Parrot

Peta is the most vocal, but they do have a number of associated groups that also spread their lies. Perhaps you've been listening to one of them? Perhaps the so-called "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine"? That is, of course, your choice. However, I still advance that your choice bears absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever. That is a very interesting question. If I may, I would like to present you with a few of my own: Name me another animal that has opposable thumbs. Name me another animal that walks upright. Name me another animal that has developed a language and writing. Name me another animal that practices religion and philosophy. Name me another animal practices complex trade and commerce. Name me another animal that has invented complex tools, such as the computer you are using right now. It seems to me that there are a lot of things humans do that are unique to our species. If you make the case that drinking milk after being weaned is wrong because no other animal does it, do we then have to go through the entire list? Forgive me, but I'm not ready to stop talking, philosophizing, and standing upright. (You may cut off my opposable thumbs if you like though) I do realize that - however we both know that Canada loves to follow suit on issues like this. I believe that Canada adopted the same policy soon after. At the moment the name of the Canadian equivalent to the FDA escapes me though. Please forgive me for misunderstanding what you said. I did not mean to twist your words out of context. Okay, I think I see what you're saying now. I would like to re-emphasize on this subject, though, that short term weight loss is not an appropriate goal. You can cut carbs, and there's some dispute as to how well that works in the first place. But for dieters it's almost certain that they will gain the weight back, and probably pack on a few more pounds as well. No diet is actually effective long term. Losing weight and then gaining it back is actually more destructive to your health than maintaining your pre-diet weight would have been. From the research I've been doing, I'm getting the impression that the diet industry may share a large part of the blame for the health problems that overweight and obese people tend to have. And I think they may actually be in large part responsible for the rise in people's average weight as well.

Oh dear. You've been listening to PETA, haven't you? I know you mean well, but you should be aware that PETA lies and distorts the facts like nobody's business. I've already talked to a small extent about the demonization of sugar. It's really not justified, the amount of sugar in milk is not a concern. Milk is a very nutritious drink that can benefit anybody. PETA relies of junk science and highly speculative "scientific" reports. But the truth is that science has not been able to determine any concrete health dangers related to it's ingestion. That's not to say that you should drink the stuff like water, but Health Canada doesn't recommend 2 - 4 servings per day just for kicks. I'm afraid you've been laboring under some misconceptions. The FDA has had regulations in place on juice labeling for close to 20 years now. Suffice it to say that 100% juice MEANS 100% juice. Before that there were some arguments as to what actually constituted 100% and the like, but the issue has been laid to rest now. I have never actually heard this brand of bad nutrition science before. I'm actually shocked that there are people out there advocating staying away from certain fruits. I don't quite know what to say to this. If anybody can show me a single credible study linking strawberries to poor health, I'll give them a prize. (how does some strawberry yogurt sound?)

If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure that you've been paying attention. Lots of people are raising their voices about this, particularly in the "health foods" industry. The problem is that they don't have much scientific backing. Sugar and glucose/fructose are only simple carbohydrates. There's absolutely nothing sinister about their presence in food, they make it taste good. Of course, the more of it you inject the more calories the food is going to contain. But overall the levels are not too high. And if a food or drink item has more calories than you're comfortable with you can make the informed decision not to eat it or only eat it on rare occasions. Betsy, I hope you don't think this is impertinent of me, but I'm not sure that you're correct here. I can't find any information corroborating what you're saying. And on a biological level it doesn't make much sense to me. Why would increased size and sweetness be only prevalent in the last 20 years? Fruit growers have always wanted bigger and sweeter fruits, they wouldn't have just started selecting for that. I believe that fruits gained an increase in size and possibly sweetness when they first began to be cultivated a long, long time ago. That's natural when you cultivate any crop or domesticate any animal for that matter. I think you might be confused about your information. I could be wrong though, if you know of some studies showing this then please let me know. I believe that a lot of nutrition experts agree that the reason the Atkins diet helps people lose weight has more to do with the fact that it's a low-calorie diet than anything else. But the diet industry is constantly bickering amongst the different factions over which diet is the best. The truth is that no diet really works, and they all do your body harm. That includes the Atkins diet, I'm sorry to say. Carbohydrates are not an evil to be avoided. When Health Canada puts grains as the most important food group, they're not just making stuff up off the top of their heads.

I'm not sure that you've read the whole article. Perhaps you skimmed it a little. They didn't get into the details until slightly further on. From what I gather, some kid walked up and threw the bag with the sandwich on a table where these muslim kids were eating, then walked off laughing while his friends congratulated him. Okay, I'll give you that as far as racism goes, this act was pretty lame. But definitely still not appropriate.

As I already mentioned, I'm talking about when Jack Layton offered to support Paul Martin during the sponsorship scandal in return for concessions on the federal budget

Trans fatty acids have indeed now been classified as perhaps the most dangerous forms of fat. It makes up about 3% of the typical American diet, but many people are saying that even that is too much. I think the claimed effects of trans fats have more to do with clogging your arteries than with actually causing you to gain weight, though. So I don't think they even enter into the picture on that level. But let me tell you something shocking. Have you heard of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)? It's pretty much one of the most vile, panic-mongering organizations out there. You'll often see them quoted in articles about the "Obesity Epidemic" advocating draconian measures in order to protect us from ourselves. Anyway, pack in the 1980's the big panic was over Saturated Fats. The CSPI lead the charge to force restaurants to stop using beef tallow to cook their foods. The solution? Of course, switch to much "healthier" partially-hydrogenated oils. (partially-hydrogenated = trans fats) And when the CSPI was confronted with research on the dangers of Trans Fats, they just brushed it off saying that it was bad science. Of course, now that the scientific evidence has mounted to the point that it has, they've done a complete 180. Now they're calling for a complete ban on trans-fats, and suggesting that somehow companies are irresponsible for hoisting this menace onto the population. A menace that was introduced in large part BECAUSE THE CSPI PRESSURED THEM INTO IT Damn! Doesn't that just make your blood boil?

I believe that you are referring to a small meta study done using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture combined with previous research and other analyses. I know that many people have jumped on this study, however, I should mention a few points. This particular study has received some criticism. There is some debate over how the body handles different sugars, but I believe it's the common consensus that weight depends on how many calories you take in, not what types of calories they are. Even the authors of this study have admitted that their research is not conclusive. It should be noted that none of the data from this study on how HFCS is processed actually came from human trials. I'd also like to point out that there have been some studies looking for a link between HFCS and excess weight but found no correlation. A University of Washington study tried to see if there was a difference between how satiated people were with cola sweetened with HFCS, cola with sugar, diet cola and 1 percent milk. They found no significant difference. Another joint study between the Rhode Island University and Rippe Lifestyle Institute in Florida tried to examine whether there was a difference between how HFCS was metabolized as opposed to plain sugar. They also failed to find any difference. Given this, and the fact that I'm always suspicious of meta studies in general, I have doubts that your study concerning the dangers of HFCS really hold any water. I think you may be technically wrong here. I believe that all calories are converted into fat if they're unused, whether those calories come from sugar or not.

Thanks for the thoughts Rover1. You make an interesting point regarding your first-hand observations. I hope you don't find it rude of me to question your conclusions, please know that I mean no aspersions on your observational skills. But I would like to point out that these kinds of observations are not scientific evidence. Your observations could be coloured by many factors. For example, you know how you maybe buy a new car, and you've never really noticed that type of car before. But now that you own one, you're suddenly noticing a lot of other people driving your make of car on the roads. Did the number of people driving those cars increase? Probably not, but your awareness of it did. The "we're all too fat" message is everywhere these days. I'd suggest that it's only natural with this message playing loud in your ears that you'd be more likely to notice overweight people when you're out and about. I'm not sure how well they would appreciate the term "chunky" though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you're not right. I just wanted to add in that little caveat against us accepting this kind of data as in any way final. I personally think that there has possibly been a small increase in how much people weigh. The difference with me, though, is that I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. From the research I've been seeing, I think perhaps many of us should possibly be aiming to be about 10 or 15 pounds "overweight" under the BMI scale. A little extra fat on your bones seems to correlate with increased life expectancy. And let face it, really thin models appeal mostly to girls. Us guys prefer girls with a few curves. Or maybe me and my friends are just freaks. Anyway, as for people in "poor countries" increasing in weight.... shouldn't we at least be considering THAT to be a good thing?

Wanna know something that they're not telling you? There is no epidemic of obesity! I know you've been deluged with all sorts of figures and claims to the contrary, so I can't blame you for being a little skeptical of this. But what I'm saying is based on actual fact. Obesity is the panic of the day. These kind of popular scare tactics are almost always overblown, and this is no exception. Remember the huge headlines proclaiming that obesity causes 400,000 deaths per year? This figure was released by the CDC, and it turns out it was based on a deeply flawed and almost universally discredited meta-study. The study wasn't done by the CDC's top experts, but rather by the CDC's director and a few aids who were under pressure from industry groups to deliver numbers that backed them up. Heck, not only was the study's methodology flawed, they actually made a mathematical error in doing their calculations that inflated the number by several tens of thousands. The document was peer reviewed before publication, and even people inside the CDC were able to tell them that this study was complete bunk. But they bullheadedly went on and published the attention-grabbing headlines. In later internal reviews the CDC concluded that the flawed methodology and mistakes drastically inflated what would be a more realistic figure - by a whopping 94%!! And when the authors of the study are called on it, do you know what they say? "It's too early in the science" and "This shouldn't detract from the message.". Well, it wasn't too early in the science for you to release that study in the first place. And I can't trust anybody who believes that the message is more important than the facts. The diet industry has been doing it's utmost to fiddle with the numbers and convince everybody that there's a crisis. In 1998 they convinced politicians to change the BMI formula for measuring obesity. There was no good scientific reason for this change, but they managed to BS their way into making it happen. Before the change 15% of Americans were considered overweight. Overnight that amount more than doubled, to 37% - without a single one of those people even gaining a pound. Not to mention all the people who suddenly found themselves upgraded to "Obese". And now they're saying we have an "epidemic"? The only thing that's changed are formulas used to calculate this! The BMI may be a useful rule of thumb to use if you're trying to lose weight, but it's not an accurate measurement of health on the whole. Under the current definitions, Brad Pitt, Michael Jordan and Mel Gibson are all ‘overweight’, while Russell Crowe, George Clooney and Sammy Sosa are ‘obese’. People say "Well, it's not meant to apply to people who are actually in good shape!" - but that's just the problem! The system is so inexact that it can't make that distinction! Measuring the health of a population as a whole based on BMI is ridiculous! But that's exactly what people are doing. When you hear figures like "65% of the people in this country are overweight or obese", they're not only relying on a faulty measuring system, they're also lumping in people who are 5 - 10 pounds "overweight" with those who are 100 pounds overweight. And for all the hype do you know what the increase in weight in the past 30 years averages out to per person? About 10 pounds. That's it. But they justify it by saying that no amount of excess weight is safe, and if you're even 10 pounds overweight you're doomed! Do you believe that? Don't! The most reliable studies show that some extra weight actually correlates with an increase in life span. Of course, this is not to say that extreme obesity is in any way healthy, but if you're only 10 pounds into the "overweight" category, that's really not a problem. And then people blame the kind of diet we have in this country, and fail to consider that less than a century ago the kind of diet we enjoy today would have saved many, many lives! The availability of high calorie foods is solid progress that has helped people lead longer, fuller lives. To spin it as some kind of detriment to society is a grave injustice. The fear mongering that's going on is ridiculous. And it's hurting us. Especially our children. Studies show that 90% of schoolgirls are on a diet. No matter which statistics you believe, that is far above the percentage of overweight and obese people in our society. The message that this "obesity epidemic" is propagating is one that we must be thin at any cost, and being even slightly overweight is necessarily and unequivocally unhealthy. 15% of schoolgirls have tried weight loss pills. 11% have tried laxatives as a weight loss measure. 9% have tried making themselves vomit after eating. Many people have blamed girl's magazines for propagating an unrealistic body image. Perhaps there's something to that... but it's only a very passive message. How much more insidious is the active message being generated by the diet industry and well meaning but misguided activists? These people are trying to propagate the notion that there's a crisis of obesity in children. They're actively telling our kids that their weight is the absolute most important measure of their health and well-being. That statement is not only patently untrue, but also very confusing to young minds. And how come nobody seems to recognize the facts about nutrition for humans that we've known about in dogs for a very long time? I'm assuming you've all seen the commercials advertising different types of dog foods based on the age of the dogs? Younger dogs need denser, more calorie rich foods to help them grow. Older dogs require a different diet to help maintain their health as they age. It's exactly the same for humans! Children NEED more calorie dense foods than do adults. Human breast milk is densely packed with more fat and calories than is considered healthy for adults. Growing bodies require a lot of energy, that's just common sense! Of course, that's not a carte-blanche permission to let children eat whatever they want. Sound nutrition is still advised. But trying to determine the exact right weight for any child based on the overly simplistic BMI model is the height of folly. Children mature at different rates, have different body types, different rates of growth.... and what's more THEY'RE ALWAYS GROWING!! How can you possibly say to any child "Okay, this is your ideal weight right now... maintain that until next year when we'll maybe revise that for your new age and height". If a teenager steps on the scale and sees a weight increase of 5 pounds - it's probably due to natural growth! Yet many of them see it as a crisis and they must immediately buckle down to shed those extra pounds that they've "negligently" let build up. And by the way, if we're so concerned about the calorie intake of our children, why are we also banning DIET soda from schools? Diet soda has no calories, it does not contribute to obesity. And then they go ahead and recommend fruit juice instead... I guess they didn't realize that fruit juice has the same or more calories than your average soda pop. And here's the kicker - revenue from those pop machines was often being used to fund after-school athletic activities for the children. Now many of those activities have had to be shut down. So much for encouraging a healthy, active lifestyle! That's a real shame too, because I think children should be encouraged to have an active lifestyle. Getting out and exercising makes you feel good and is conductive to your general health. And health should really be what it's about, not reaching some arbitrary weight. If there is an increase in overweight and obesity, it's not because of what we're eating. The average calorie intake hasn't increased in decades, whereas there has been some decrease in physical activity. If people want to promote good health, recommending that children watch their weight is not the right way to go about it. In fact, I'd say it was counter productive, perhaps even causing more people to BECOME overweight. It's a known fact that diets don't work. 95-98% of people who successfully diet end up gaining the weight back within a couple of years - and then some! The truth is that we just don't know how to effectively bring about sustainable weight loss in a population, and it does no good to blame the people affected. It may be popular to say "If they only had proper willpower to stick with it they could succeed", but I find that kind of statement to be disgustingly condescending. This kind of yo-yo dieting is actually more harmful than if the individual had maintained their body weight for the same period of time. The truth is that diets end up causing weight gain, and decreasing health. People need to know that an active overweight person is likely to be far healthier than a thin, sedentary person. People also need to know that the risk of death from being underweight is much more acute than that of obesity. Why aren't these messages getting the attention that they deserve? And please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that an obese child is not a concern. Encouraging obese children to eat right and exercise is important. But we need to stop spinning this as some sort of crisis that's spiraling out of control. These exaggerations only hurt, not help us. Disclaimer: I know I've just got off of a very long rant. Now that I'm off my soap box, I want to say that you don't have to take my word for any of this. I'm just some dumbass who's done a lot of research on both sides of this issue and have come to these conclusions. If you think that I've got some facts wrong, feel free to call me on it. If you disagree with me, I welcome the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to fine-tune and hone my arguments with dissenters.

I would also question the methodology of this test. I noticed in most of the cases shown the white doll was on the child's left. In a couple of cases it was on the right. I wonder if that was just by accident or not. To get the most accurate results, it would be best to re-arrange the dolls for half of the children. Studies show that when given an option even between 2 identical choices we're likely to choose solely based on the object's configuration. So if she didn't do that, that's a natural confounding factor. It also seems to me that the sample size used is quite small. I'm not sure that such a small sample size can be held to be indicative of general social trends. But even so the results are interesting. Perhaps it signifies the need for further research into this area.

That does sound at least like an interesting position to take. I do appreciate interesting dichotomies. I might just read that book. I highly doubt that any of those experiments you mention are in any way conclusive. But it sounds fascinating nonetheless.

I'm pretty sure he's right about that. Did anybody bat an eye when Layton made his little "backroom deal"? Layton's on pretty shaky ground if he wants to complain.

I'm not sure if the moral reasoning of society even comes into play here. I have a big problem with making laws based on speculations of what people might do given certain stimuli. That's a very dangerous road. Thought Police, anyone?

Well, obviously they did a very poor job on that in letting this one past.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on that. People should be able to hate, even if their hatred is not justified. And people should be able to promote their hatred as well. Yes, this means that they will convince some idiots to join them and they will be a general pain in the ass. But most of us are smart enough to see through their bull and denounce them. I think if we're going to live in a free society that we should have access to all sides of any issue, no matter what the issue.

Well that's pretty screwed up. That means that they can just ignore any of our rights at will. After all, nobody would propose a law if they thought it wasn't "demonstrably justified". Now I'm really angry about this.

One big reason I just love this is because they've pretty much negated any responsibility the rest of us have to argue their points! Whatever they say from now on, it doesn't matter. If somebody brings them up in conversation and tries to make the argument that they make some good points, just bring that person over to your computer and show them this video. I really don't have to put any effort into ridiculing their respectability, they've done a good enough job on their own. They've proven themselves to be the clowns of religion, only good for a laugh.

Okay, picketing at funerals is not funny. This video, however, IS funny!! C'mon, the thing plays like a parody! The fact that they're serious about it makes it freakin' hillarious!

God damn! That is the FUNNIEST thing I've seen in a long time!! Are they serious? I really hope that they're serious! I don't think they were all serious, I noticed a few of them had to restrain themselves from laughing out loud several times. But I think most of them were actually serious, and that makes it so much funnier! This is real life parodying itself! I love it!!! Did you guys notice the guy in the background waving the upside-down Canadian flag? Do you think that was a statement or just a mistake?

Science and Spirituality can exist hand in hand. There are certain questions that Science is just not equipped to answer. I don't think that science is the right tool for understanding everything about the universe. As much progress as it makes I don't think that it will ever be able to adequately explain away beauty, love, and all the stuff that really make up the heart of what we are. Obviously science can say that many of our emotions have a certain element of being defined by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. And many people take that to the conclusion that that's all we really are, a bunch of electro-chemical reactions. I don't buy that, because no matter how much you try and put all these electro-chemical reactions into tidy little boxes, you've done absolutely nothing to explain or even address the experience of them. Obviously there's something more to us that actually experiencing these effects, they're not just happening in a vacuum. I don't believe that science will ever fully explain that. And you can say that's just an example of "the god of the gaps", but I don't think it is. I think that there are elements about who and what we are that can only be even addressed (even if only to a small extent) outside of the rigid framework of pure science. The problem, I think, comes when religion tries to make claims that it is not equipped to make. Ideally, religion and spirituality should be more about forming a personal relationship with the spiritual aspects of your life. It should not be about absolute truth and dogma. That's when things get ugly.

I've been trying to find out information about this for a little while, but I can't seem to put together a Google search that answers it for me. I'm hoping maybe some of you here know the answer. What I'm talking about is the "Anti Terrorism Act", part of the Criminal Code. Specifically section 320.1 which allows the courts to order the deletion of online hate propaganda from any computer in Canada, regardless of where the person who wrote it lives. (Is hate propaganda really a huge focus in the "war on terrorism"?) As I understand it, this applies to propaganda against any religion, race, colour, ethnicity or nationality. Now I'm not a fan of racism in any way, shape, or form. But I do believe in freedom of expression, and this is clearly a violation of section 2 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I understand it, such laws can be put into place as long as they're declared as an exception under section 33 and given a maximum life-span of 5 years. Was this law declared under section 33? I can't seem to find information on that.

Thanks for the correction, I got his name confused with another guy named "Leighton".

Regarding the current deal between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May, Jack Layton had this to say: "Canadians don't like backroom deals between leaders" I'm not sure how much the term "backroom" applies to deals that are publicly announced, but I do see his point. Say... didn't Jack Layton offer to support Paul Martin during the sponsorship scandal in return for concessions on the federal budget? Hmmmmm.... What do you think, is Jack Layton a hypocrite or am I off-base for making the comparison?