - Whither Complexity?

    In 2008 the International Energy Agency (which we all pay taxes to fund) studied 800 fields which produce 2/3rd of the global supply. They wanted to know how fast these fields' production were declining year over year. It's 6.7%. That's how fast they believe the decline rate is on global production. There conclusion?

    Here's the quotes:
    http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2008SUM.pdf
    The projected increase in global oil output hinges on adequate and timely investment. Some 64 mb/d of additional gross capacity the equivalent of almost six times that of Saudi Arabia today needs to be brought on stream between 2007 and 2030. Some 30 mb/d of new capacity is needed by 2015. There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil-supply crunch in that timeframe. The current wave of upstream investment looks set to boost net oil-production capacity in the next two to three years, pushing up spare capacity modestly. However, capacity additions from current projects tail off after 2010. This largely reflects the upstream development cycle: many new projects will undoubtedly be sanctioned in the near term as oil companies complete existing projects and move on to new ones. But the gap now evident between what is currently being built and what will be needed to keep pace with demand is set to widen sharply after 2010. Around 7 mb/d of additional capacity (over and above that from all current projects) needs to be brought on stream by 2015, most of which will need to be sanctioned within the next two years, to avoid a fall in spare capacity towards the middle of the next decade.

    Press release: IEA Press Releases
    The prospect of accelerating declines in production at individual oilfields is adding to these uncertainties. The findings of an unprecedented field-by-field analysis of the historical production trends of 800 oilfields indicate that decline rates are likely to rise significantly in the long term, from an average of 6.7% today to 8.6% in 2030. "Despite all the attention that is given to demand growth, decline rates are actually a far more important determinant of investment needs. Even if oil demand was to remain flat to 2030, 45 mb/d of gross capacity - roughly four times the current capacity of Saudi Arabia - would need to be built by 2030 just to offset the effect of oilfield decline", Mr. Tanaka added

    IOW the global oil industry must put online the equivalent of a brand new Saudi Arabia worth of oil ever 5 years just to keep oil capacity where it is at present. Why is that important to do so? Because oil feeds the world and bio fuels cannot possible substitute for the volume of oil the world consumes on a daily bases. For example: the world consumes 88-89 million 42 gallon barrels per day. Image 55 gallon steel drums laid end to end making a pipeline. Those 88 M/bbl would fill 67,200,000 steel drums each day. And since each drum is 3ft tall/long, the volume of oil the global economy consumes one a daily bases would require a pipeline of steel drums stretching 38,182 miles long. That 1 1/2 times around the earth every day. You could ring the earth in steel drums 560 time each year. Half that capacity will be gone within 20-30 years.

    These men are oil industry professionals explaining the problem: Acknowledging Peak Oil, featuring Sadad al-Husseini - YouTube

    the best single source which attempts tie together the economy, energy needs, and the environment is Chris Martenson's Power Point "The Crash Course." It's divided into 20 chapters. In Chapters 17a,b,c Chris presents a graft showing how global population growth tracts global oil consumption. What happens when global population oil production begins its inevitable decline? The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  2. #62
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by annedawso View Post
    I think it is lack of strong Government, demonstrated by financial deregulisation who have let the greedy corporations get away with whatever they want. Dont see anything wrong with Governments trying to improve peoples health. especially in the midst of this totally avoidable obesity epidemic. Just pity it is not Paleo. Lets face it the free market with the increase of massive corporations isnt going to do anything to help normal people. They want to give them the lowest pay possible whilst actively evading taxes. The rich are getting richer and the poor a lot poorer. I dont mind Capitalism, but there can be fair Capitalism so that everyone reaps the rewards not just the few..
    In the UK, Bankers continue to get massive bonuses. Many of the lower paid workers pay has been frozen/ reduced. Benefits are being cut for the disabled.
    I dont want to live in a dog eat dog world.
    If you haven't I suggest you read the book Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer. What he does is tracks how congress and senate reps bought and sold stocks based upon bills going through committees. Here's an interview with Schweizer on Financial Sense

    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  3. #63
    annedawso's Avatar
    annedawso is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    If you haven't I suggest you read the book Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer. What he does is tracks how congress and senate reps bought and sold stocks based upon bills going through committees. Here's an interview with Schweizer on Financial Sense

    Thanks for the link.It doesn't surprise me.
    I should have said strong, honourable Governments. Too many go into politics as a career, trying to feather teir own nest.
    Surely there must be some decent individuals out there, who have a genuine desire to improve society for all.

  4. #64
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    maybe Ron Paul. Connecticut should have elected Peter Schiff to the Senate instead of the wife of WWF's owner Vince McMahon.

    Ron Paul speech predicting the housing collapse on Sept 10, 2003
    Fannie and Freddie by Rep. Ron Paul

    Peter Schiff was right. Also predicted the housing collapse
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  5. #65
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by annedawso View Post
    Thanks for the link.It doesn't surprise me.
    I should have said strong, honourable Governments. Too many go into politics as a career, trying to feather teir own nest.
    Surely there must be some decent individuals out there, who have a genuine desire to improve society for all.
    There are..... none will ever get close to the presidency, most will never get anywhere near congress. Politics is a market, specifically for power, and competition is fierce. Like all markets involving human action, the most driven and adaptable rise to the top. It's hard to adapt to all circumstances when you stand on principles.... somebody will just outpromise you.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  6. #66
    karatepig's Avatar
    karatepig is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by annedawso View Post
    I think that is what Governments responsibilities are, helping those who are in need through no fault of their own. A safety net.
    Personally I dont mind paying more in taxes to ensure schools give kids a good start in life. After all these kids are part of our future workforce.
    Pity in my opinion there is not some backlash against the massive international Corporations who actively evade paying the taxes they are meant to and influence all Governments so much.
    I think these Corporations have contributed massively to the Obesity epidemic as they are just in pursuit of money and one of the reasons most people dont understand that low fat diets eating the mass produced crap is bad for you. Profit is the King.
    I fundamentally disagree with you. The government was NEVER intended to be a safety net. The founding fathers created a society where a man was free to succeed or fail based upon his own merits. The federal government existed simply to preserve those conditions. This is what makes a man happy; true independence and self-reliance. Some are not strong enough to cope with such self-responsibility, and they are called socialists. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the pursuit of equality between all individuals is at odds with the pursuit of individual happiness. Why? Because humans are not of a singular mindset. We all have different ambitions. Some have no ambition, and when society attempts to thrust success upon them, it simply doesn't stick.
    You also envision some kind of barrier between business and politics. There is none, and never has been. This is one reason why it is so important that government have only the most basic and necessary authority over citizens; political influence is easily purchased.
    No corporation is inherently evil. No commodity can me marketed unless there is a demand for it. In the end, businesses no matter how ruthless or unethical they may seeme, survive by satisfying a need or desire you or I have.
    Finally, I would like to touch on taxes. Look at the size of the government today. Look at how much more it spends than it can afford. View its' inefficiencies. See its' overreaching influence in our lives. Does it really need more money? This country had NO income tax for the first hundred years or so of its' existence. The Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913! These two pivotal events have enabled the government to grow like some kind of parasite, always consuming more.
    Last edited by karatepig; 09-27-2012 at 11:45 AM.

  7. #67
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by BONZ View Post
    There are..... none will ever get close to the presidency, most will never get anywhere near congress. Politics is a market, specifically for power, and competition is fierce. Like all markets involving human action, the most driven and adaptable rise to the top. It's hard to adapt to all circumstances when you stand on principles.... somebody will just outpromise you.
    Yeah, and the ones at the top have to talk their advertized claptrap to get the voters' support. I mean...

    Presidential candidate, Obama, in the last election: "Yes we can go to advanced bio fuels and get off imports within 10 years."
    Voters: "yeah, baby, lets do it...and put those greedy oil companies out of business. Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can..."

    Really? As Martenson points out in his Crash Course Chapter 17a: Peak Oil | Peak Prosperity the BTU energy embedded in the oil the US imports each day is equal to the output of 750 nuclear power plants. There are 104 nuclear power plants in the US with 436, total, world wide. Nuclear power is an industry that already exists but produces BTUs of electricity, not BTUs of liquid transport fuels. Even though we know how to build nuclear power plants to replace coal, the logistics of building 750 nuclear power plants around the US would likely be impossible, certainly improbable. The isn't enough professionals who could staff them so they'd also need to be trained.

    The industry and the know how to build nukes exists. Logistics would be the hold back. As a comparison, we not only don't have the viable industry for that volume of biofuels, we don't know how to produce that volume of liquid fuels and do so with enough net positive energy return ( Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Logistically, there isn't enough farmland in the US to grow that much corn for ethanol. Replacing oil as it declines is a major problem that's materializing right now. Which presidential candidate is telling us just how serious it is and how as supply of oil is outstripped by demand the price (and eventual rationing) will make halt economic growth and make it impossible to fund all these social programs....esp health care for the baby boomers? Do these candidates even know themselves? Noble Prize laureate, Rich Smalley, gave this talk to Columbia U's Energy Forum about the problem Prof Rick Smalley - Our Energy Challenge

    30-40 years ago the debate among researchers was whether it was fat or sugar causing heart disease. The government sided with those who thought it was saturated fat. As it turns out sugar/fructose was the problem, and we know what happened to the American waistline. Michelle Obama doesn't know anymore than anyone else pushing CW. What she has, though, is a big platform that gets her press coverage. I can think of people who have a better grasp on nutrition who are more deserving of that coverage.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  8. #68
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,887
    Some are not strong enough to cope with such self-responsibility, and they are called socialists. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the pursuit of equality between all individuals is at odds with the pursuit of individual happiness. Why? Because humans are not of a singular mindset. We all have different ambitions. Some have no ambition, and when society attempts to thrust success upon them, it simply doesn't stick.
    I think to a degree, we aren't looking to create equality, merely warehousing those with no ambition and keeping them out of the way and sight of the more ambitious. We have to do something to meet their basic needs or they will turn to crime. Living in public housing on food stamps is not having success thrust at you. It's keeping you from pissing in the street, robbing people for money and sleeping in the alleys.

    We used to warehouse the poor and it worked OK, until they got mad. Then we deconcentrated it, but not enough and now the unambitious are devaluing the meager investments of people that work that have the least to lose. Instead of inspiring the unambitious, it just is even more demotivating because people that work get to enjoy the same mediocre quality of life as those that don't work.

    I think to me, the greater tragedy is that we have devalued workers so much that they can barely afford basic needs of housing, transportation, medical and food. Paying welfare doesn't piss me off as much as giving tax breaks and shit to employers that can't be bothered to pay a decent enough wage to cover basic needs for an employee. For myself and most of my friends, to be above water at a modest lifestyle now requires a second job. And that's with a degree.

    I think it's by design that they have the working class at odds with the welfare class. It keeps the attention off employers. Shit, if an employer pays so little that an employee qualifies for food stamps or is eligible for medicaid or housing assistance, then we are subsidizing not only a citizen but an ineffective business plan that would not work without government intervention.

    I'm all for bootstraps, but lets remember that business is also benefitting from social welfare programs, maybe to a greater degree than the actual citizens.

    Take Walmart. They pay low enough wages that some people qualify for assistance. Then, they are a prime location to spend food stamps and welfare checks. Add to that, they often get local subsidy- for example, our city rerouted a bus route that serves a neighborhood where 84% of residents receive food stamps.... straight to a WalMart. Given the location of that WalMart, if the food stamp and welfare program was changed- say we just gave poor people a bag of food each week, I bet that WalMart's sales would be off by 50-60%.

  9. #69
    JWBooth's Avatar
    JWBooth is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by annedawso View Post
    I think it is lack of strong Government, demonstrated by financial deregulisation who have let the greedy corporations get away with whatever they want. Dont see anything wrong with Governments trying to improve peoples health. especially in the midst of this totally avoidable obesity epidemic. Just pity it is not Paleo. Lets face it the free market with the increase of massive corporations isnt going to do anything to help normal people. They want to give them the lowest pay possible whilst actively evading taxes. The rich are getting richer and the poor a lot poorer. I dont mind Capitalism, but there can be fair Capitalism so that everyone reaps the rewards not just the few..
    In the UK, Bankers continue to get massive bonuses. Many of the lower paid workers pay has been frozen/ reduced. Benefits are being cut for the disabled.
    I dont want to live in a dog eat dog world.
    Lack of a strong government? That's what you think we suffer from? Good grief. Those "greedy corporations" you bemoan exist because of Big Government. In a free market, small business is the dominant structure. In the Big Government world you favor, massive mutlinational corporations like Monsanto, ADM, Bank of America, Apple, ect are the norm. And lol at wanting government to tell you what to eat but bemoaning the fact they aren't telling you to eat Paleo. Slaves don't get to pick what they want for dinner. Part of the deal with choosing to be a slave is that you don't get to question your Master's decisions.

    I reject Michelle Obama's food dictates not because she is a buffoon who doesn't know the first thing about nutrition. I reject her dictates because she doesn't have the right to tell me what to eat. Period. Even if she had half a clue and was pushing a Paleo agenda, she has no right to tell me what to put in to my own body or take my money to push her nutritional agenda on somebody else. I look at her and her husband no differently than the corner thug or the neighborhood rapist. They evil people pursuing an agenda of violence.

  10. #70
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Saoirse is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6,641
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    That's one way out, but I don't think that's good enough. Is a public school so federal now that no one in the community gets to decide a single thing about it?
    yes. that's the way it has been for years.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •