a lot of people aren't necessarily voting for the lesser of two evils...they only vote for one party because they really, really don't want the other to win

Could you give me a clear and detailed explanation of the distinction, as you see it? Try as i might, I don't see what you're getting at.

Thanks,
Peter

Back out the image filename and you'll get an HTML transcription. (And my very out-of-date website.)

The image is a more complete rendition of what was published. I'm particular like that.

-Peter

It's too bad you don't have the courage to vote your conscience. If you did, we might get a candidate that you actually want, instead of the second-most-objectionable candidate.

To quote Penn Jillette, "Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil."

-Peter

Fair enough.

-Peter

The next time you find yourself tempted to use the phrase, "just part of a continuing genocide" I'd like you to take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to slap some god damned humanity into yourself.

-Peter

I would argue that Jackson comes close. I think it's shameful that he's on the US $20.

-Peter

I heard he's going to mandate that all Federal agencies cut over to IPv6 by the time they close Gitmo.

-Peter

So, it's guilt by association?

I agree that it's not unreasonable to suspect. But it seems to me that a suspicion should lead to investigation rather than directly to a crusade.

It's easy to trot out examples where something was suspected of having bad effects which turned out to be true. But how many foods were blamed for ulcers before we discovered that they were largely bacterial? And, of course, everyone knew they are caused by stress. Except that they aren't. (Probably.)

When a problem arises, be it widespread lung cancer or obesity, it's tempting to find a correlation and lay the blame on some industry's feet. This is bound to be right sometimes. (Correlation doen't imply causation . . . but it always accompanies causation!) It's hard to be circumspect, reserve judgement, and come up with the right solution without leaving a trail of failed scapegoats behind.

So, I'm absolutely willing to listen to evidence that HFCS more problematic than sucrose, because I absolutely acknowledge the possibility that it is. But possibility and certainty are worlds apart.

-Peter

I'm in total agreement that a high-sugar diet is a health time-bomb. There can be no doubt about it. But the question is around why HFCS is demonized when, to the best of my knowledge, it "looks" identical to sucrose to the body.

I can't argue that contamination isn't bad. I'm 100% behind efforts to clean up contamination in the food supply. But that's really a systemic, not an endemic problem.

But your item (d) is exactly what I don't get. The difference in the metabolization of HFCS and sucrose is strictly limited to the gut . . . which isn't causally linked in any way that I'm aware of to the supposed problems! Can you point me to an explanation of this leptin connection? I understand this to be related to fructose, which I insist is present in (roughly) equal amounts in sucrose and HFCS 55.

-Peter

Ah-ha! You found me out!

Oh, wait, no you didn't. Sucrose is not an alternative to fructose and glucose, it is a combination of them. From the linked article:

In sucrose, the component glucose and fructose are linked via an ether bond between C1 on the glucosyl subunit and C2 on the fructosyl unit. The bond is called a glycosidic linkage.

The rest of your post is 99% pure nonsense. Transfats are chemically altered forms of vegetable oil. It isn't the processing, per se, it is -- objectively, demonstrably, and verifiably -- the altered chemical composition that causes the deleterious effects to health.

As for fructose being natural, this is quite irrelevant. All objections to HFCS that I've heard that even begin to be credible cite processing of fructose in the liver as origin of the supposed problem. If fructose is perfectly safe, then HFCS is 10% BETTER than sucrose, since it contains that much less glucose, the only other molecule found in either compound. But that can't be right, either, since (by your logic) glucose occurs in nature and, (more convincingly) it's the only form of energy the body can directly use.

To address the 1% of your post that isn't twaddle, it seems to me that there is one possible way that HFCS can cause appetite to malfunction. I suggested that sucrose and HFCS are practically identical from a metabolic point of view by the time they hit the bloodstream, to which you made no counter-argument. But, to the extent that appetite is tied to the interaction of the molecules with the body before digestion -- in the mouth, or even in the stomach -- it is possible that some "evil" lurks. But I'm unconvinced.

I'm sorry if I've been flippant in this post. While I do sincerely want correction where I'm wrong, I am quite disinterested in poorly researched, poorly thought-out, and flatly wrong-on-their-face counter-arguments.

-Peter

Can you explain your assertion that HFCS is "evil"?

As I've stated elsewhere in this story, HFCS is only 10% more "evil" than table sugar, and that's if we presuppose that fructose is evil. (You know, fructose, the principal form of sugar found in those well-known health-wreckers, apples.)

I'm not saying that you're wrong, by any means. But, while I hear that HFCS is bad all the time, I've never heard any sort of convincing explanation how it's worse than sucrose.

Corn subsidies, on the other hand . . .

-Peter

Cane (table) sugar is 50% fructose. So, if fructose is evil, table sugar is only 10% less evil than HFCF 55.

I'm lead to believe that the glycosidic bond is broken down before the sugar hits the bloodstream, so this small difference in the fructose/glucose ratio is genuinely the only practical (metabolic) difference.

I'm neither a Chemist nor a nutritionist, so corrections are welcome!

-Peter

You seem to be confusing education with training. Doctors get their training during residency.

-Peter

I thought I was the only one!

-Peter

Only to FOSS with an end user license agreement. The GPL, for example, is explicitly not an end user license agreement. No license is required to use GPLed software.

The GPL only controls copying of software. Once the copy exists the GPL doesn't apply.

-Peter