Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
As a Christian I've always believed in the biblical mantra of keeping things in moderation, and that sometimes something is not a problem because of what it is, but because of the motive or attitude associated with it. From a political perspective, sometimes the problem is the source of the action.
As a Constitutional Conservative I have told my progressive liberal left socialist friends that in reality I agree with them on a number of things. My problem with their ideology is often not what they wish to accomplish, but the extreme nature behind it, the motive behind it, or the source of funding behind how it is being carried out.
I am a person who believes in the concept of laissez faire, an ideal also embraced by almost all of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Laissez-Faire: A policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering. Abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market. A concept supported by Thomas Jefferson, and associated with the concept of republicanism.I believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and helping the homeless by giving them a pathway to get back on their feet (if they so desire) or providing mental health services (if needed). However, I am not a supporter of those things being accomplished through federal mandate or intrusion, and perhaps aside from the mental health thing I am not a fan of the State government getting involved in those things, either. Tax funding should not be used to provide welfare services, not because I don't care, but because of human nature. If the help is in the form of a government check, or government program, the recipient begins to expect it as an entitlement. Therefore, the attempt to help changes from being a help up to a hand out, making the government an accomplice (enabler) in the person's impoverished life. Besides, what about those people who don't wish to give to that kind of cause? Should they not have a choice about how their money is spent? As a taxpayer paying into a general fund that goes out to such programs, the freedom of how our money is spent is lost, and instead dictated by government officials who, more often than not, don't even have a clue about how to survive in the real world.
For some reason, the liberal left loves extremes. Through political correctness and "hate speech" they have embraced an extreme that silences certain kinds of speech. Their extremes in government have created poverty, violence, and failed communities. While I believe we should be good stewards of our planet, extreme climate change laws (which are based on a pseudo-science built upon conjecture and manipulated models, rather than real science) can not only be destructive environmentally, but also can create catastrophic economic conditions for the society involved. In the American West Coast, extreme laws against logging have helped feed the ferocity of western United States wildfires.
We also have a government that loves to impose upon its population laws that reveal the paternal nature of the ruling elite. In California the latest ridiculous law has Sacramento dictating to businesses how they populate their menus, and dictating to parents about how they feed their children.
Okay, I get it, sodas are not the best thing for someone to drink. But, is it really government's place to make the decision on whether or not we should be able to provide sodas to our kids? What's next? A ban on drinking straws? Oops, wait, that's right, they are beginning to do that, too, even though there are some us that if there are no plastic straws, eating solid food will become a thing of the past. Are they discriminating against people with certain eating disabilities?
The liberal left loves to dictate to us what we can eat and drink, just as long as they can still make sure we can all smoke marijuana
In short, they are the party of extremes.
It turns out that more often than not extremes are not as good as some people think. Even when it comes to eating.
It is important to eat healthy. There are certain things we need to be making the voluntary choice to stay away from more often than we partake. They say sodium can be harmful in too large of an amount (though some have rebuked that idea). Dairy product consumption, as we get older, can be a factor in obesity. Sugar is the big one, pushing more people into diabetes than ever before. But, is going on an extreme diet like becoming a vegetarian or vegan healthier for us, or could it be full of pitfalls?
According to a Fox News article, being a vegetarian may not be the health-filled bargain it is advertised as, especially when it comes to Vitamin B-12.
More than 7 million Americans are now vegetarian, and more and more are converting every year. The number of vegans in the U.S. increased by 600 percent between 2014 and 2017.
And while it is true that predominantly plant-based diets have numerous benefits, they can also cause several underappreciated health problems.
Those who avoid animal food products often do not get enough B-12, the much-needed vitamin found in animal products that helps build red blood cells, repair DNA, and protect the brain.
That could be dangerous. Whether through more animal foods, including eggs and dairy, or a dietary supplement, Americans must ensure they get enough of this essential but scarce micronutrient.
Most vegans, those who don’t eat any animal products, and vegetarians, who don't eat red meat, seafood, or poultry, are short on B-12. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found nine in 10 vegans had below-normal levels of B-12. Vegetarians fare a bit better thanks to dairy and eggs, but they also fall short -- more than two in three are below normal in B-12. And about 55 percent of children on a vegetarian diet have inadequate B-12 levels, according to a study by researchers at East Carolina University.
B-12 supplements are safe and are generally inexpensive. So long as the stomach and intestines are functioning normally, a relatively small daily supplement will suffice -- with 50, 20, even 10 micrograms being sufficient. People with absorption problems may require higher doses, typically between 500 -1000 micrograms daily. Alternatively, they may need regular weekly, bi-weekly or monthly injections of B-12.
And people with dangerously low B-12 levels may do worse if they have very high levels of folate -- a closely related B vitamin -- in their blood. This has become a bigger problem with the government-mandated addition of folic acid to grains and cereals -- coupled with excessive folic acid supplement use.
B-12 is extremely important. Whether by adding enough scrambled eggs and milk to their diets -- or taking a supplement -- people on plant-based diets must ensure they're getting enough B-12 to avoid getting some nasty health problems.-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment