magicicada | is it just me?

is it just me?

has anyone else had these questions? or better still any answers?

1. so, how do the sunnis and shi'ites tell each other apart? are there major racial differences? is it just clothing?

followup:
if it is just a matter of clothing, why not carry a second 'hat' or ID in order to switch off and get through checkpoints.

if this is a religious thing, is the idea of conversion unheard of or unacceptable?

2. Accepting that a switch to ethanol based on corn may raise food prices significantly, is it possible that there is a 'sweet spot' where price supports on sugar are dropped and corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup are removed from foods in favor of their old school counterpart?

followup:
if you believe that high fructose corn syrup is responsible for much of the obesity in the U.S., is it possible that a drop in obesity might result - leading to lower medical costs, which would put back into the economy the money that the higher food prices have removed.

----

these might be dumb questions and that is why i'm not hearing anyone ask them, but i'm getting tired of debating them inside my own head. question 1 is something i've never heard addressed anywhere, as if it is not even a matter to be questioned, but why? haven't enemies always tried to sneak into one another's camps? how do you know one side from another?

question 2 is because i have heard vast amounts of discussion on the economics of ethanol, the health effects of high fructose corn syrup, and the economics of obesity and i'm wondering if there is a good logical reason why no one has put all these together.

p.s. i'm also really sick of doing french journals.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On question 2: Oddly enough, you can make ethanol out of sugar cane, too -- and the process is cheaper than it is for corn. (There was an article in the paper about it this morning, coinciding with the Prez's visit to South America -- Brazil makes ethanol out of sugar cane.)

I have read that, at the moment, ethanol costs more petroleum to produce than the amount it replaces. Farming corn is a very petroleum-dense process.

On question 1, which I'm in no way qualified to answer: I don't know about visual differences, but I do know that deeply held traditions of that sort (A) won't be given up easily and (B) will become more deeply entrenched if persecution/attack is part of the mix. Having an "other" to point to is one easy way for a group to define itself: "Look, we aren't THEM!" You can see the same thing play out in the neoconservative Christian right in the United States; they ring the "we're persecuted" chimes all the time, because it gets the faithful to stick with them.

i hear you on the persecution/other mentality, but all i hear from interviews with people in the region is a desperation to be left alone.

Well, I was answering more of the "conversion" question than anything else. :)

There are several examples of, for example, Sunni and Shi'a married to each other -- these people have had to leave the country, pretty much. Because even if many say they want to be left alone, it's clear that the rest of the country isn't going to play along. *sigh*

Ooh, #2 is a good question. Moving corn into fuel production resulting in cane sugar going back into food is an interesting possibility. Unfortunately, a lot of food policy is driven by lobbying for specific political interests rather than by a big picture approach, and that may be why there isn't much talk about those connections. I wonder how much favoring corn over sugarcane is due to a) corn grows more places than sugarcane, b) the corn growing states had better politicians than the sugar growing states, and c) sugarcane grows in places like Cuba that US policy doesn't want to support economically.

don't froget sugar BEETs. in michigan my mom went really 'mad' at the local farmers who jacked up rates when a hurricane hit the everglades. she started using honey only.

There are huge scams with the sugar industry. Question two is something i've thought about, but big sugar is a huge, huge, huge, lobbby corn syrup too, and stevia isn't even allowed to be called a sweetner due to BIG SUGAR. corrupt evilness, that's what they are.... sugar blues in more ways that one.

oh yea, and that's me, frog, not toad. :)

Yep. One thing many people don't often realize, Colorado used to be a major sugar producer. Now, Eastern Colorado is dotted with the hulks of abandoned sugar-beet factories.

i think a hell of a lot of it is based on politics. i think there are a lot of corn growers who are wondering what they have gotten themselves into.

Oh, and on high fructose corn syrup and obesity:

We are doing our best to cut HCFS out of our diet, because we've read that it isn't processed in the same way that sugar is and that it can contribute to diabetes, etc.

However.

I think the obesity epidemic in America is only partially related to HFCS. I think it's far more related to the fact that we have a surplus of food at very low prices, and the lowest-priced foods (which are also the most convenient) are the ones laden with preservatives and HFCS. But mostly it's amounts. I did Weight Watchers for a good long while (I need to get back on it) and that was the eye-opener for me, measuring actual serving sizes. We serve ourselves HUGE portions of food, which wouldn't be bad if the huge portions were, say, vegetables, but what we're serving out is meat and starch and sugar (or HFCS...).

It's more expensive and more trouble to try and avoid HFCS, and it typically means a lot more cooking from scratch. Which we do, by and large, but I recognize that it would be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

No answers, just musing. :)

dittos on ww, need to get back, shock at serving sizes, etc.

it is very hard to cut out the HFCS and get any food outside of a health food store. one trick that we have found is that organic food cannot have HCFS. we *grow* organic vegetables, but rarely purchase them as the price difference is quite severe - but we are starting to buy organic foods such as ketchup. i keep thinking that i've gotten it all only to be hit with new surprises:

dry roasted peanuts - which contain msg, hfcs, salt, paprika and 8 other ingredients. next to them on the shelf are unsalted peanuts which come only in jumbo size and have one ingredient. any logical person looking at the shelf would think that here are peanuts with and without salt, but the differences are huge.

ice cream - breyer's natural, that's it. not even all breyer's are hfcs free. (sore throat is all the ice cream excuse that i need)

crackers: um, haven't found any, but pita chips are pretty good. i suspect that i should not look too closely at my baked cheetos.

on the upside, there are more and more 100% juice options and avoiding preprocessed foods has its own advantages. my hungry-now snack is peanuts and dried blueberries. it has a fat/calorie whallop, but it stops the cravings cold and has some good nutrients as well.

Becky has taken to making home-made ketchup. Quite a different flavor...but a good one.

Ice cream--Blue Bunny. No sugar. Incredible flavor.

We've also whacked out white bread/rice/potatoes just based on glycemic index. Whole or uncracked wheat, whole-grain rice, yams. Fresh green vegetables.

so, what does it have for sweetening? i know this is going to sound really fussy, but i have given up on all of the artificial sweeteners. i can taste them all and i've decided to try to get back to the idea of modest amounts of the real stuff, rather than trying to compensate with nutrasweet, splenda, etc.

we're going whole grain gradually. sylvia eats better than jeff and i in many ways as her school has a no-junk policy. however, we still have easy mac for emergencies and i'll make the white rice instead of brown basmati as a special treat for her.

also, what are your views on fructose - good alternative or just another sugar to mess with the system?

*I* don't taste the splenda in the ice cream, but I can taste it elsewhere.

No real opinion on fructose...but IMAO, sugars are sugars.

Becky has taken to making home-made ketchup. Quite a different flavor...but a good one.

I've been tempted to try this. Care to elaborate?

secondary answer: at one point our only realistic grocery option was a winn-dixie that smelled constantly like bacon. it was very easy to see the poverty-obesity link. we were very happy to get a car and move away from there.

(1) Based on my incomplete research, the Sunni/Shi'a split is an identity thing as much as anything else. People won't surrender that. [One of the key splits is around the "3rd Imam", whom the Shi'a venerate as a Prophet IIRC.] While both are Islam, they're not really reconcilable.

(2) Maybe. It'll never happen though--WAY too much money in farm subsidies in both sugar AND corn. If the feds (either party) were serious about relations wtih South America, ending sugar protectionism would be a huge step. They're not and it won't.

(3) HFCS is evil evil evil. Nevermind obesity, outright diabetes has spiked hard lately, and shows no sign of slowing down. Yes, there IS a good link there, IMAO. [Our in-house crusade is removal of as much sugar as possible from our diets, and HFCS is Right Out.]

1. so, how do the sunnis and shi'ites tell each other apart? are there major racial differences? is it just clothing?

You listen to the wrong news. NPR Radio frequently discusses this. It's usually in the context of a reporter fitting in or people modifying their behavior or appearance to get by. It also comes into play of mixed neighborhoods going on way or the other and neighbors trying to fit in until they can move.

From what I remember. There is a lot of weight of colors of bands worn around the wrists. This is changed periodically to shake out the 'other' so they know who the enemies are. There are also ring placements. Certain traditions can also revel what side you are on as well. A stricter view will have you home well before sunset while the other will have you home at sunset.

Appearance at check points is constantly changed.

Conversion is not likely as it is punishable by death and carried out by family and tribe.

2. is because i have heard vast amounts of discussion on the economics of ethanol, the health effects of high fructose corn syrup, and the economics of obesity and i'm wondering if there is a good logical reason why no one has put all these together.

Again, from NPR Radio, soybeans and sugar cane are the best ethanol raw materials. There is a crisis about corn and many scientists have pointed out that if the price of corn goes up, sugar will be cheaper and maybe we can get the Real Coke Classic back. Soybeans are the best materials for ethanol production however soybeans are not as common as corn and there is the lack of tradition for growing it. Supposedly, soybeans are more expensive and harder to grow. I personally disagree. Soybeans are harder to pick and process (follow the money...)

This also brings up the point that just because we know something is good for us, doesn't mean we will do it. Just think of all the poor children who will starve because they didn't get their shot of high fructose corn syrup today. How could you?!?

For the record, it's pretty much banned from the house. I actually have a withdrawal reaction from the stuff. It's like crack to me. The more I have it, the more I want it. When I don't have it, for two to three days, I jones badly for sweets and binge in the process. It's evil. After three days, I don't want sweets at all. Oh, and when I do have sweets again, it like sucking on a lemon... Ok, I'm soapboxing...

1. My little bit of research suggests that the only difference is religious. Which, I guess can be a big difference. It's essentially like the difference between protestant christians and catholics. They have different rites and recognize different things as being "true." It looks like in general, although Sunnis want to convert non-muslims to Islam, Shi'ites are more concerned with turning other muslims into Shi'ites.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

is it just me?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

blue bunny

Re: blue bunny

no subject

no subject

no subject

Not just you

no subject