Wednesday, November 3, 2010

California Votes Again Huge Mistake Yes on Proposition 26! Voters Lose their Mind

Tags: Calif Voters Prop 26 Yes Voters Will Destroy California by Not Allowing Revenues to Run Complex State

Prop. 25 Allowing Majority for Budget Great, Proposition 26 Prevents Taxes and Fees to Balance Budget: Don’t voters understand the consequences? See huge loss of police, firemen, teachers, and other necessary things to balance the budget. Things get more expensive just by inflation alone!

Proposition 13 converted one of the best school system in our country to one of the worst by not allowing property taxes to increase from low rate. Schools don’t run well with no money to take care of expenses such as paying teachers. Only the rich districts now have good schools and teachers. Wake up Voters.


Prop. 25 Allowing Majority for Budget Great, Proposition 26 Prevents Taxes and Fees to Balance Budget: Los Angeles Times Nov 4, 2010, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-props-20101104,0,1141841.story California voters have given the majority party the power to adopt a state budget on a majority vote. But in passing Prop. 26, they have stripped the same lawmakers of one of their chief budget-balancing tools.


Were California voters especially wise Tuesday when they adopted both Proposition 25, which erases the Legislature's crippling two-thirds vote requirement for adopting a budget, and Proposition 26, which imposes a new two-thirds mandate for imposing or raising a fee? End the gridlock, perhaps they were saying, but not at the expense of taxpaying families or businesses.


Or were they being especially clueless, telling Democratic lawmakers to adopt the budget they want, but without knowing or caring that they were simultaneously making the job close to impossible by depriving those same politicians of one of their chief budget-balancing tools?


It's tempting but in the end pointless to try to find a consistent voter philosophy among the confusing and often contradictory ballot measures. The electorate's role is to say "yes" or "no" to individual questions; it's up to their elected leaders and representatives to make those decisions work. In the coming year, lawmakers and the once-and-future Gov. Jerry Brown will be presented with an opportunity in Proposition 25, the majority-vote budget, possibly the most important reform adopted at the ballot box in a generation. They will have to demonstrate wisdom, leadership and self-restraint to take good advantage of it without being snared by Proposition 26 and the other ballot-box budgeting mandates sent them by voters in this election and others over the last 30 years.



Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »



California's persistent fiscal mess is based less on poor budget decisions in Sacramento than it is on the inability to make a decision of any kind. At the heart of the problem has been the two-thirds supermajority requirement, imposed by voters in three stages. First, during the Depression, voters decided that no budget could be passed in a slow-growth year without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each house of the Legislature. Then, in the 1960s, the two-thirds requirement was extended to include all budgets in all years. Then, in 1978 as part of Proposition 13, it was applied to all tax increases as well. Proposition 25 undoes the two-thirds requirement only on budgets. It remains in place on taxes and, in fact, is now, under Proposition 26, extended to fees.


Now, like every other state in the nation but two, California will be able to adopt a budget on a majority vote (as long as that budget doesn't include any tax or fee hikes). It's an important step up from deadlock and stasis, and holds the prospect of returning the Legislature to a measure of accountability that it has too long eluded.


Majority votes form the core of democracy. A majority is a mathematically unique number. Any deviation from majority rule in a legislative body gives disproportionate power to the minority. Require less than a majority, and a small cabal can have its way. Require a supermajority, and an equally small group can stymie the will of the majority by repeatedly saying "no." In California's Legislature, the minority party — the Republicans — has held fast to that power, arguing that it is the last check on irresponsible spending. But the result has been a budget process that stretches well past the constitutional June 15 deadline, and that delay has, in turn, damaged California's reputation and creditworthiness far more than any cuts sought by GOP lawmakers or taxes proposed by Democrats.


Conservatives should also recognize that Democrats have been able to use the requirement to shirk accountability. No more. Democratic lawmakers must now stand behind their budgets. The electorate — especially the large and growing number of decline-to-state voters — will know exactly whom to hold responsible if the next budget is late or unbalanced.


No doubt Democrats would like to be able to raise taxes on a majority vote as well, and, in fact, the same principles that make two-thirds wrong for budgeting make it wrong for taxes. But for the present voters don't appear to agree with them. Meanwhile, Democrats need no longer bargain away substantive and non-budget-related policy points merely to score Republican budget support. They may bargain for GOP support on taxes, but they have a choice.


Proposition 25 is a useful new tool, but it alone doesn't solve the state government's structural problems. In passing Proposition 22, voters cut off another source of state funds by protecting redevelopment agencies and local governments. Of course, those very agencies and governments would have run out of their own funds and gone bankrupt many times had they not been bailed out by Sacramento after Proposition 13 and then after the reduction of the vehicle license fee in the 1990s. When the state "raids" local treasuries, it is merely taking back its own money — money it can no longer afford to give away. But voters have made clear repeatedly that they prefer funding for local programs. In rejecting Proposition 21, a new vehicle fee to support parks, voters said no to the fee but presumably didn't say no to state parks, which still must be funded — or lost to posterity.


Now more than ever it becomes the responsibility of Brown and the legislative majority to remind Californians that institutions that make a safe, just and abundant life here possible — courts, disaster preparedness, the Highway Patrol, water systems, schools and universities — are a bargain but nevertheless require funding.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Fake Republicans Lost Half of Their 20 Seats in the House, Liberals None

Tags: Obama Wrongly Concluded that Compromising with Republicans the Right Course

I have mentioned more than a few times that in the South and in conservative districts, Democrats who campaign on liberal values normally win their reelections. Conservatives vote for true conservatives, not fake ones.

Those liberals who lost in this election fell prey to hundreds of millions of outside money from corporations and billionaires from Wall Street, Big Oil, and Hedge Funds or through Special Interest Groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce.

In spite of huge amounts of money, a seven to one in favor of Republicans, most liberals survived even in Massachusetts who elected conservative Republican. All the winners were Democrats from governor on down including Martha Coakley who lost to Scott Brown because she did not campaign. Coakley easily won her old job as Attorney General of Massachusetts easily.

Polls indicate that if Obama got the public options through by putting pressure of a carrot and a stick on Liberman and Nelson of Nebraska, he would have passed a much better Healthcare Bill. About 80 percent of Democrats and slightly less with independents, and 50 percent of Republicans wanted the Public Option.

Write President Obama that we do not want a weak President. Go for the fences and tell the public immediately if the Senate tried to block it. The Senate is the only place Obama can exert control. The crazies in the House are hopeless. Tell him not to support a tax cut for the millionaires and billionaires or top one percent to count on your support. We have to play hard ball too. Being neutral or accommodating always lose in politics.

Obama lost half of the young under 35 vote. They did not vote while the senile seniors made up 25 percent of the votes. Shouldn’t we require a test for dementia before they can vote. Same reason we do not give the vote for ten year olds.

One reporter asked Adam Green of the www.boldprogressive.org why do the exit polls indicated only 39 percent of the voters did want Obama to do more and the rest said do less. Green pointed out with a big smile on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show at 10:00 PM ET that the poll was not taken for those who did not vote. Americans wanted Obama to do more, not less.

Jim Kawakami, Nov 3, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 03, 2010

Adam Green on why Dems lost: 'weak, watered-down change - and weak Democratic leaders'

http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/adam-green-on-why-dems-lost-weak.html

by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 11/03/2010 09:18:00 AM

"What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change - and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting," Adam Green, the cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said in a statement.


Green said Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who lost his reelection bid Tuesday, was "dragged down in a national rejection of Democratic Party weakness."


"Progressives will be stepping up and insisting that the Democratic Party be bolder, not weaker," Green added, saying his group's mission is now to "save the Democratic Party from its own incredible weakness that savaged Democratic candidates in 2010."


Fake Republicans Lost Half of Their 20 Seats in the House, Liberals None Adele Stan, AlterNet, HuffingtonPost.com, Nov 3, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adele-stan/gop-wave-progressives-not_b_778451.html

In their frustration at last night's sweep of the House by the Tea Party-fueled GOP, progressives are assessing just how this happened.

"We should have been more bold," Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Lynn Woolsey told Pacifica Radio's Mitch Jeserich last night. Woolsey suggested that if the Democrats had started out of the gate with a jobs bill in 2009, Democratic fortunes might not have fallen to their current lows.

Longtime labor activist Bill Fletcher, Jr., speaking on Free Speech TV, complained that leaders of the progressive coalition that elected President Barack Obama were sent activists "back to the barracks" once the election was won.

Van Jones, who was purged from the White House through a Fox News-orchestrated smear campaign, told a gathering of activists in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, that the day after Obama's election, "you gave away your power" by receding to the sidelines or turning their attention to individual issues while neglecting the overarching narrative.

While all of these assessments are true, they don't tell the whole story. The "enthusiasm gap" touted by pundits about this year's elections is really more of an infrastructure gap. As Thom Hartmann noted last night on The Big Picture and on Free Speech TV, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United -- the case that settled the burning question of whether money equals speech -- allowed for such a flood of corporate dollars into the campaign process that 2010 saw the first legal theft of an election since the passage of the 1906 Tillman Act, which limited the use of corporate money in elections.

But that still doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which is infrastructure. Even if the left had access to the kind of money that fuels the right, it would not be poised to use it as effectively. Just as the progressive coalition tends to break apart into issue silos once Democrats are in power, its infrastructure also lacks the links and coordination that occur on the right. So the question is, what do we plan to do about that?

READ MORE

Private Prisons Take a Huge Toll in Costs to States Unnecessary Imprisonments

Tags: Private Prisons for Profit Encourage Incarcerations and long Imprisonment

The three strikes law in California, often for minor non-violent crimes, has made prisons a huge burden on the budget. I don’t know the status of the marijuana proposition to make it legal (not likely) in California or any effort to scrap the three strikes your out law which does not allow any reasonable discretionary options by the judges.


Unfortunately a mandatory sentencing for repeat drunk drivers and sex crime thugs will cost us untold amounts of money because depressed poor people tend to drink more or use drugs to drown their sorrows. A rehabilitation program of how to cope would have been cheaper and more successful according to a high respected Rand Think Tank study.


It does not take into account that excess drinking is probably genetic so prison serves no purpose unless they are trained to stop drinking or taking drugs. It involves much willpower to overcome genetic predispositions.


It seems that we are still prone to follow ancient genetic predisposition to punish anyone who are a danger to our way of life in the most cruel way possible such as allowing people at their end of life with excruciating pain from untreatable cancer to end their life without pain. We seem to still live in our animal hides and act the same way we did in the past.


Don’t let the crazies control how we enjoy our lives.


Jim Kawakami, Nov 3, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com


Private Prisons Take a Huge Toll in Cost to States Unnecessary Imprisonments Ryan Chittum Columbia Journalism Review Nov 3, 2010, http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/captive_customers.php

NPR reveals a behind-the-scenes role by private prisons in Arizona’s tough immigration law

By Ryan Chittum

An NPR investigation goes right to the heart of the problem with private prisons: Putting a profit motive behind taking away people’s freedom.

It looked into Arizona’s powerful private-prison system and found that it helped boost the notoriously tough law the state passed against illegal immigration earlier this year.

The bill was written and named in D.C. by a small group of corporations and legislators that included representatives from Corrections Corporation of America (I love that name, by the way: it says a lot about your modern day United States in just four words), which is the biggest corporate-prison company. Conveniently enough, CCA “executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market,” according to company reports. CCA hired a bigtime lobbyist that week to pitch the bill, and the governor has two aides who used to lobby for the private-prison business. Plus, naturally:

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.


Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.


It’s insidious and it ought to make your skin crawl. These companies make their money by locking up people—the more the better. That’s their incentive. The state has put the profit motive, one of the most powerful forces we know, behind depriving people of liberty. If you think that’s overwrought or abstract, just look at what’s gone on here. … http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/captive_customers.php

Capitalism Saved by Obama and Corporations Stabbed Him in the Back Stupid

Tags: Capitalism Saved by Obama Corporations Thank Him with a Shiv Tim Egan Tells Us Why Ezra Klein WP Ed Schultz MSNBC Endangered Liberal

Tim Egan is my favorite book reviewers for the NY Times. He lives in California, but the Times does not publish his reviews often enough. The Times is one of the few publications that pay book reviewers a decent wage. Once I wrote an e-mail to the NY Times that why was Tim Egan’s review during the week for much than the review by a busy person in the Sunday Book Review for the same book. The Sunday review was ideology than an assessment of the quality of the book. Don’t miss his article below.


MSNBC has made it difficult to find Ed Schultz website for his too liberal views. Even googling for it is not always easy. He speaks truth to power. Here is the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30031533/


Ed Schultz first editorial today, Nov 3, 2010, about Obama’s Press Conference is exactly the right interpretation. He was furious at Obama by emphasizing his need to compromise with Republicans. I urge you to watch it tomorrow unless MSNBC deletes it. Remember the news will be taken over by Comcast which is very conservative. His polls of the number of viewers are said to have dropped sharply. I almost think it was a fix by Comcast to lower his popularity so they could drop him.


They might do the same to Rachel Maddow and perhaps Keith Olbermann. Most audience viewers are determined more by the cable operators than anything else. Please watch his program at 6 PM ET or 3 PM PT to keep him on the air. I find DVR is a necessary expense for me now.


Unless it is on the list of most e-mailed which it is now, most Times newspaper readers won’t see this blog which is only online. The NYTimes blogs are quite good. Take the time for a look. Krugman also blogs. For the Washington Post also has good blogs. Take a look at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ Ezra Klein is quite good at the Washington Post. Here is one about politics which I found quite good.

“'Citizen- legislators' empower the very special interests they're meant to fight.

In this year of "tea partiers" and political insurgents, we keep hearing the same refrain: The founders envisioned not career politicians but citizen-legislators -- decent folk who'd leave the farm to serve the public, then return home before they became corrupt fat cats. It's this idea that lends term limits such perennial appeal.

And yet, says David Canon, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the author of "Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress," term limits would actually have the opposite effect. He explains: "If you have a bunch of rookies in there who don't have much experience, you're basically turning power over to the permanent government in that town: the staffers and the lobbyists the newcomers end up relying on."

… Lobbyists don't run the show.

That's the conclusion of the new book "Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why," which is easily the most comprehensive study of lobbying ever published. The authors randomly chose 98 legislative fights and then sifted through more than 20,000 lobbying reports and 300 interviews with key players to come up with a surprising result: Usually, the lobbyists lost.

In fact, the best predictor of action wasn't the money spent or the lobbyists involved. It was the politicians. Action became more likely when major players decided they wanted to act (think Barack Obama winning the White House and deciding to pursue health-care reform) or suddenly were given the power to act (recall how the embarrassment of the Abramoff scandal empowered ethics legislation that had long been stalled in Congress).

"Our research indicates that members of Congress don't listen to lobbyists unless they want to," says Beth Leech, a political scientist at Rutgers and one of the co-authors.

Politicians should talk to political scientists.

This one may not be so surprising, but it is convincing: As the 24-hour news cycle accelerates into the 1,440-minute news cycle, distracting us with an incessant stream of meaningless one-liners and manufactured outrages, the considered, rigorous, historical examinations favored by political scientists offer an increasingly valuable antidote.

"The 24-hour news cycle is really focused on little, tiny swells and waves on the surface of the ocean," says John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University. "But in fact, most of the big things affecting the ocean are these currents underneath. They're what's moving the water." And that's what political science studies.

So political science is often accused of a sort of nihilism: Lobbyists don't much matter, it says. Speeches are ineffective. Voters are driven by the economy, and campaigns barely move the needle. Most of the stuff that obsesses us during election season has no effect on the eventual outcome.

But if politicians took these findings to heart, it would free them to do their jobs better. "The fact that much of what cable news is talking about on any given day is not important probably is empowering," Sides says. Particularly combined with the finding that what does matter, both for elections and for people's lives, is how well the country is doing. Worrying less about tomorrow's polls and news releases and more about the effect of today's policies could make for better bills -- and happier, more successful politicians.

Ezra Klein blogs on domestic and economic policy for The Washington Post at www.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein

Jim Kawakami, Nov 3, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com


November 2, 2010, 11:59 PM

How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms

By TIMOTHY EGAN


pastedGraphic.pdf

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/?src=me&ref=general Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.

TAGS:

CAPITALISM, MIDTERM ELECTIONS, PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE ECONOMY



If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.

For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

“We have done things that people don’t even know about,” Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either.

Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. “It could have been much worse!” is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.

Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs.

Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama’s initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.

Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more.

President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank “holiday” in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.

Obama can recast himself as the consumer’s best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.

And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

High Fructose Corn Syrup Increases Liver Disease and Makes Us Fat

Tags: High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Obesity Kills Our Liver May Lead to Dementia

Medical doctors are now accepting the fact that obesity in the world is caused mainly from High Fructose Corn Syrup in soft drinks and almost all prepared foods. It makes up about 16 percent of our diet. Fructose metabolism in the liver results in metabolic products of about 30 percent very low density lipoproteins which leads to increased heart disease and likely dementia. Early onset of Alzheimer's Disease results from a gene defect that cannot metabolize this very low density lipoprotein which some scientists already that early and late onset Alzheimer's Disease depend on how much of this is in our diet.

I stopped eating large sweet apples and drinking lots of orange juice and started drinking 2 glasses a day of 1% organic skim milk from Costco. Fructose made me hungry all the time. Now I never need to eat before I go to sleep or during the day between meals. I am just not hungry!

When I went on a complete fructose ban for two weeks to reduce fructose metabolism enzymes in all my cells, my weight was 155 lbs. By greatly reducing fructose consumption after my fast, I now weigh 143 lbs.

I reduced my known fructose consumption to one orange and blueberries every other day. Also I stopped eating sardines fairly frequently to reduce purines in my blood which convert to uric acid which causes inflammation of my arteries which increases plaque formation. I went from 5.8 (too high according to Dr Johnson, Nephrologist, MD, who has a great and easy to read book The Sugar Fix: The high-Fructose Fallout That Is Making You Fat and Sick,) to less than 5.4 mg/dl.

As my cells accumulated fructose enzymes, it started destroying my ATP, the energy element of cells, to produce purines which convert to uric acid.

I will say again that regular cane or beet sugar does help suppress appetite and fructose does not. Even though many smart reporters and doctors say they are equivalent chemically, they are really not because our body handles them differently. Both the free glucose and fructose go immediately to our liver. The glucose is immediately converted to glycogen. That is why the old Gatorade was very popular with athletes who needed energy fast. The new Gatorade uses regular sugar now because half of Americans now believe fructose is not good for them. Regular sugar prices will go up because there is a shortage now because we refuse to stop the tariffs on it.

Dr. Oz www.doctoroz.com has finally said that obesity is primarily the result of excess High Fructose Corn Syrup or about 16% of American diets. The only explanation why after Reagan made corn extremely cheap in 1985 and the increase in obesity correlated with the doubling of obesity in the 1990s.

Jim Kawakami, Nov 2, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com

Question

William F. Balistreri, MD Oct 27, 2010 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/730873?src=mp&spon=17&uac=26057PR

I read that high-fructose corn syrup can induce or exacerbate fatty liver disease. What is the evidence?


Response from William F. Balistreri, MD
Dorothy M. M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio; Medical Director, Liver Transplantation Program, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio

Although the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is complex, increasing evidence suggests that fructose is a contributing factor. In the search for dietary triggers for NAFLD, fructose has been consistently identified as a candidate; this makes sense, given the metabolic events attendant to fructose ingestion. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose.[1] Unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion, enhance leptin production, or suppress hunger. Insulin and leptin are key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight; thus, dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Hepatic metabolism of fructose has been shown to elicit potentially deleterious metabolic perturbations -- risk factors for NAFLD. Consumption of fructose-sweetened but not glucose-sweetened beverages increases fat mass, visceral adiposity, de novo lipogenesis, and inflammation, and it induces insulin resistance and postprandial hypertriglyceridemia, particularly in overweight individuals.[2-8]

The dietary goals to prevent the development of NAFLD or to forestall transition to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are to reduce adipose tissue mass and the associated inflammation, restore insulin sensitivity, and reduce de novo lipogenesis.[9,10] However, scientific evidence supporting specific diets or dietary restrictions is lacking. That said, a spate of recent investigations has identified overconsumption of high-fructose corn syrup, primarily in the form of soft drinks, as a modifiable risk factor/environmental exposure that increases the risk for NAFLD and the likelihood of progressing to NASH.[1,11]

Studies in Humans

The intake of simple carbohydrates is higher in patients with NAFLD compared with the general population, suggesting that this dietary imbalance plays a role in the development and progression of NAFLD.[6,11,12] A dietary history and paired serum and liver tissue samples were obtained from patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD without cirrhosis and control patients matched for sex, age, and body mass index.[6] Consumption of fructose among patients with NAFLD was 3-fold higher than in controls. Abdelmalek and colleagues investigated the relationship between fructose consumption and disease severity in adults with NAFLD enrolled in the NASH Clinical Research Network.[12] Increased fructose consumption was associated with younger age, male sex, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, increased calorie intake, and hyperuricemia. Daily fructose consumption was associated with increased hepatic inflammation and hepatocyte ballooning. Patients who drank the most fructose were more likely to have hepatic scarring and to progress to cirrhosis. These studies identify fructose as a readily modifiable environmental risk factor that can ameliorate disease progression in patients with NAFLD.

Studies in Animals

In animal models, ingestion of fructose (in contrast to glucose) causes fatty liver, along with development of leptin resistance and vascular inflammation.[13,14] A high-fructose diet induces changes similar to those seen in models of long-term alcohol intake and high-fat diets, including increased gut permeability, endotoxemia, increased hepatic tissue necrosis factor production, and hepatic steatosis.[15] We hypothesized that mice exposed to a high-fructose diet would develop NASH with fibrosis associated with increased hepatic oxidative stress.[16] Adult mice were randomly assigned to receive standard chow or high-fat, high-carbohydrate (HFHC) diets for 16 weeks; the HFHC group received water with 55% fructose and 45% sucrose. The HFHC group developed increased body weight and fat mass, became insulin-resistant, had elevated hepatic triglyceride and plasma alanine aminotransferase levels, and had a NASH-like phenotype with significant fibrosis. Hepatic oxidative stress was highest in HFHC-fed mice.

The mechanism of fibrosis might involve fructose inducing increased reactive oxygen species resulting in collagen deposition and histologically visible hepatic fibrosis. Spruss and colleagues have postulated another possible mechanism for fructose-induced hepatic steatosis in mice: the interaction between Toll-like receptor 4 and gut-derived endotoxins, such as lipopolysaccharide.[17]

Fructose: A Marker or a Mediator?

Whether increased fructose consumption merely correlates with factors responsible for the development of NAFLD or directly promotes the transition from NAFLD to NASH and more advanced stages of liver damage remains unclear. Further research is needed, including well-designed prospective controlled dietary intervention studies to evaluate whether a low-fructose diet improves the metabolic disturbances associated with NAFLD and alters the natural history of NAFLD in those at risk for disease progression. These studies should also determine whether a threshold amount of fructose triggers the postulated adverse effects or if genetic susceptibility is responsible for these outcomes. In the interim, it seems prudent to reduce intake of fructose.

Subtract Added Sugars

Although long-term trials to study the effects of reducing the intake of fructose are needed, current data support dietary guidelines that target a reduction in consumption of all added sugar (caloric sweeteners used as ingredients in processed or prepared foods). Welch and colleagues tested the association between consumption of added sugars and adverse outcomes.[18] A statistically significant correlation exists between excessive consumption of added sugars and several important measures of dyslipidemia, an important risk factor for NAFLD and cardiovascular disease. This, in turn, has been linked with several metabolic abnormalities and adverse health conditions, as well as shortfalls of essential nutrients. Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of added-sugar soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. On the basis of the 2005 US dietary guidelines, intake of added sugars greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances, regardless of energy needs; a mean of 16% of consumed calories was from added sugars. In view of these data, the American Heart Association has recommended reductions in the intake of added sugars.[19] A prudent upper limit of intake is half of the discretionary calorie allowance, which for most women is no more than 100 calories per day and for most men is no more than 150 calories per day from added sugars.

Bottom Line

We should consume less of all added sugars -- including fructose -- which are an increasing and potentially modifiable component of our diets. However, the makers of high-fructose corn syrup applied last month to the US Food and Drug Administration to change the name to "corn sugar" for use on food labels. "A rose by any other name will taste as sweet" -- thus, consumption will probably continue.

References

Monday, November 1, 2010

Obama 15 Major Accomplishments: When Dems in Control Greatest Bills Pass

Tags: President Obama's 16 Major Bills Passed Even with Republicans who Tried to Stop All Bills

In 1965 President Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid and passed the Voting Rights Act to allow Blacks to vote in elections in Southern states in spite total votes against by the Democrats in the South. He lost control of the House in 1966 as Obama is likely to result because he emphasized long-term policy, saving the economy which he did quite well even though Banks and corporations have refused to hire back employees they fired and probably sent the jobs overseas. That is the major role of the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican party. I still am amazed how he did this. Medicare has since been improved and will be improved by Obama's Healthcare Reform Bill. Further changes in the future once Americans wake up to Corporate Republicans motives. It is not to help us but the rich and corporations.


Jim Kawakami, Nov 01, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com


Rachel Maddow on Monday’s Show http://maddowblog.msbc.com Obama Accomplishments:


  1. Fair Pay for women.
  2. Credit Card Reform Doesn’t allow increase in rates for past debts.
  3. FDA control of Smoking Regulation
  4. Hate Crime Bill Against attacking Gays
  5. Health care for all Children
  6. College Student Loans now part of government not private banks. Lower rates and more money provided. Controlled by Dept of Education which Republicans want to eliminate.
  7. Volunteer Americorps tripled in size.
  8. Cash for Clunkers remarkably successful to get old cars off the road.
  9. Economic Recovery Act Single largest tax cut for 95% of Americans ever! Americans spent the money which helped economy recover.
  10. Health Reform Act will have incredible benefits in controlling both costs and better treatments. Many are already in place such allowing families to insure their children. Can’t stop rejecting people who have insurance but thrown out when they get really sick on any excuse. Can’t reject insurance to those who have pre-existing with limits on charge. Allows me to get Long Term Care Insurance for me. Currently I cannot get this because I have pre-existing kidney transplant although very healthy.

11. Financial Reform Bill will greatly help reduce Wall Street Excesses. Instead of making the bill weaker with time it got stronger and stronger until Republicans stopped preventing the bill to come up for a vote.

12. Consumer Protection Agency will prevent bad mortgages being sold to you and prevent obscene interest rates and charges for credit cards. The Mafia has gone to jail for charging such interest rates in the past. Controls charges by crooks making short term loans to the poor.

Supreme Court Campaign Financing Ruling Insures Plutocracy Money Controls Us

Tags: Supreme Court Citizen's United and PAC Ruling Contradictory CSM Examines Rulings

The Supreme Court chose not to change the law requiring PACs to report who donated to them by allowing the Appeals Court ruling to hold. No explanation was given. Justice Kennedy was wrong about the effect of their ruling allowing unlimited corporate campaign donations to Republican groups such as The Chamber of Commerce. I hope he sleeps well.

The Christian Science Monitor which I subscribed to for many years tends to be much more even handed than many corporate newspapers which depends on advertising by corporations to survive. Newspapers cost much more to produce than is paid for by subscribers. For example the New York Times will start to charge for online access in 2011. That is why corporations have such a strong influence on television news.

ABC, CBS, and NBC all have very conservative management. Only General Electric which owns NBC allows the more liberal broadcasts on MSNBC is that it makes them more money. I hope the next majority stockholder Comcast will not change this attitude for MSNBC news.

ABC will have a very right wing commentator on the election night watch. CBS also tends to be also very corporate and is less likely to allow more neutral reporting on the elections.

But always remember that corporations are like psychopaths. They only care about profits and not about us except as consumers. Those who work for corporations must toe the line or be fired. At E-Bay Meg Whitman actually shoved a little Chinese-American woman forcefully to the floor which caused the latter to sue her and won. She is still working at E-Bay.

Jim Kawakami, Nov 01, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com

Supreme Court Campaign Financing Ruling Insures Plutocracy Money Controls Us

By Warren Richey, Staff writer, Linda Feldmann, Staff writer / February 2, 2010

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts On Jan. 21, the US Supreme Court announced a landmark decision establishing for the first time that corporations enjoy the same First Amendment free-speech rights as individuals.

Related Stories

  1. Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech
  2. ‘Fighting’ Obama hits Supreme Court over campaign finance
  3. Campaign finance ruling: Can Congress do anything?

The 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has touched off dire predictions by campaign finance-reform advocates that campaigns for Congress and the presidency will soon be flooded with corporate dollars and influence.

Supporters of the decision say that the reformers' rhetoric is overblown and that the opinion reflects proper respect for free-speech principles.

Why are advocates of campaign finance reform so upset?

For nearly 40 years there has been a fundamental debate raging over how best to finance American political campaigns.

On one side, liberal reformers have sought to limit the influence of wealthy corporate interests by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a "level playing field." They have argued that corporations and labor unions could dominate the airwaves with slick and highly effective attack ads, leaving no time for the targeted candidates to respond. If American democracy is based on the principle of one person, one vote, they say, then corporations must be muzzled during political campaigns to prevent their amassed wealth from dominating and corrupting a political campaign.

Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, have countered that limiting the amount of money a corporation – or anyone – can spend to make their political point is censorship and a violation of the letter and spirit of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Corporate power and influence aren't inherently corrupting, they say, as long as they're part of a vibrant debate within an open marketplace of ideas.

The debate most recently arose at the Supreme Court after the conservative advocacy group Citizens United, a corporation, was prevented from airing a 90-minute documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The group wanted to air the film on pay-per-view cable television. The Federal Election Commission determined that the documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," was a form of electioneering that could be regulated under federal election laws. The FEC also ruled that advertisements about the film could be regulated, too. A panel of three federal judges upheld the FEC ruling. Citizens United then appealed to the Supreme Court.

High court decisions in 1990 and 2003 had strengthened the hand of those arguing for restrictions on corporations and for creation of a level campaign playing field. But other decisions since the 1970s advanced the idea that spending money in elections – even corporate money – can involve an expression of free speech.

What happened on Jan. 21 with the decision in Citizens United v. FEC is that five of the nine justices decided to erase the two key precedents that had laid the groundwork for reform focused on creating a level playing field. Those arguments have now been declared unconstitutional.

That's why campaign advocates of finance reform view the decision as akin to being pushed off a cliff. The decision marks the end of what had been a spirited debate over how to achieve the highest promise of American democracy.

Instead of a tightly regulated level playing field, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court has pointed America toward a messy "marketplace of ideas." In Justice Anthony Kennedy's view, if corporate speech presents a threat of undue influence in American politics, the proper response in the spirit of the First Amendment is to meet it with even more speech.

Won't corporations control everything?

The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees.

In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.

That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising."

This disclaimer requirement may deter many corporations from engaging in the kind of vicious political attack ads that some analysts suggest will now become commonplace.


Related Stories

  1. Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech
  2. ‘Fighting’ Obama hits Supreme Court over campaign finance
  3. Campaign finance ruling: Can Congress do anything?

But it may not deter those corporations organized to push an ideological agenda. In that case, such disclaimers will help ordinary voters assess the value of a particular message.

The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors.

The disclaimer and disclosure laws were designed by Congress to help voters, the media, and others hold corporations – and their contributors – responsible for the content of their speech.

How will the ruling affect campaigns?

Corporations and unions will be able to spend directly, whenever they want, on advertising for and against presidential and congressional candidates. Laws governing corporate involvement in state campaigns will also presumably be struck down or repealed in the 24 states that have such laws. (Twenty-six states currently do not regulate corporate spending in their elections.)

Some analysts predict that, starting with this fall's campaigns, millions more corporate dollars will flood the media, benefiting Republicans more than Democrats. The money is likely to be funneled through trade associations and nonprofit groups, rather than deployed directly by the corporations, which will want to avoid closely associating their brands with a partisan position.

Opponents of the decision argue that, aside from the new influx of corporate money into campaigns, lobbyists will now be able to hold the threat of corporate-funded attack advertising over an elected official's head.

Other observers see less radical change ahead. Corporations have already effectively been influencing federal elections by funding issue ads, though in a more restricted manner. Now, restrictions governing timing and content are gone, although disclosure rules remain.

The Supreme Court "took what had been a revolving door and took the door away altogether," says Evan Tracey, who tracks political advertising at the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va. "There was something there that slowed the money down. Now it's gone."

Who benefits, and who loses?

Republicans, who tend to be friendlier to the interests of corporations, are the likely beneficiaries of this extra campaign spending. Democrats would benefit more than Republicans from greater union spending, although unions are not nearly as wealthy as major corporations.

Underfunded candidates who prove viable toward the end of a campaign may be helped with supportive advertising from outside groups, since the rule banning such ads less than 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election was struck down. This means there will probably be more competitive races.

Another big winner is the TV and radio industry. Mr. Tracey predicts as much as 20 percent more campaign ad spending in 2010 because of the ruling, or about $500 million – more than half of it to local outlets.

Can the decision be overturned?

The current Supreme Court has spoken. But if one of the five justices in the majority on the decision were to leave and be replaced by a more liberal justice, the court could take a new campaign finance case and decide that corporations do not enjoy the free-speech rights of individuals.

Can Congress affect the impact of the ruling?

Efforts are already under way to boost the power of small donors to counter the anticipated rise of corporate influence in elections. One bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional elections. Candidates would qualify for federal matching funds by raising a large number of small donations in their communities.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D) of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland are planning to introduce legislation soon that would limit spending by contractors and corporations that received federal bailouts.

Other ideas include mandating shareholder approval for political spending and requiring CEOs and union leaders to appear in ads that they helped fund.