Home > Uncategorized > Sugar


ssWrap your brain around this: in 1822, we ate the amount of added sugar in one 12 ounce can of soda every five days, while today we eat that much sugar every seven hours

From: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html

Another tack on this: http://www.sugarstacks.com

  1. Jesse Saen
    January 18, 2013 at 8:00 am

    Suger is THE gateway drug.

  2. Jesse Saen
    January 18, 2013 at 8:01 am

    I think you meant sugar Jesse, finish that coffee before posting, puhlease?!

  3. Hmm
    January 18, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Let’s please draw a distinction between sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Chances are, the vast majority of sugar consumed by people is now HFCS. Hey, regular sugar’s not great, but it’s better than HFCS.

  4. Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Why is it better?

  5. January 18, 2013 at 8:12 am

    I can’t post on Quicknotes (dial-up -won’t load) – I don’t know if Eureka and other cities in Humboldt fluoride or not.
    FLUORIDEGATE -this documentary explains the dangers of fluoride in our water supply and how it is forced medication of the public. The conspiracy to keep fluoride in water is fully exposed. This documentary film reveals the tragedy of how the U.S. government, industry, and trade associations protect and promote a policy known to cause harm to our country and especially small children. The outcome is crystal clear: it is destroying our nation.

  6. Ehhhh
    January 18, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Googling the issue, the first link you’ll see is an industry-made website, which should draw your concern that an industry has to make a website to convince people their product is safe. Accordingly, the Wikipedia entry is as impartial as can be because there’s a strong interest in downplaying health risks as much as possible, and Wikipedia is a user-edited site. Still, take a look.


  7. January 18, 2013 at 8:24 am


    Is sugar toxic? 60 minutes segment interviews Dr. Robert Lustig

  8. A pesky fact
    January 18, 2013 at 8:43 am

    And yet we also have over 1 billion in yearly sugar subsidies, the bulk of which go to 4 major companies.

  9. Mitch
  10. Humbiz
    January 18, 2013 at 8:46 am

    HFCS is bad stuff. It is made from corn and an inexpensive sweetener that as an additive makes things taste good. It gets added to all kinds of things to enhance taste, especially fast food. It is added to feed for cows raised for meat and cuts the time for cows to achieve market weight almost in half. Of course you have to dose them constantly with antibiotics as this diet will kill them otherwise.

    If you ever get the chance take in the PBS documentary King Corn, and then start reading the labels on foods and you will see how this level of sugar intake could be low for lots if the population.

  11. Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 8:51 am

    We’re all going to DIE!

  12. January 18, 2013 at 8:52 am

    from 2008

    Study Suggests Sugar May Be Addictive

    By Amanda Gardner
    HealthDay Reporter

    WEDNESDAY, Dec. 10 (HealthDay News) — Science is verifying what many overeaters have suspected for a long time: sugar can be addictive.

    In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

    The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s annual meeting, in Nashville.

    “Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse,” lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.

    “Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving,” he said.

    A “sugar addiction” may even act as a “gateway” to later abuse of drugs such as alcohol, Hoebel said.



  13. Mitch
    January 18, 2013 at 9:09 am

    This issue, like so many others, is really very simple. We are creatures which have resulted from evolution. In our “ancestral environment,” we were not able to get as much sugar, needed to exert ourselves to get it, and naturally consumed it with other materials that it was inherently combined with, including fiber. We were driven to eat high-sugar foods when we found them because sugar activates reward centers in our brains — when we find a high energy food we’ve hit the jackpot.

    Civilization allows us to process our food so that we can boost the reward without boosting the exertion, or the fiber, or anything else. Capitalism directs work into developing products people want. People want boosted rewards.

    Doctors, scientists, public health advocates will call for reduced sugar consumption, because that would benefit public health. Tea partiers will complain of regulation and joke about how government interferes with our lives.

    We see this every day. It’s the drug wars, it’s over-consumption, it’s capitalism, it’s the lending industry and it’s the advertising industry.

    The uneducated little kid inside each of us wants reward, and NOW. The educated, self-disciplined adult inside many of us wants to ensure we live long and healthy lives, and will limit our pursuit of short-term rewards in hopes of gaining that long term benefit. This internal party-pooper will always be in internal opposition to the little kid, always telling us to do our homework, eat our spinach, and limit our time spent in instant gratification.

    Our economic system, based on “giving people what they want,” will continue to enrich people who cater to our short-term reward circuitry, and will continue to divert the wealth of our society into supporting our tendencies towards gratifying our short-term reward circuitry via advertising. Our media will continue to be supported by advertisers. Our wealthiest will continue to be those people who go with the flow and find ways to profit off of the gratification. Their supporters will always be there to remind us that no one was holding a gun to our head when we bought their products or services, and their supporters will be correct — no gun is needed, it’s built-in.

    Changing this path is the task in front of us all. It may or may not be possible, but it is a worthwhile task.

  14. Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 9:25 am

    1822 wasn’t much fun.

  15. The Great Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 10:02 am

    How can the same person extoll the virtues of pot and other drugs but cry alarm at sugar?

  16. Mitch
  17. A pesky fact
    January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am


    We also subsidize HFCS to compensate for the fact that we subsidize sugar, which then requires subsidizing corn to correct for the imbalance created by HFCS, which then requires subsidizing ethanol…

    The particular subsidy of sugar is one of the oldest and most insidious.

  18. The Original Great Anonymous!
    January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Hey! I am The Original Great Anonymous! The person who posted message number 15 is an imposter!

  19. That Man
    January 18, 2013 at 11:52 am

    imaging the revenue, if we tax it. i mean we could actually pay for the subsidies or better programs for the people.

  20. That Man
    January 18, 2013 at 11:57 am

    The Great Anonymous :
    How can the same person extoll the virtues of pot and other drugs but cry alarm at sugar?

    to answer you question for “him” sugar is a worse drug then Marry.

    prohibition does not work, we should legalize, regulate and tax it*

    *it includes Drugs, prostitution, Gambling, ect..

  21. Truckdrvr
    January 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    average life expectancy in 1822 was somewhere around 45-50 years while today we are averaging almost 80 years. That tells me that even with our mega sugar intake, we are stiff much better off than our starving ancestors. The good old days weren’t always so good!

  22. The Great Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    The Original Great Anonymous! :
    Hey! I am The Original Great Anonymous! The person who posted message number 15 is an imposter!

    We thought you were dead!

  23. The New Great Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    In respect to the Original Great Anonymous I, poster #22, will henceforth be known as
    The New Great Anonymous.

  24. Anonymous
    January 18, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    what’s the answer there, Mitch? give people what they don’t want ? or give them what you think they want. interesting thinking there. as long as you’re on the right side of the deciders, i guess it’s all good.

  25. Mitch
    January 18, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    I’ll pretend you’re asking the question, #24, and not just thinking you’re making a point.

    The answer, in part, is supporting the self-disciplined side of adults, rather than pandering to the little kid in all of us. So, for example, you enable government to highly regulate activities like gambling, so that people’s weaknesses are not heavily taken advantage of. You keep gambling legal, but you see to it that there are heavy punishments for anyone who takes advantage of people who are addicted to gambling. Or, on the flip side, you provide support via the tax system for activities like saving for the future.

    More important, you spend time educating children growing up so that they learn the value of postponing gratification, even when immersed in an advertising environment that aims at making instant gratification our goal in life — making us ideal consumers and making the advertisers wealthy.

    Unfortunately, we don’t really have any concept in our political system of activities that should be legal but from which the profit motive should be removed. People have every right to make bad decisions for themselves. But people should not, in my opinion, be able to profit from convincing the little kid in people to do things that they will later regret. I’d love to see such a status created in law, for things like pot and alcohol, so that they were available legally to any adult who wanted them, but so that no large corporation could make a profit by creating artificial demand.

  26. January 19, 2013 at 8:27 am


    While I agree there is often some individual responsibility in problems like obesity, we are after all talking fundamentally about addicts and addiction, and I believe an addict is not fully in control of their actions.

    For that reason I think your analysis is far rosier than the reality that faces us. Sugar is a white powdery crystalline substance (a drug e. g.) that is highly refined from plant sources (sugar cane and sugar beets) It has proven to be addictive. It has proven to be a cause and or enabler of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer of several kinds.

    If sugar did not exist but was discovered today by some laboratory it would probably be banned or tightly controlled.

    We need to recognize that a high percentage (30-60% who knows?) are active sugar addicts. Many people binge on sugar daily, in soft drinks, pastries, but no matter sugar (or designer sugars like HFCS) are present in almost 100% of food that the industrial food system is putting in our trough. If there is ANY threat to their sugar supply, these addicts react immediately. We need to have compassion for addicts but we also need to overcome this opposition to rational choices.

    Yes I am a sugar addict myself but I eat very little sugar these days.

    How to avoid sugar-

    Drink no soft drinks or juice (read the label most of it is flavored sugar water) except for fresh squeezed juice. Don’t eat anything that comes in a package or a can.

    I have proposed several times here that we put in a sugar tax in Eureka. Ten cents a can. If 30,000 cans a day are sold in Eureka (1 can per day per person) thats $3,000 a day or over a $million a year to help the city finances.

    I am not a tax raiser (or a tax cutter either) so I would suggest accompanying that with a decrease in the general sales tax in Eureka. Allowing measure O to sunset would accomplish that.

    Now I do understand that these kinds of sugar taxes have so far proven very unpopular. Down in the southland (El Monte I think) such a tax took an absolute drubbing at the polls last November.

    Well see above, we have lots of addicts. They must be helped and educated. Campaigns must be run, serious ones, and mostly they will lose until the public is educated.

    And the 2nd thing is Mitch, the fact that huge corporations are knowingly pushing an addictvie substance upon the population, a substance that destroys their health. They are adding it to beverages, to food, and even to animal and fish food. They are addng these addictive substances (sugar, sugar substitutes and designer sugars) to sub-standard industrial food to make it palatable. For a profit.

    have a peaceful day,

  27. 24
    January 19, 2013 at 8:46 am

    I was asking the question. Good answer, although I don’t understand your concept of “artificial demand”. What is that?

  28. January 19, 2013 at 8:54 am

    And of course I believe it is every human’s right to grow, harvest and eat as many sugar canes or sugar beets as he or she needs to sustain health and happiness.

    have a peaceful day,

  29. Just Watchin
    January 19, 2013 at 8:56 am

    Advertising to create demand and normalize the high sugar diets that are killing us. How many ads do you see for natural, healthy foods?

  30. January 19, 2013 at 9:28 am

    Mitch :
    I’ll pretend you’re asking the question, #24, and not just thinking you’re making a point.

    Unfortunately, we don’t really have any concept in our political system of activities that should be legal but from which the profit motive should be removed. People have every right to make bad decisions for themselves. But people should not, in my opinion, be able to profit from convincing the little kid in people to do things that they will later regret. I’d love to see such a status created in law, for things like pot and alcohol, so that they were available legally to any adult who wanted them, but so that no large corporation could make a profit by creating artificial demand.


    I (and quite a few others) actually do have a political concept of activities that should be legal but from which the profit motive should be removed. We think that exploitation of workers, though it may be hard to make illegal, can still have it’s profit motive removed for large businesses. By exempting small businesses, we are saying, legal for small business, but regulated for big businesses. It is a compromise. By requiring large employers to pay a reasonable wage of $12.00 an hour removes some but not all of the profit motive in the exploitation of workers by underpaying them. But the profit motive is still there for real local Mamas & Papas.

    We also think that the recent WalMart invasion of Humboldt serves up an excellent example of artificial demand. I point out that before WalMart there was no demand for minimum wage jobs in this area, but there was a demand for real jobs.. WalMart created that (artificial) demand for minimum wage jobs. . The demand for real jobs still remains.

    have a peaceful day,

  31. Mitch
    January 19, 2013 at 9:33 am


    I should have said that our laws as they now exist do not provide for legal but no-profit-allowed material or services. I know that many people would like to see the profit-motive removed from activities that they feel should remain legal. All that is needed (!) is for 51% of the voters in an election to create that status in a local law, and get it past Scalia.

  32. The New Great Anonymous
    January 19, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Is there no end to the amount of control some of you want over every aspect of our lives?

  33. Mitch
    January 19, 2013 at 9:49 am


    “Artificial demand” is the difference in demand between the amount of a product that a population would purchase in the absence of advertising designed to create demand and the amount of a product that is actually purchased.

    By “advertising,” I mean the modern attempt to convince you you’ll be happier if you make a purchase, as opposed to the older form which simply told you of the existence of a product and where it could be purchased.

    When you purchase most products today, you are purchasing a psychological association with the more handsome, more “cool,” more “satisfied,” and more “happy” people portrayed by actors in the product’s advertising.

    For example, most of the cost of a sneaker goes to pay for its advertising.

    Parasitism exists in all biological processes; it means that energy expended by an agent in order to create an agent’s desired outcome is diverted to some other result that does not provide the benefit sought by the agent expending energy. An intestinal worm is one example, and a producer of an emotion-directed advertisement is another, fouler, example. The intestinal worm is passive, simply powering itself off of nutrients that would otherwise be available to its host. The producer of the emotion-directed advertisement, on the other hand, is active, actually changing the behavior of the host to support the parasite’s goals over those of the host, by using mind-control techniques and fraudulently asserting a non-existent benefit to the host.

  34. 24
    January 19, 2013 at 9:50 am

    I don’t watch the ads. I assume the co op and eureka natural foods advertise as much as Safeway and rays though. What is stopping you guys from opening a non profit liquor store?

  35. Mitch
    January 19, 2013 at 9:54 am


    You assume wrongly, at least about the Coop.

    And supermarkets are not major advertisers — a much better example would be the brands they carry. Do you think Pop-Tarts, as opposed to a freshly baked item from a bakery, or an inexpensive bowl of oatmeal with brown sugar, would be a desirable breakfast if there had not been substantial advertising campaigns to convince people how wonderful they are?

    Absolutely nothing stops anyone from opening a non-profit store of any kind. That’s not an argument I’m making.

    The argument I’m making is that the moral justification of building an economic system on the profit motive is that the profit-motive is believed to serve all of society by harnessing self-interest.

    To the extent that the economic system becomes infested by parasites (those who use the profit motive to secure their own interests, while not contributing at all to the common good which was used to justify the profit motive in the first place), the economic system is no longer just.

    When businesses compete by providing better products at lower cost, in order to secure more sales and make more profits, the system is moral. When businesses compete by cheating suppliers, or exploiting people without alternatives, or gaining governmental benefits by lobbying, or pushing their costs onto others, or overgrazing the commons, or creating psychological needs that would not otherwise exist, they are taking advantage of the system. Laws and regulations that prevent such parasitism would keep capitalism (more) moral, but in recent years large numbers of people have somehow (gee, I wonder why) come to believe that such laws and regulations are themselves immoral.

  36. Mitch
    January 19, 2013 at 10:12 am

    To make my previous point with fewer words… the tea party and its defenders seem to be defending things like the “profit motive” as though they are ends in themselves. Most progressives understand that the profit motive is a means to an end, and that “liberty” does not mean the “liberty” for the powerful and wealthy to cheat and exploit people at will.

    The enlightenment men who wrote the United States constitution understood this: the preamble explains that the purpose of the document is: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Somehow, “the general welfare” has been transformed from a revolutionary reason for government’s existence into a naughty word, and “liberty” has come to mean doing whatever one pleases, regardless of its impact on others.

  37. A pesky fact
    January 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Getting the government out of the business of interfering in free markets, individuals being taught via education about virtue instead of leftist-ideology where people are merely objects, getting the government out of tge business of giving chosen special interests special protections and advantages (AKA picking the winners and losers).

    Mitch, once you get past disagreement-by-misunderstood-association (“the tea party thinks puppies should be slaughtered to make fur coats, so instead I support the position of those that told me that”), your transformation to conservative will approach being complete.

    You might want to start preparing yourself now. It is often a very troubling moment when you find out that the people who had been lying to you and distorting the truth were intact lying to you and distorting the truth so as to benefit themselves at your expense.

  38. A pesky fact
    January 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm


    Maybe a better definition of freedom/liberty is “the ability to choose the good.”?

    You’ve walked yourself into objective truth.

    Now… If we could just identify the political ideology that uses the general welfare clause as justification for interfering in persons individual daily activity, that at the same time presents relativism as if it were true to silence moral/logical arguments against it’s stripping of individual freedom in the name of individual freedom…

  39. Mitch
    January 19, 2013 at 2:16 pm


    I’m afraid you are destined to be disappointed if you are waiting for my transformation to conservative. I’ve long considered myself both conservative and liberal, and I don’t find the philosophies to be in opposition. Each insists we work towards certain honorable values, and it’s not unusual for those values, at the extremes, to be in opposition to one another. When each philosophy recognizes that its values must yield to other equally important values, the philosophies themselves are not in conflict.

    There are many progressive arguments that I don’t buy into, but I believe that the progressive side is the one that cares about justice today, and I feel most of today’s libertarian/conservatives exhibit a contempt for the values they give mouth service to. (I don’t think that’s all that different than the way in which some progressives exhibit a contempt for the values they give mouth service to. It’s been my experience that most “progressive” leaders think that the proper end of the “education” process is that all will agree with them, so that they can run things properly. I don’t think it works that way. )

    Although I don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian god, I’d refer you to the MLK quotes I excerpted on Saturday morning’s post for a guide to some of the things I do believe. I just think those beliefs can be justified without supposed instructions from god, and make up good instructions for life here and now, without needing to be sold by promises of a condo in heaven vs. eternal damnation.

  40. January 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Mitch I’m a strait edge my self i don’t do any destructive indulgences, fortunately that includes pushing my lifestyle on others. if some one want to through their life away on drug gambling. hate to say it… but; stupid people deserve it. people have a right to choice our own lifestyle is self destructive (not corp mind you they only have as you put it “the ability to choose the good.” because they are not self destructive but destructive to society.

    another words: people want to ruin their life, they can; the corporation ruining their life has to pay the price. then said government creates social programs to help the pick up the pieces using the price the corporation paid.

    yes it not a perfect world with every one being a “vegon” and bunnies hoping on wolfs back for rides. but its a balance solution to the problem.

    on a different note
    truly combat the Self interest being good lie; you have to start at its root the false idea that humans and our core nature is hedonistic and only care for itself. we built a society on this lie and the first step it to destroy it.

    we are evolving and society need to evolve with us and that means slow steps, a mentor of mine once told me “don’t reach for the stars, reach for a ladder” (cant remember first name) Byrd

    the tea party is an unholy union of Theocracy and Plutocracy -just saying

  41. January 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    That Man,

    I don’t doubt that humanity has the ability to expand and universalize the empathy that is built-into kinship relations. But when Rifkin talks about how the whole world came to Haiti’s aid within three hours… well, think about it for a moment. Exactly how much of the world’s resources were brought to bear?

    One absolute truth at the core of all religions is that we are BOTH empathetic towards others and ALSO remarkably self-centered — religions call that good and evil. I agree with you that societies need to evolve, and I love your friend’s phrase about reaching for a ladder rather than the stars.

    I also agree with you completely that people have every right to destroy their lives.

    We may not completely agree on whether government has the right to step in and take an active role in limiting some people’s ability to profit off of people’s weaknesses.

    Conservatives love the phrase “nanny state,” and are happy to caricature liberals as thinking they know what people need better than the people themselves. And it’s not always a caricature — the 20th century disasters of communism largely involved centralized planning, which simply didn’t work as well as free market mechanisms. But the reason most liberals I know believe in active government regulation is not that they think they know what’s good for people, but that they can see others trying to profit by tricking, cheating, and bullying people, and feel a counterbalance is needed.

    Conservatives often think that profit-by-any-means is fine as long as it is produced as a result of voluntary contracts entered into by the participants. I don’t believe that, because in the real world I’ve lived in, “voluntary” is a very shaky word — almost every relationship involves inequalities in wealth and information that amount to inequalities in power.

    Let’s take a very realistic example, the minimum wage.

    Conservatives will sometimes say that people should be “at liberty” to sell their labor for whatever they wish, as a way to climb out of poverty. But look at how power imbalances immediately enter into the supposed voluntary contract. In an area with high unemployment, no unions, and no government welfare programs, a person will need to exchange their labor in order to buy food, and has little control over what they are offered for their labor. If the only person with the money to hire people can make $50 for an hour of someone else’s labor but refuses to pay anyone more than $1 per hour, until someone else enters the market willing to pay more than $1, anyone unemployed and hungry must agree to work for the area’s one employer.

    If there are several employers who all agree to offer no more than $1 per hour, even having a variety of employers to choose from offers no real out to the unemployed worker.

    Is this symmetric? No. If there is only one worker and several employers are willing to bid for her labor, there is a natural cap on what an employer will pay: no employer will offer the employee more than $50 if the employee’s contribution to the employer’s revenue is only $50.

    So government (or unions) can step in and say, in effect, if you are making $50 per hour on your employees, it’s only fair that the employee get some reasonable percentage of that. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game for what people think is fair.) I can understand people disagreeing about what the percentage is, but in my opinion it should be set by something other than the bare minimum cost for an employee to survive long enough to clock in the next day. In effect, those who oppose unions or government regulation of minimum wages are asserting that, if someone is willing to work for subsistence, they’ve entered into a voluntary contract with their employer and that’s their right. That may look good in elementary school textbooks, but it doesn’t work out well in the real world.

    That’s just one example, but it applies in many “nanny state” situations. One of the real problems in a free market system is that a single bad player, if not forced by regulation to live up to ethical responsibilities, can make it uncompetitive for the other players, since the bad player gains a competitive advantage by acting badly.

    Say you and I both sell fish; you sell only the fresh fish you’ve just caught, but I sell three day old leftovers. I’ve found a way to prevent my old fish from smelling and, since I can get it very cheaply, I have money left over to advertise happy, sexy people wolfing down “Mitch’s Fish.” The textbooks say people will buy your fish and not mine, but the real world says otherwise, especially when you’re not talking about a local community but about a nationwide operation.

    There needs to be regulation to counterbalance the profit motive in such situations, but today’s conservatives will insist that the market will resolve such problems on its own. In a world with perfect equality and perfect information, the abstract market might well do that. In the actual world, where people with wealth have access to expensive propaganda technologies and people without wealth have limited time and information, the only way to level the playing field is for ALL the people to band together and purchase the labor of some people to regulate the market… and those people are called “government workers.”

    It’s more complicated than that, though, because over the last thirty to forty years, the government itself has been captured by the wealthiest few thousand people in the society. It is the attempts to win the government back by democratic means that is raising the ire of the astroturfed tea party, which is acting as an agent of the wealthiest few thousand.

    (To anyone who read to this point, thank you. And, oh yeah, one more thing. Demanding equal treatment by civil authority is not pushing one’s lifestyle on others. Neither is speaking out against people who call for your murder. I’m not sure if either of those are what you were referring to as “pushing one’s lifestyle,” but if it was, we disagree.)

  42. January 19, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    “I think you’re mistaken in thinking that the first step is destroying the society that exists now.”
    I’m unaware were i said that; i said society needs to evolve wit humanity

    “we are evolving and society need to evolve with us…”

    it is the corporations destroying things and they need to be regulated… heavily

    regulate business, …..not people.

    not only does the free market not exist it never did, this Ayn rand ideology is nothing more then an illusion, and it does not take into account our “Soft wiring” for empathy.

    any ways i got a show to work, so ill leave you with that. and i really didn’t read it i kinda just glance at it

  43. January 19, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    I misunderstood your point and I’ve gone back and removed the quote from my response. “Regulate business not people” comes pretty close to summing up my thoughts in only four words. Thank you.

    Enjoy your show.

  44. The New Great Anonymous
    January 19, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    “business” is people.

    You and your ilk condemn “business” for the misbehaviour of a small number of people. The reason liberals hate corporations and business (excuse me BIG business) is because you fail to understand that basic fact.

    For every example of the misbehaviour of some person in business there are 1,000 people in business who follow the law and the Golden Rule.

  45. The New Great Anonymous
    January 19, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    If your non smelly fish satisfies the people who eat it Mitch, are you not doing a public good by offering it at a discount to the poor? You fail to understand that by you selling YOUR fish at a discount forces the others to lower their prices as well.

    Everybody benefits. The poor by having an alternative to high priced fish the middle class by having lower price fish at the higher quality fish and you by making a fortune by finding a niche and filling it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s