I could start a whole other blog about nutrition, food additives and the preservatives that damage our food, but talking about food just makes me hungry.  Instead, I would like to occasionally incorporate the foods and additives that the FDA is being deceitful about into this blog.  And while these thoughts should motivate you to become engaged in decisions about what you eat, it should more importantly alarm you that a government organization, like the FDA, can get away with essentially poisoning us.

About twenty years ago, there was a huge uproar over the additive monosodium glutamate, or MSG.  This ‘flavor enhancer’ was seen in many foods from condiments to soups to crackers.  It had actually been in many of our foods since the 1940’s, but no one really paid attention. Once credited as the ‘Chinese Restaraunt Syndrome’, due to the high sodium content of many chinese dishes, the effects of this additive that were included in so many food products were outed in the early 1990’s.  Resulting symptoms from MSG consumption include migraine headaches, tingling in the arms, back and chest, rapid heartbeat, nausea, drowsiness, weakness and ‘a craving for the same foods (This one, most closely associated with Chinese food, seems to be the only advertised effect). Some people even experience asthmatic responses like difficulty breathing and neurological symptoms.  Long term effects can include increased development of food allergies in children, hyperactivity and obesity.

That’s a long list, don’t you think?

However, this is all background information. You see, the FDA has restricted labeling techniques for producers and state that placing “no MSG added” or “No MSG” can be misleading, but somehow we still see these things on labels.  Because of the high publicity regarding MSG, many manufacturers have used other alternatives to get around the poor market ability.  Names such as yeast extracts, texturized protein, gelatin, anything “glutamate”, anything “hydrolyzed” and anything “enzyme modified” top the list of disguises for MSG.  Take a look in your pantry.  These things occur in eveything from potato chips and cookies to cream cheeses and even some milks (things that are ultra-pasturized also contain MSG).

You cannot just assume because it’s on the shelves of the grocery store that it’s safe. How many times has the FDA approved prescriptions and then had to pull them from the shelves because they were harmful (only to reintroduce the same drug with a different name or use) What about all the different names for aspratame that now saturate the market?  It’s the same concept.  The issue is that these names on the labels are misleading.  Who would, at first glance, think that something with protein or enzymes is bad for you?  Most people would think that you ‘need’ these things and think nothing of it.  But we’re being duped.

Many of you will probably just move forward on the notion that there are plenty of other harmful substances out there and you plan to go on eating just as you had before, and that’s fine.  But you should question why the FDA is allowing products such as these additives to be key ingredients in foods while knowing the harmful effects.

A complete list of MSG Aliases can be found at http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html

Sources:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item1225 (This site is backed by the World Health Center & the Mayo Clinic)
http://www.carbohydrateaddicts.com/msg.html
http://www.rense.com/general67/msg.htm

In Maryland, people have been rallying in opposition of a bill that would grant some illegal immigrants the right to pay in-state tuition.  The state bill resembles the DREAM Act (which was recently struck down in Congress) in that it would grant illegals who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years and graduated from a high school here, in-state tuition.

Those in opposition are demanding that a referendum be placed on this bill and measure until the 2012 election, so voters can make the choice.  According to the Huffington Post, 55,736 signatures were needed…the group obtained 109,000 valid signatures.

Supporters of the bill are threatening to file a lawsuit and according to Casa de Maryland, (nice name, by the way folks) the signatures were obtained by misinforming the people.  They claim that ‘undocumented students only enjoy some of the rights enjoyed by other Maryland high school graduates’. HA!

I would like to know when our country got to this point? The point that our own citizens HAVE to petition AGAINST the rights of illegal immigrants, rights that would give these illegals advantages over our OWN citizens.  Why would a state be granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants when the process of a student from another state within the United States is difficult, grueling and more often than not, unsuccessful?  To be in this country with undocumented status is against the law.  So if this bill passes, we are going to teach our youth that other people who break the law will reap benefits from it because we should feel sorry for them and be compassionate towards them.  In addition to the illegal aspect, most state university systems are struggling tremendously right now to stay afloat and maintain lower tuition rates for legal, legitimate students…Why are we trying to flood the system and give breaks to more people who haven’t earned it?

If this is how it’s going to be, what’s the point of even being a United States citizen?  It sure seems like you get a lot more benefits by not being one.

My favorite organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, has filed a suit in Anchorage, Alaska against the state because they refused to grant a driver’s license to a transgendered person.  Apparently, this former-man-now-‘woman’ applied for a driver’s license but was denied because this person, referred to as K.L., did not undergo a sex change surgery.  The ACLU is claiming that ‘denying the woman a license that accurately reflects her gender identity because she hasn’t undergone surgery is unconstitutional’.  Personal beliefs aside, this brings up some interesting points.  Let’s take a look at the facts.

The ACLU is a strong proponent of equality for a wide variety of groups.  With that equality, the ACLU, along with many other organizations, insists that people be recognized for their differences whether it be race, religion, gender, sex, etc. (Don’t you find it interesting that a group that seeks to create equality across the board continues to sort people into groups?)  With that being said, sociologists have defined specific differences between sex and gender.  Sex is defined as ‘either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures’.  Gender is defined as ‘the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex’  Some sites also claim that gender is a subclass of sex.  Okay, so just to clarify Merriam-Webster, (and most sociology and psychology text books) says sex is physiological and gender is psychological.

Moving on. In actuality, this K.L. person is suing because the state of Alaska would not recognize the behaviors, cultures and psychological practices and instead wanted to identify a person based on organs and actual tangible body parts.  I must be missing something here.

I have to question what the argument is for gender being a suitable form of identification.  Sure, gender rights are protected by Human Rights, the UN and other entities, but gender is not a way to identify one person from the next.  These rights are in place to protect people, as they should be.  And I have to wonder how it would be applicable.  Say a transgender person is in a car wreck and unable to identify themselves at the scene.  A lot of chaos could ensue when a license states one ‘sex’ and a medical examination determines another.  And while this K.L. person may have female tendencies that does not make him a male.  When I go shoot a gun at the gun range wearing camo and Timberland boots, I don’t refer to myself as a male.  Hunting quail on a camping trip would not change this either.  And how about public places? Which restroom does K.L. use when out? Certainly he wouldn’t walk into a woman’s restroom because that would essentially be breaking the law.  So why would a form of government identification be any different?

Take out your license.  Look at it.  Next to your eye color, your hair color and unfortunately your weight, what does it say? Sex. Not gender.

House Republicans decided that want to vote to repeal the act that placed restrictions on incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.  The House of aRepresentatives was set to vote on it today, but its not expected to be repealed in the Democratically controlled Senate, and because the Obama administration strongly supports it.

It seems insignificant that we’re debating over the use of light bulbs when we have a huge issue with the debt ceiling lingering, among other serious issues, doesn’t it? But it really isn’t about light bulbs.  It’s about law makers and the outrage of the people.  Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) stated, “This is more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom”.  He has a point.

Who is Congress to say what kind of light bulbs we can and cannot use? And WHY?  In 2007, when the bill was introduced as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, it was passed on the appeal of saving the country $6 billion in 2015 alone.  Law makers also charged that it would reduce household electric bills by $85 a year– whoop-de-doo!!! [But who are they kidding? The cost of the lightbulbs would go up since the restrictions from the law would be placed on manufacturers and how they do business, so the true savings, or maybe even costs, is not known.)

What is most frustrating is that Rep. Upton (R-Michigan), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was the lead sponsor of the bill when it passed in 2007.  He has since retracted his support and says he’ll vote ‘yes’ to the repeal to ‘guard against government overreach’.  He also said that people’s outrage shows that free markets are what should control the pool from which consumers pull from.

So essentially, lawmakers are willing to pass anything and everything if it has the right ring to it and will do so quietly until people are outraged and take action.  Think of all the things that pass without us knowing that would probably enrage the hell out of us.  And you’d probably be surprised how many times people from your party vote a way you wouldn’t assume. This energy bill passed the first time in the House 264-163 and 65-27 in the Senate. I urge you to look into what is really going on. Because whether it be by light bulbs or due process, we are slowly losing freedoms.

You can track voting records for your representatives at http://www.govtrack.us/