<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; sugar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/sugar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Will Bloomberg Ban Judges Now?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-fawstin/will-bloomberg-ban-judges-now/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=will-bloomberg-ban-judges-now</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-fawstin/will-bloomberg-ban-judges-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 04:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bosch Fawstin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cartoon Corner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soda ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=181189</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge halts nanny-banny Bloomberg’s soda ban.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A State Supreme Court Judge slowed down the out of control NY Nanny-Banny Mayor when he <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html">quashed the Mayor’s plan to ban the sale of large sugary drinks</a> in the city’s restaurants and other venues.</p>
<p>In his reaction to the decision, Bloomberg actually said:</p>
<p>“It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives.”</p>
<p>“People are dying every day, this is not a joke.”</p>
<p>“I’m trying to do what’s right…I’m trying to defend my children, and you, and do what’s right.”</p>
<p>I have nothing more to add except for my drawing…</p>
<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-fawstin/will-bloomberg-ban-judges-now/bloomberg-must-ban-judges-s/" rel="attachment wp-att-181191"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-181191" title="Bloomberg-Must-Ban-Judges-s" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bloomberg-Must-Ban-Judges-s.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="659" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-fawstin/will-bloomberg-ban-judges-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stalinist Science at the New York Times</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/stalinist-science-at-the-new-york-times/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stalinist-science-at-the-new-york-times</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/stalinist-science-at-the-new-york-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Prager]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel E. Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=134838</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["We have evolved to need coercion," claims leftist professor. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Stalin-The-Victims-Return-008.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-134839" title="Stalin-The-Victims-Return-008" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Stalin-The-Victims-Return-008.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.</p>
<p>Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg&#8217;s plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.</p>
<p>And he did so using, of all things, evolution.</p>
<p>Now, we all know that humans have always needed — or evolved to need — carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg&#8217;s ban on sugar, a pure carbohydrate?</p>
<p>&#8220;We have evolved,&#8221; the professor concluded his piece, &#8220;to need coercion.&#8221;</p>
<p>In order to understand both how silly and dangerous this comment is, one must first understand the role evolutionary explanations play in academic life — and in left-wing life generally. The left has always sought single, non-values based explanations for human behavior. It was originally economics. Man is homo economicus, the creature whose behavior can be explained by economics.</p>
<p>Rather than dividing the world between good and evil, the left divided the world in terms of economics. Economic classes, not moral values, explain human behavior. Therefore, to cite a widespread example, poverty, not one&#8217;s moral value system, or lack of it, causes crime.</p>
<p>Recently, however, the economic explanation for human behavior has lost some of its appeal. Even many liberal professors and editorial writers have had to grapple with the &#8220;surprising&#8221; fact that violent crime has declined, not increased, in the current recession.</p>
<p>In the words of &#8220;Scientific American,&#8221; &#8220;Homo economicus is extinct.&#8221;</p>
<p>But the biggest reason for the declining popularity of economic man is that science has displaced economics — which is not widely regarded as a science — as the left&#8217;s real religion. Increasingly, therefore, something held to be indisputably scientific — evolution — is offered as the left&#8217;s explanation for virtually everything.</p>
<p>Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence. Indeed, it explains everything but music. For some reason, the evolutionists have not come up with an evolution-based explanation for why human beings react so powerfully to music.</p>
<p>But surely they will.</p>
<p>Now, along comes Professor Lieberman, not merely to use evolution to explain human behavior but to justify coercive left-wing social policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/stalinist-science-at-the-new-york-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Fat Nanny State</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-fat-nanny-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-fat-nanny-state</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-fat-nanny-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nanny state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=134152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The origins of Bloomberg’s war on soda.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/big-sugary-drink-ban-39a5964ebefc9fbc2.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-134204" title="big-sugary-drink-ban-39a5964ebefc9fbc" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/big-sugary-drink-ban-39a5964ebefc9fbc2.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a>It&#8217;s easy to dismiss New York City Mayor Bloomberg&#8217;s latest nanny state hiccup as the control-freak antics of a powerful man &#8211;but that would be missing the point. Bloomberg did not come up with the idea of banning sodas during a spa session on his private island. His implementation of it may be more overtly obnoxious, but the idea that there is a national health crisis that can only be solved by getting people to stop eating sugary foods, is ubiquitous among national experts on telling people what to do.</p>
<p>In 2007, a conference on obesity was held at George Washington University, sponsored by the Stop Obesity Alliance and the Obesity Association. The Stop Obesity Alliance may sound like a silly afterthought of a group, but its steering committee members include AHIP, the trade group for the health insurance industry; AMGA, the trade association for health care groups; SEIU, one of the largest unions in the country; and NBGH, a business health group representing major companies like Apple, FedEx, Kellogg, Unilever and Walmart.</p>
<p>It was no wonder then that nearly every Democratic and Republican candidate running for office either showed up in person, or sent a proxy to explain <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/09/19/4439288-richardson-addresses-obesity-society">how their administration</a> was going to fight obesity.</p>
<p>&#8220;The next president must commit to fighting America&#8217;s obesity problem and possess the experience to win the fight,&#8221; Governor Bill Richardson said, and vowed to make fighting obesity one of his top priorities.</p>
<p>You might be laughing, but don&#8217;t. The obesity epidemic buzzword has penetrated every major company, as well as every level of government and academia. That translates into a policy bulldozer with private-public partnerships that will control every aspect of your life.</p>
<p>When think-tanks convince corporations that they&#8217;re losing money because of obesity, the trade associations of the corporations invite politicians down to explain what they&#8217;re going to do about it. Health insurance companies have crunched the numbers and decided that they can save billions if the government manages to make people lose weight. Corporations that employ a lot of people and pay for their health insurance think that they can save a fortune on health insurance if employee obesity is cut. They have their own employee incentives, but mostly they want the government to do something about it.</p>
<p>To understand the genesis of Bloomberg&#8217;s lunacy, you have to go back to groups like the Stop Obesity Alliance. And it&#8217;s not the only such group. There&#8217;s the Campaign to End Obesity, whose board includes executives from major health companies and non-profits, including Pfizer, Johnson &amp; Johnson and Humana. Every time you hear another talking head going on about the dangers of obesity to America, he&#8217;s repeating talking points lifted from &#8220;F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America&#8217;s Future&#8221;, a report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the country&#8217;s largest health care foundation, which doles out 400 million dollars a year in grants. Its primary focus these days is obesity.</p>
<p>&#8220;F as in Fat&#8221; includes extensive material on government legislation, everything from soda taxes to menu labeling to &#8220;complete streets programs&#8221;, which New Yorkers will recognize as the mess of bike lanes that squeeze out cars; what they don&#8217;t know is that it is used to fight obesity. HR 1780: The Safe and Complete Streets Act is a congressional bill that would turn every city into the same nightmare of snarled traffic and no parking. But even without it, grants will be doled out to cities to implement bike lanes to fight obesity.</p>
<p>Around the same time that policy advisers for presidential candidates were telling the Stop Obesity Alliance what they would do about fat people, there were warnings in the U.K. that obesity would bankrupt the NHS, and Australia&#8217;s Labor Party vowed to tackle the &#8220;national obesity crisis&#8221; as a study claimed that 95 percent of Australians were &#8220;unfit&#8221;. The hysteria had gone worldwide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-fat-nanny-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Poses the Greater Threat?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/walter-williams/who-poses-the-greater-threat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=who-poses-the-greater-threat</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/walter-williams/who-poses-the-greater-threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caribbean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caribbean producer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Thomas Sowell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election efforts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[example]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[import tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lobby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richest person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleight of hand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar import]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar lobby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tariffs and quotas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Paine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=53563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell's new book reminds us who puts liberty at peril. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/stalin-mao1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-53565" title="stalin-mao1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/stalin-mao1.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="350" /></a></p>
<p>Bill Gates is the world&#8217;s richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America&#8217;s sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.</p>
<p>Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It&#8217;s a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.</p>
<p>The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man&#8217;s pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that it is politicians first and their supporters amongst intellectuals who pose the greatest threat to liberty.</p>
<p>Dr. Thomas Sowell amply demonstrates this in his brand-new book, &#8220;Intellectuals and Society,&#8221; in which he points out that: &#8220;Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies &#8230; Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators each ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.&#8221;</p>
<p>While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant&#8217;s primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people&#8217;s plans by the powerful elite.</p>
<p>We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine&#8217;s warning that &#8220;Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/walter-williams/who-poses-the-greater-threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 550/565 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 13:30:46 by W3 Total Cache -->