Subscribe: Comments on: New Years Resolutions
http://nancyappleton.com/2011/12/15/new-years-resolutions/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language:
Tags:
back  books  business  completely  force  government intervention  government  people  read  rights  society  sugar  things  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: New Years Resolutions

Comments on: New Years Resolutions



Sugar Kills!



Last Build Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:26:15 +0000

 



By: jaklizard

Sat, 09 Mar 2013 04:14:28 +0000

I should've thanked you for your readership for which I'm sorry. But, I did not miss your point, we (the doctor and I) simply see a different world based on allegedly the same facts. We see a world where the distinction between government and business is frightfully blurry because business plays on popular apathy and gets away with quite a lot because they fund government's ability to sustain itself with campaign contributions, political junkets and other forms of completely legal bribery. This means they don't have to be more overtly coercive because they pay the government to do it for them. You see government taking away rights and I might agree with you once everybody popped the hood and actually looked at the engine. But, the question isn't - are there ever cases where in the normal push-pull of partisan and interest-based politics where certain rights we used to have get trampled? The question is for whom the trampled rights were enacted. Consider the last nine years of activist conservative courts, it is now legal for eminent domain to be used to take property from smaller landowners to benefit larger (usually corporate) landowners who can play Monopoly with the land by improving it with a hotel, office complex, or strip mall and thus increase property tax revenues while simultaneously reducing the ill-defined concept of urban blight. And I've already brought up Citizens United. In that same time, there have been failed attempts with SOPA and other similar bills to redefine intellectual property law completely in the favor of the copyright holder at the expense of the consumer of IP AND THE EQUALLY LARGE BUSINESSES WITH THE PRIMARY BUSINESS OF DELIVERING CONTENT! The bills failed not nearly as much because the online community participated in protests (including all of my sites, so yes, I do my best to set an example), but because Google saw their business hurt by Warner Brothers and had to back the protest as a way of forcing the content providers back to the table to redraft the bills as a Meet in the Middle Nobody is Really Completely Happy Compromise that I was taught in my eighth grade civics class is how society is supposed to work. In most of the above examples, I and people like me aren't actually advocating anything like socialism, but rather a government that acts as mediator between the various flavors of responsible capitalism. Who gets in the room with Google and Hollywood and cuts the baby so that criminals who steal movies get driven out of business while protecting the rights of consumers to create new content based on the previously existing content that requires a certain amount of Fair Use? Who hears the small landowner on a case by case basis about to lose that asset through government action to benefit a larger landowner that perhaps that piece of Florida or Montana doesn't need another hotel? Who hears smaller blocs of voters completely frustrated by this interesting bit of logic underpinning Citizens United that "Money Equals Speech?" Yes, you're right that Nancy Appleton Books has a primary responsibility to teach, write articles and books and to set the best example we humanly can. Yes, you're right that that things are better in the last 18 months because between us and a lot of bigger people who read us, replicated the research we cite and then wrote their own books, we are finally making headway. This remains our primary raison d'être and the sine qua non of what we do and our recent results are gratifying. But, for the doctor it has been thirty five or more years of outright ridicule, hostility and derision funded by the very wealthy forces I have mentioned in these responses to your opinions. In fact, I will relate to you what she said to me in 2006 when I bought the right to front for her in the business realm for a completely awesome insider price. She said "Coco Chanel (one of her personal heroines) ran her company well into her eighties while I am barely seventy and I'm tired as hell and want out. Why i[...]



By: Larry Kinder

Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:52:02 +0000

You are totally missing my point about government intervention!! Big business, regardless of what you think of them, do not have the power to force you or me to do anything. Government on the other hand can, will, and does take away our rights everyday.....and they won't stop unless and until folks like you start to value our freedoms. If you are on a mission to help educate about the bad effects of diet etc fine but when you demand results, ie force others to live like you want them to, then you are overstepping your bounds. Teach, set an example, and then leave the rest to the individual.....as its none of your business from there on out. Isn't that how nancy turned her life around ???when she reached a dead end with her health. You can,t force health upon anyone!!!!!!! People should be free to choose. It amazes me how the same people who want to micro manage everyone's life are the same people who fight for women's right to choose to abort. Quit asking the government to fight your battles unless of course you want to live in socialist tyranny. Business will get the message when you educate enough people about the dangers of sugar. Thanks for your time!



By: jaklizard

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:25:44 +0000

The doctor believes what she believes. Yes, government does overreach. But, so do the corporations who sell sugar and then A) try to tell us that sugar is just another carbohydrate that we need to use responsibly (this is their industry line in the past 18 months, previously it was "brush your teeth more vigorously but sugar is absolutely fine"). B) They infamously deny the statistics created by what independent research exists to show what the dangers are and C) fund their own competing research by several magnitudes more hoping that three Pro or Not So Bad outcomes arrived at by thumbing the scales will drown out the one Con research paper. D) They lobby legislators at all levels of government at levels previously seen only by Big Tobacco in order to fight regulations like no sugary drinks in vending machines at schools despite nearly 20 years or more of verified correlation between less sugar and higher grades. E) Try to co-opt the movement against them by trying to get certain carcinogenic products like Diet Coke out from under by funding an anti-cancer campaign with Subway. Look, speaking personally and not as the doctor's front man, I'm as appalled about Government intervention as the next man. But, in the face of the well-financed opposition determined to maintain their business at our expense, the only force that can restore any kind of balance is that government. I really hate living in a world where moderates like me who believe that you pull gently on all levers available (e.g. Modest tax increases and a real effort to cut the worst aspects of government spending, at the same time) are lumped in with liberals because we have allowed certain parties to run amok using their superior financial position to chisel more concessions from government through lobbying and the legalized campaign bribery of the Citizen's United decision. I feel Government Intervention becomes inevitable in these circumstances because no one else has the muscle to counteract a corporation that forgets why our capitalist society created the concept of the corporation: to make the government's work easier by providing the goods, services and investment opportunities to citizens in the usually most efficient way possible. Please consider that the people who want Mayor Bloomberg to back off the 16-ounce soda also want the US without a post office despite stated assumptions that at least 20-percent of addresses in the country would be without any package or letter service because population density is too low for profitability. So far FedEx and UPS haven't answered how they would address this issue when their cronies in Congress stage manage their purchase of various Post Office obligations and resources. You may pick an industry that has such tiny by comparison government involvement and ask if that involvement makes things better. Does a society that carefully nurtures Sesame Street over forty-five years suddenly become less or more of a society by ending that crucial third of the funding split between government, corporations and subscription viewers? Do we lose the ability to fully educate a citizenry that will grow up to be the consumers, employees, managers and owners of the corporations that drive our economy? Is it really a good thing if for lack of funding we pare back our society to only those things that make money in the marketplace? At dinner parties (the primary method of perpetuating the species because social animals have to TALK to the lady across the table before gettin' busy), we would only be able to talk football, NASCAR, Justin Bieber and this past's week episode of CSI. But, to bring the questions back around to the soda ban does the government also support society by doing things to support and promote the health of its citizens when no one else cares because they're making too much money? I say yes, even though the ban has a huge hole in it (the bottomless fountain cup at fast food joints). At least, the cons[...]



By: Larry Kinder

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:47:21 +0000

I respect your mission regarding sugar awareness but was appalled when I read your comment about doing a dance when the Czar of New York banned cola's over 16 oz's.....as if that is the answer. My question is what kind of dance will you do when these same Tyrants come after your book profits, medical license, home, bank account, or any other damn thing they want from you? When government revenue goes down because of all the bans on everything from water and soda to cigarettes and electricity your taxes will increase and our freedoms will slowly whither away.Bullying by government is not the answer to bring about a healthy society! Government is Brutte Force nothing less. So, lets figure out a way to help each other without involving our pathetic polititians! I'm enjoying your book btw!



By: Joanna

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:32:52 +0000

Dear Dr. Appleton, Thank you for your information, especially the idea of enlisting support to get off the sugar. I never thought of that before. When people know you need them to help you, they change their attitude. They suddenly quit encouraging you to eat things that are bad. That is a big plus, even though they want you to try their new dessert. This is a big problem because some people's identity and worth seem to be due to their cooking and baking with sugar, then sharing the products with others to get their approval. I am in a club like that. It is a county extension club. I love the ladies but not the food, since I am trying to stay away from sugar, too. I believe I will ask them to help me stay away from the sugar. Maybe they will change their cooking methods. Actually some of them already have. In one-on-one conversations most of them admit that sugar causes indigestion more as they get older, and they actually need inspiration to stay away from it too. At our last Christmas brunch I noticed an absence of the numerous sugar and flour dishes. There were also a lot of complaints because the food was not like it was before. I like to think I had something to do with it (also because of all of your books I own and have read). You gave me courage to speak out. When people have argued with me about sugar I told them, "You might want to read one or several of Dr. Nancy Appleton's books about the deadly aspects of sugar." Then I recite several of your titles. I appreciate you more than you will ever know. Jo Kendall